Does anyone actually like Dragonborn and Tieflings?

[Maggan]

What I hope is that they found that they needed a way to differentiate female and male Dragonborn

I think they should have gone more for colour schemes (more colourful males) than for humanoid anatomical clues.

/M

 

[Dragonbait]

If WOTC wants to create ant-eater people with nipples then I won't object. They can join the Griff and other such lame-arse races.

According to the poll, neither the dragonborn or the tiefling would be in this so-called "Lame-arse races" list when people them, roughly 2:1 at the time of this post.

Besides, what did the ant-eater people ever do to you? Pickin' on the ant-eater people like that.. of all the mean things..

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Honestly, the whole dragonboob thing...whether or not dragonborn are monotremes and all that nonsense, that dragons aren't actually reptilian, "don't think too hard about fantasy, "blah, blah, blah, are nothing more than folks attemtping to come up with reasons for something that would not have existed if...drumroll please

(drumroll)

...Marketing studies didn't show that boys between the ages of 10-13 like boobs. There, I said it. Dragonborn having dragonboobs aren't due to their fantastic biology, it is because market research indicated that the core demographic would prefer boobs on them.

Well if that isn't a surprise? Young boys would like boobs on a ham sandwich...that doesn't mean that ham sandwiches should have boobs.

I wish folks wouldn't try to hard to defend decisions that were made to help WoTC make a buck and not for any other more interesting thematic reason. Doing mental gymnastics to defend what the art directors of WoTC merely handwaved for the sake of teens and tweens is ridiculous on its face.


Wyrmshadows

 

[Brennin Magalus]

According to the poll, neither the dragonborn or the tiefling would be in this so-called "Lame-arse races" list when people them, roughly 2:1 at the time of this post.

Besides, what did the ant-eater people ever do to you? Pickin' on the ant-eater people like that.. of all the mean things..

De gustibus non est disputandum.

IMO, if you want to see dragon people done right, then you should check out the noble draconians in the Bestiary of Krynn.

 

[mlund]

1. Animals with horns and such do not have them at birth (they've got nubs at the most). They develop them later.

Giraffes and some goats are technically defined as being born with horns. They are not adult horns, certainly.

Suggesting that tieflings pop out of the womb with big, sharp horns is kinda silly.

Tieflings popping out of the womb, period, is kinda silly.

The fact that they have heavy bone ridges on their foreheads doesn't mean they're born with those ridges.

True enough. Brow ridges in neanderthals are thought to have significantly more than 5 years to develop. However, I can't see how horns going from nubs to ridiculous spikes or ram-features would be compatible with developing a skull shaped like that of a Tiefling. The weight distribution alone would alter the neck and skull shape. I can't see any rhyme or reason for exactly when those would show up anyway. In animals with horns they develop according to their evolutionary purpose. In the case of Tieflings, the horns are simply a skull deformity.

If the horns were developed in utero with the skull, brow, and spine and had persistent proportions it wouldn't be as much of a stretch for me - but then they'd be a major birthing hazard. The Tiefling models with much smaller horns shown make a lot more sense to me.

Frankly, 4th Edition Tieflings look more likely to have popped out of an egg than the Dragonborn to me - but that's probably too many episodes of Gargoyles talking there.

2. Tieflings are not all born to humans. Most are born to tieflings, whose bodies are designed to process tiefling children. They just automatically breed true with humans (as well as tieflings).

Hm, I was under the impression that the original humans that made the pacts were not themselves transformed, but rather their offspring bore the marks of the pact in their bloodline. I'm probably just getting my fluff confused between editions.

That appearance makes it much harder for me to export the Tiefling concept to world builds that didn't Giant Evil Tiefling Empire to explain away why they've been so widely integrated into the world as opposed to being exterminated on sight - whereas an earlier, more subdued design of Tieflings seem more widely viable.

3. If you can't see how a creature can go from being hornless to having massive horns, that's a failure of research, not the fault of the designers.

I can see how Quadrupeds with elongated skulls and very small brains can grow large horns from nubs over their development. I don't see how a humanoid skull and spine could support the same kind of development. Small-horn Tieflings I can accept far better than these exaggerated models in 4th Edition. They seem poorly modeled just to make the Tieflings seem more artificially scary and emotive.

I'd be more satisfied with a Tiefling that could actually wear a hat or a helm without needing extensive customization, buy a pair of pants, or sleep in a bed with a headboard like any other PC race. If any PC race made sense to put a tail on it was the Dragonborn, not the Tieflings.

The platypus would like a word with you about monotremes.

Yes, yes, the platypus and echidna - the extremely small and isolate exceptions to the genera rule about mammals - small, bird-looking critters.

Frankly, I'd think Dragonborn would have a lot more in common with, say, Dragons than the platypus but that's just me. Frankly, a lot of my impulses towards Dragonborn probably come from being introduced to the concept of Draconic Humanoids through Lizardmen, Yuan-Ti, and Draconians - all of which were described as "reptilian."

I guess I'd be OK with Dragonborn-as-mammals if the following are true:

1.) Dragonborn females nurse their young.

2.) Dragons are mammals that nurse their young.

Without both of those things in place Dragonborn seem too stretched from being Draconic on the one hand or Mammalian for me to be comfortable with their appearance and name.

- Marty Lund

 

[Lurks-no-More]

According to the poll, neither the dragonborn or the tiefling would be in this so-called "Lame-arse races" list when people them, roughly 2:1 at the time of this post.

The obvious explanation is that people have wrong opinions, such as liking DBs or tieflings.

 

[Barastrondo]

The obvious explanation is that people have wrong opinions, such as liking DBs or tieflings.

"Does anyone actually like Dragonborn and Tieflings?"

"Um, yes. A whole lot of people, since you ask."

"...oh. (pause) Well, they're wrong!"

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Frankly, a lot of my impulses towards Dragonborn probably come from being introduced to the concept of Draconic Humanoids through Lizardmen, Yuan-Ti, and Draconians - all of which were described as "reptilian."

I guess I'd be OK with Dragonborn-as-mammals if the following are true:

1.) Dragonborn females nurse their young.

2.) Dragons are mammals that nurse their young.

Without both of those things in place Dragonborn seem too stretched from being Draconic on the one hand or Mammalian for me to be comfortable with their appearance and name.

I agree.

I would be far, far more ok with the appearance of dragonborn if I, even once, saw a nice set of breasts on a dragon in any piece of art anywhere.

I'm having the shivers thinking of the furry (scaley) fantasies dragonboobs free of their obligatory dragonbras would inspire....creepy.

<deleted humor so as not to offend>


Wyrmshadows

 

[Brennin Magalus]

The obvious explanation is that people have wrong opinions, such as liking DBs or tieflings.

Well, as long as it's someone else saying it, yes.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Well, as long as it's someone else saying it, yes.

If you're serious about this (I really, really weren't), I'm speechless.