Does anyone actually like Dragonborn and Tieflings?

Do you like Dragonborn and Tieflings?

  • I love them both

    Votes: 97 13.3%
  • I like them both

    Votes: 228 31.3%
  • I love/like Dragonborn, not so much Tieflings

    Votes: 59 8.1%
  • I love/like Tieflings, not so much Dragonborn

    Votes: 97 13.3%
  • I dislike them both

    Votes: 130 17.8%
  • I hate them both

    Votes: 52 7.1%
  • Indifferent

    Votes: 66 9.1%


log in or register to remove this ad

Dragonbait

Explorer
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.

I was originally pointing out that mammals can have scales and lay eggs AND nurse their young (in a tongue and cheek way, mind you). The echidna and platypus lay eggs AND nurse their young. Yes, they are fringe and the only two real-world animals to do this. I was pointing things out to show that dragonborn -could-have breasts and be mammals. #1 can still hold true, using some of the real-world biology that people use to debate the reality of Dragonborn.

#2 is obviously not supported by D&D cannon. While some sources say dragons are not reptiles in D&D books, 4E gives them the reptilian keyword. I don't recal if this means that they definately -are- reptiles, but I think it does.

My originally comments were ment to show the fact that mammals can have scales, breast feet, lay eggs..
Oh, and going back to the Pangolin, shoot out acid.
 


Dragonbait

Explorer
Wow, pangolin are awesome!

Thanks, -- N
MoreYouKnow.jpg
 

Wombat

First Post
I would never use either of them in my base games ... but, then again, I would probably never use half-orcs and a variety of other races, either.

I prefer keeping to fewer races, each with a very specific place and interface with the world, rather than the "kitchen sink" approach.
 

mlund

First Post
I was originally pointing out that mammals can have scales and lay eggs AND nurse their young (in a tongue and cheek way, mind you). The echidna and platypus lay eggs AND nurse their young. Yes, they are fringe and the only two real-world animals to do this. I was pointing things out to show that dragonborn -could-have breasts and be mammals. #1 can still hold true, using some of the real-world biology that people use to debate the reality of Dragonborn.

#2 is obviously not supported by D&D cannon. While some sources say dragons are not reptiles in D&D books, 4E gives them the reptilian keyword. I don't recal if this means that they definately -are- reptiles, but I think it does.

My originally comments were ment to show the fact that mammals can have scales, breast feet, lay eggs..
Oh, and going back to the Pangolin, shoot out acid.

Fair enough - and shooting acid is always awesome.

- Marty Lund
 

Paka

Explorer
I like them both.

When I was a wee lad playing AD&D back in the day, we house-ruled a race that were pretty much Dragonborn with a different name.

And the Teifling are just fun; I dig 'em.

I don't play D&D to re-live Tolkien, so its fine to me.
 



Korgoth

First Post
By definition, they are not mammals because they do not give birth to live young. You could make them vaguely Avian with none of the necessary traits or make up some new Draconic category, but they still don't give birth to live young or nurse their young - ergo breasts are simply there to facilitate bad art.

As has been pointed out, Monotremes are an Order of Class Mammalia.

I still hate Dragonborn, though. And Dragonboobs most of all.
 

Remove ads

Top