Ecology of the Dragonborn up

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I was going to close this thread because it was going downhill. Then it did an entire loop-the-loop, and I'm somehow in love with it. What's up with that?

I just noticed that one tag for this thread is clearly missing, despite this being the main topic for several pages...

Well, do with it what you like, you're the mod!

 

[Hellzon]

"I've had a dream, where every female dragon, regardless of color or metallic element would be equal and had a mammary"
*confused audience*

One? No wonder the audience is ing.

 

[Klaus]

I was going to close this thread because it was going downhill. Then it did an entire loop-the-loop, and I'm somehow in love with it. What's up with that?

It's the boob talk, isn't it?

 

[Particle_Man]

I find it hilarious that people worry about dragonboobs and seem to ignore the 5 o'clock shadow on the female dwarf next to the relevant racial entry in the phb. I guess that issue died with 1st-3rd ed?

Anyhow, I don't mind them, and dragonborn are the most popular race next to humans in my 4e campaign (humans just win - extra feat, extra at-will (for my wizard, yo!), extra skill, great defences, awesome racial feats, pure LOVE!)

 

[lutecius]

This article is just bland fluff. No intriguing twist, nothing to steal. It certainly doesn’t make db more interesting, let alone appealing to me.

And the "awesome" and "inspiring" picture on the first page just adds cheesiness to the db’s ugliness and dorkitude.
I guess from this angle, the seme’s uh..i mean the adult's nose looks a little less porpoiselike than in the PHB, but a pseudo-reptilian head on a body with human proportions and posture will always look like a rubber mask. They should be slightly stooped like draconians or lizardman from soulcalibur and, did I mention they should have a tail?

I really don’t understand why they didn’t play the reptilian angle. Chameleon abilities, natural armour, sweeping tail attacks, venomous skin, prehensile tongue… so many cool possibilities.

As for dragonboobs, I always thought they were stupid but they never bothered me as much as the Predator dreadlocks or the lack of tail.
Now that I see people actually defending them I am starting to worry. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for prominent boobage or package on, you know… humans (or humans with pointy ears) but on dragons? The thought that some may find that even remotely titillating is too disturbing, so I’m willing to think it’s just to differentiate genders. But besides being silly and visually less interesting than colourful crests and such, why is it so important to have a clearly identifiable gender when you play a dragon?

 

[NMcCoy]

...why is it so important to have a clearly identifiable gender when you play a dragon?

So the dragonborn adventurers know who to flirt with in the tavern between adventures? To protect the elves' androgyny niche? To forestall endless flame wars over whether a particular illustration depicts a male or female? Because most D&D players are human, and it's a convenient and hardwired visual shortcut for "female" without having to go "wait, is it the males or females that have the wavy crest?"

For the record, I was a tiny bit miffed at the initial decision myself as it goes against my personal preferences and fantasy-biological sensibilities, but the fact that it's still being debated simply amuses me. The "monotreme" bit is, once again, counter to my personal preferences, but I am utterly delighted at the prospect of nerdrage-fueled holy wars over the dragonborn digestive/reproductive tract once people realize the full implications of that particular designation.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Hussar, I said that dragons are reptilian to which you responded:

No, they aren't. Dragons are not reptiles in any way, shape or form. Reptiles do not have six limbs. Reptiles are not warm blooded. No reptile flies. The only reptilian thing about dragons is scales. Guess what? CHICKEN'S have scales.

Tell me that you can't tell by sight alone whether or not these creatures are reptilian within the context of the fantasy tropes we accept for the genre. Are these reptiles? Should any of these creatures have breasts added to allow players to determine their sex?

Lizardfolk
[sblock]

[/sblock]


Wyvern
[sblock]

[/sblock]

Hydra
[sblock]

[/sblock]

Troglodyte
[sblock]

[/sblock]

I can post more, but what would be the point? These creatures are inarguably reptilian/sauroid and one doesn't need to be an amateur biologist to see that. My 9yr old can see that.

These are monotremes:

Platypus
[sblock]

[/sblock]

Echidna
[sblock]

[/sblock]

Monotremes apparently have a great deal of mammalian traits. In fact the egg-laying is pretty secondary in regards to the appearance of these animals that could never be misconstrued to be reptiles.

And finally...

Dragon
[sblock]

[/sblock]

Do these need breasts so as to not confuse D&D players?

Having posted enough visual evidence for the differences between reptilian/saurian creatures and monotremes (which are far, far more mammalian in appearance than their egg laying nature would seem to allow).

We are using sight to determine a creature's type because we aren't amateur biologists we are fantasy RPers. All precedent in fantasy RPing and fiction indicates that one can easily tell the nature of a creature...whether reptile, mammal, vegetable, elemental, etc. We don't need to check their DNA. In fact is is only the issue of dragonboobs that has even brought the monotreme into the vocabulary of D&D.

Dragonborn female:
[sblock]

[/sblock]

Can you, with any hint of intellectual honesty, tell me that this creature is a monotreme? Dragonborn nurse offspring? If dragonborn are monotremes wouldn't that mean that dragons are monotremes as well?

Its really a shame how many ultimately pointless questions bad art direction can make someone ask. Even sillier than the questions however are the rationalizations that attempt to make sense of bad art direction.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Vanuslux]

I think it's an interesting debate that mostly hinges on personal preferences. It's still pretty silly, though, and it saddens me how angry and hostile some people are starting to be over the topic of dragonborn breasts.

For my setting, Dragonborn are going to be descendants of humans that were magically fused with dragons.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Oh boy, we can make half the artwork ugly. That's better than giving them breasts.

The artwork is already ugly. All the dragonborn are already dull colors. All this would do is make one of the genders an array of brilliant colors. If anything, this would make the artwork less ugly.

Wow, let's REALLY appeal to the geeks out there. "Hey, is that a male or female dragonborn?" "Well, the crest is exactly 15 centimeters long, so it must be female."

Stop being obtuse. Give one gender a crest and not the other, I'd say that's a pretty striking difference.

Your entire argument is built on "BUT...BUT...BUT I LIKE BOOBIES." Congrats - you're making our argument for us.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

I think it's an interesting debate that mostly hinges on personal preferences. It's still pretty silly, though, and it saddens me how angry and hostile some people are starting to be over the topic of dragonborn breasts.

For my setting, Dragonborn are going to be descendants of humans that were magically fused with dragons.

That would make sense and a good workaround that would allow the art to make some sense.


Wyrmshadows