Female Dragonborn - No longer have breasts?

[DandD]

If I had the artistic ability god gave a shrub this thread would make me draw a beholder with boobs.

And it would be considered an "abomination" by the very own xenophobic standard of the abominable Beholders, who would immeadiately try to kill the boob-holder.

 

[Simm]

Your mistake I suspect was in even thinking that dragonborn was female at all. That is a male dragonborn. It is overmuscled in the chest and shoulder because it will soon grow wings. That area is actually flight muscle.

Note: The above was made up by me on the spot but it's a good piece of rationalization and it fits well enough that I might keep it in my game.

 

[Stone Dog]

Your mistake I suspect was in even thinking that dragonborn was female at all. That is a male dragonborn.

Just like T'Skrang. The females bear eggs and the males bear milk and tend the young.

 

[Andor]

And it would be considered an "abomination" by the very own xenophobic standard of the abominable Beholders, who would immeadiately try to kill the boob-holder.

Is beauty not in the eye of the boob-holder?

 

[DandD]

It's central breast would either charm, dominate or avert all magical attacks. Don't forget the boob-stacks...

 

[am181d]

Well, the back story for Dragonborn in the world I'm creating for 4e is that they were created by dragons to be their intermediaries with the humans. So I can go either way on dragon breasts...

 

[pawsplay]

Well, the back story for Dragonborn in the world I'm creating for 4e is that they were created by dragons to be their intermediaries with the humans. So I can go either way on dragon breasts...

I'll bet you can.

 

[Andor]

It's central breast would either charm, dominate or avert all magical attacks. Don't forget the boob-stacks...

I'm betting charm. Unless the target is a teenager, then it's a dominate.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I really like this discussion, even if it's totally useless in the long run and meaningless either way.

The ability to breast feed its young is the single-most defining trait in a mammal (scientifically speaking). Having scales, laying eggs, etc., are all traits common in non-mammals, never-the-less there are mammals with many of these traits (take the platapus as an example).

To argue that dragonborn have true breasts is to argue that they are also mammals (since there is no such thing as a mammal that doesn't breast feed its young).

Who's arguing that they have "true breasts"?
The size of breasts has little to do with their ability to feed youngs. They might grow bigger if a female (mammal) is in a "phase" where she does this regularly.

But they can be big because of muscles or fat in that area.

Or see here:
[sblock]

There is no hard biological reasons why male ducks have such a nicely colored feathers, except because females find them attractive. (There might a weak link between this attractiveness and his physical fitness, but, well, it's a weak link. And some animals actually can get in problems for focusing on its "sex appeal" this way - Elks or Reindeers, IIRC, sometimes grow antles that are too big to be practical or healthy)

The breasts of most female monkeys aren't particular big. A lot more noticeable are usually the buttocks. A suggested reason for this difference between humans and monkeys is that when humans learned to walk upright, the behind wasn't as much in the eyes as the breasts, and so the attention shifted there.
We might be lucky that the attention didn't get shifted just to the head, otherwise we might now look like the coneheads . (I suppose it was easier to grow fat then bones.) Or maybe this would actually have been better for humans... more space for the brain? (But then, the brain is already consuming a lot of energy, we might get new problems...)
Still, some attention to the head remained - a beautiful face and hair are also very important (unless I am unique in that regard.)

Dragonborns also walk upright. I suppose female Dragonborn don't have the typical fat tissue and more muscles up there then humans. They might also grow more beautiful scales on the head, which to humans might also look vaguely female...

[/sblock]

 

[UndeadScottsman]

The ability to breast feed its young is the single-most defining trait in a mammal (scientifically speaking). Having scales, laying eggs, etc., are all traits common in non-mammals, never-the-less there are mammals with many of these traits (take the platapus as an example).

To argue that dragonborn have true breasts is to argue that they are also mammals (since there is no such thing as a mammal that doesn't breast feed its young).

Dragons have been classified as warm-blooded creatures in D&D (and therefore aren't reptiles), but neither are they mammals since they don't breast feed their young. If dragonborn share the traits of true dragons (call it genes or whatever else you want) than, like their true dragon cousins, they should not have breasts, should not breast feed their young, and should not be classified as mammals.

The problem with this is that you're applying scientific reasoning as it pertains to fauna on Earth, to a fantasy world with little to no ties to scientific logic.

The it doesn't matter if breast feeding is the single-most defining trait of mammals on Earth. The Dragonborn aren't from Earth. Even if they were a natural evolution in the world they come from (they aren't, and I'll get to that a minute), that doesn't preclude the possibility that they would have evolved it. Just because reptilians from Earth didn't evolve them, doesn't mean the Dragonborn couldn't have.

However, as I said, the Dragonborn didn't evolve. They didn't come about through successive generations of evolution from a prior lizard ancestor. They were created by the Gods. (According to Races and Classes; the gods took greater and lesser spirits and crafted them into mortal forms; the greater spirits became Dragons and the lesser ones became Dragonborn.) So if you REALLY must have reasoning behind giving the Dragonborn boobs, there is it: the gods are crazy.