D&D 5E Inappropriate breasts on female monsters

[Hussar]

Umm, gorillas have lots of hair and breasts. Having fur hardly precludes breasts.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Since we're striving for realism here, I'm sure you all also agree that WotC should move D&D back to the days of limiting female characters to a lower Strength score too, right?


... do I need a sarcasm tag here?

 

[aramis erak]

My personal preference would be for non-mammal humanoids be generally devoid of mammalian sexual features.

 

[Desalus]

Dude. It's a fantasy race. If you really need "realism" then accept that they're not reptiles, they're HUMANOIDS.

Dude. I pointed that out because Crothian mentioned four characteristics and of those four breasts were the only example that was completely alien to dragons (edit: I guess having no tail also counts). Besides, saying 'everything goes' just because it is fantasy is a huge cop-out. Are we not allowed to question aspects of artistic character design that don't make logical sense? For a case in point, in the thread I quoted, WoTC was experimenting with the artistic depiction of female Dragonborns so obviously they asked the same question I just did.

Also, Thri-Kreen are HUMANOIDS, so why don't the females have breasts?

 

[Nellisir]

I don't think any of you are getting @HardcoreDandDGirl 's point.
She's not saying it makes sense that females of nonhuman species have breasts, nor that all female humans have breasts. All she's saying is that giving female members of non-human species breasts helps them appeal to the majority of female gamers who do have breasts and can therefore relate to them more easily.

I get that perfectly. She didn't ask if I "got" it. She didn't ask if I understood it. (I do; it makes sense.) She didn't ask if I agree with it. (not being female, I can't say from personal experience and I haven't had a chance to ask my female players.)

I understood her question to be, in essence, whether or not I would care if the situation were reversed. And my answer is no, I wouldn't care. Thri-kreen (which yes, I've played) are an existing D&D player race with no real comparison to human sexual features. Lizardmen are another (though the name biases the issue).

I'm glad the three of you are open-minded about playing 'the other,' but I've met enough male gamers who only play male characters to say that if the PHB explicitly stated that male elves don't have penises, it would give them more than a few seconds' pause.

I'm not sure if you're intentionally rigging up a straw man or not, but the question wasn't whether or not characters should have any sexual characteristics; it was about appropriate sexual characteristics. Nobody has said that elven women shouldn't have breasts. The block and tackle of an elven gentleman is as appropriate as the bubblie-jubblies of an elven lady. Following your logic all the way out, illustrating thri-kreen with penile sheathes and beards will make them more appealing to your invisible male majority.

The presence of breasts on reptilians and constructs in D&D artwork still doesn't bother me, though.

 

[Elderbrain]

I didn't start this thread thinking that female gamers would take offense, but apparently I was wrong. I actually thought female gamers would regard putting breasts on every PC race, regardless of type, as sexist! After all, male PCs aren't drawn with big, prominent bulges in the crotch area to "prove" they're male... where do we draw the line? If Treants become a PC race at some point, should the artist draw tree boobs? (And if Dragonborn get breasts, why not Dragons? Tiamat is sure to demand the largest pair, seeing as she is Queen of Dragons... )

 

[Jester David]

I'm okay with minotaurs having breasts, as they're a mix of human and bovine.
I'll buy the shardminds, as they're swarms of crystal mimicking human form, so they might adopt body shape and secondary sex characteristics if it appeals to them.
Dragonborn. Okay, that's just plain silly. They're not mammals, they lay eggs, and reptiles are noted for being awkward to identify sexually, being a process even for trained vets. That's just artists being weird.

 

[Nellisir]

Having fur hardly precludes breasts.

I keep reading this as "having fun hardly precludes breasts" and thinking truer words were never written.

 

[Nellisir]

If 4th edition Minotaurs had been portrayed as having human chests (I.e no fur), then it might have looked more plausabile. But 4th ed Minotaurs are basically Bulls standing upright, albeit with furry arms and legs. In other words, they look like animals both top and bottom, unlike (say) Merfolk which have clearly Human-looking upper halves. And Dragonborn are the spawn of Dragons, which definitely don't have breasts. Anyway, what male anatomy...? Aside from bulging muscles, I have yet to see a D&D monster with a penis (or even a noticeable bulge drawn in the pants).

Visual masculine cues include pronounced musculature, a V-shaped shoulder/chest/waist structure, and a host of facial stuff that I'm not going to list. The minotaurs, even the 4e ones, definitely track as humanesque in proportion and structure. An upright bovine would have a massively protruding sternum.


I can't believe you people are making me google "cow sternum" at 12:30 AM.

 

[DMZ2112]

If 4th edition Minotaurs had been portrayed as having human chests (I.e no fur), then it might have looked more plausabile. But 4th ed Minotaurs are basically Bulls standing upright, albeit with furry arms and legs.

You had a case in D&D3 when someone decided minotaurs were just shaggy horned ogres, and had nothing to do with bovines. But in D&D4 they're pretty clearly cow-headed people.

I know guys who are furrier than the D&D4 minotaur.