D&D 5E Inappropriate breasts on female monsters

[Thank Dog]

Well my knowledge comes from breeding reptiles and while I know that there are some that don't follow the standard of laying eggs and not nursing most do as the same with mammals the main definition of a mammal is a warm blooded animal that gives live birth and nurse its offspring and yes there are exceptions.

Half the discussions we have here could be classified as silly since we are dealing with a fantasy game. But that is part of the enjoyment having discussions like should dragons have boobs.

Personally I hate the argument that you can't have realism in a fantasy game it is old and trite.

But you're not even using realism in your arguments for realism. Species are nothing more than a human created classification system for scientific purposes. Making the claim that a species in a fantasy universe can't deviate from what is expected in an artificial classification system is disingenuous if you know and understand reptilian biology. Different evolutionary paths could quite easily result in dragonborn with dragonboobs. Evolution doesn't conform to a set of guidelines. A species will either change or die out. It just so happens that dragonborn in the D&D universe evolved boobs.

Or they didn't. Honestly, I don't care. Short of needing a picture for your character, what difference does it really make? Don't like dragonboobs, say your female dragonborn doesn't have boobs. Boom! D&D magic.

 

[Nivenus]

It does bother me a little. I think it overly sexualizes breasts, promotes a cisnormative view of women, and is unnecessarily anthropocentric. I do think the idea that every female PC needs large breasts and armor that displays them prominently is highly suspect and one I'd rather not feature in my games. But it's not something I'd usually pick a fight over.

I will say this: for dragonborn, the concept at least is justified somewhat by the fact that (according to a Dragon article) they actually do breastfeed their hatchlings. Since dragons have, since 3e, been considered non-reptiles that's not exactly beyond the stretch of my imagination. But at the same time it's obviously an ad hoc justification they added on after the fact, much like the various justifications for Power Girl's outfit in DC Comics.

 

[Elf Witch]

Indeed. Fantasy without realism would just be weird and unrecognisable. That is just a very cheap excuse to not have to think.



I think that anything that can make girl gamers feel less excluded is good. Women are underrepresented as it is.
If breasts help some I'm all for it, it is a very evident clue to gender for humans.

(A preponderance of buxom girls with weird and unpractical clothes do bother me, though. And it does bother many of my women gamer friends. The new PHB is rather good in that respect.)

As is the fact that so many of the female roles and monsters are clearly oriented just toward men, as seducers or sexual predators.

If it makes female gamers feel more represented then fine. I just know that the female players I know don't really have a passionate view about boobs on monsters. Now we do get sick of bog boobs on all superheroes and female adventurer and don't get us started on stripper armor and stripper poses. To me I prefer them not to have it but I am not going to be upset or bothered if they do. I just prefer the idea that not everything look and act in a human manner it makes it more interesting to me. In my world dragons for example don't have gender they are magical creatures and reproduce magically.

I have not had a chance to look at the new PHB but I have been hearing good things about the artwork.

 

[Elf Witch]

But you're not even using realism in your arguments for realism. Species are nothing more than a human created classification system for scientific purposes. Making the claim that a species in a fantasy universe can't deviate from what is expected in an artificial classification system is disingenuous if you know and understand reptilian biology. Different evolutionary paths could quite easily result in dragonborn with dragonboobs. Evolution doesn't conform to a set of guidelines. A species will either change or die out. It just so happens that dragonborn in the D&D universe evolved boobs.

Or they didn't. Honestly, I don't care. Short of needing a picture for your character, what difference does it really make? Don't like dragonboobs, say your female dragonborn doesn't have boobs. Boom! D&D magic.

First of all no one said they can't deviate. And since I am a human it makes sense that I would be influenced by human created classification systems.

As I said I prefer that they look more reptilian and why I prefer that. I also like the idea that monsters don't necessarily conform to human standards which is why I prefer no dragon boobs.

And if you honestly don't care why are you posting? And again part of the enjoyment of discussion on DnD boards is conversations about things like this at least to me it is.

And again in your game at your table you can do what ever you want the same as I can.

 

[Nivenus]

Species are nothing more than a human created classification system for scientific purposes.

While technically accurate, that kind of misses the point of the classification, which is to provide a meaningful way of differentiating different kinds of lifeforms and grouping them together on the basis of biological similarities. A squirrel really is closer to a human than it is to a lizard (or a jellyfish). The fact that they're both mammals reflects that.

Is the system perfect? No. At some point, the line between what classifies a species or subspecies becomes a blurry one and defining what is or isn't a genus (or a family, order, class, etc.) is always a process of consensus and debate. Sometimes we find that old categories we thought were meaningful actually aren't really and so new categories are created instead. The class reptilia is itself one such category: we now know that crocodiles are actually more closely related to birds than lizards, snakes, or turtles, resulting in the creation of new clades like archosaurs and lepidosaurs.

But to claim that the word "species" is completely meaningless and arbitrary is to be ignorant of the actual biological significance involved in taxonomy.

 

[Shemeska]

Humanoids and PC races are invariably going to have aspects that players can associate with and understand, and especially when they're assumed to be options to play as PCs that's important. As such, having common human sex characteristics makes it easy for most players to associate with them and get into character.

Stripping some of those aspects away is, to be frank, annoying and it only seems to occur with men complaining about female traits on female creatures.

 

[Nivenus]

Humanoids and PC races are invariably going to have aspects that players can associate with and understand, and especially when they're assumed to be options to play as PCs that's important. As such, having common human sex characteristics makes it easy for most players to associate with them and get into character.

I think that ascribes far too little intelligence to players. I'm sure players can see a female kobold or lizardfolk and understand it's female even if it doesn't have breasts.

 

[Nivenus]

EDIT: Oops, double post.

 

[delericho]

It doesn't bother me, but I would prefer it to be different, yes, at least in some cases.

Two reasons for this:

- I don't see why every character race needs to tread the same ground. One of the big advantages of fantasy is that the game (and settings) can explore all sorts of weird and wonderful options.

- I find that an awful lot of D&D's races are closer to "humans with funny noses" than anything more exotic. Anything that takes away from that is a good thing, IMO.

So I would prefer it if Dragonborn were differentiated by giving the males a war-crest or similar. I would prefer it if Warforged weren't male or female (or "male personality" or "female personality") at all, and likewise Shardminds. And so on.

 

[Thank Dog]

And if you honestly don't care why are you posting?

Because you and others are making an issue out of something that doesn't need to be an issue so I'm trying to argue that it's pointless to argue about it

But to claim that the word "species" is completely meaningless and arbitrary is to be ignorant of the actual biological significance involved in taxonomy.

I wasn't saying it was meaningless so much as I was saying that applying our understanding of taxonomy based on our definitions to an alien world is disingenuous when the only knowledge we have of species on said alien world is that they're "this way". If you want to argue realism then you have to accept that an alien world evolves in alien ways and all of that isn't even taking into account magical effects that are pretty much the ultimate "spanner in the works".