D&D 5E Inappropriate breasts on female monsters

[Vic Ferrari]

I have no problem playing a robotic/androgynous and/or asexual character in this game. Part of the role-playing.

I do not need breasts or penises to have fun (…yes, I know that is rife…but, yeah.).

 

[Hussar]

I'm still trying to figure out how a Dragonborn is a reptile. I mean, it's warm blooded, so, right off, it's not a true reptile, maybe closer to a dinosaur.

But, again, we're running into the same thing of "I have no problems believing six impossible things before breakfast, but, man, that seventh, that's the one that causes me heartburn."

 

[Umbran]

Why aren't any of these details important enough to draw gamers' ire, but monster boobs are?

Political correctness is my guess. Nothing else makes any sense.

Then maybe you need some new senses opened up?

You have seen the arguments over having exterior breasts molded into armor breastplates, have you not? Boobplate is both not historically accurate for field armor, and just plain stupid from a view of the mechanics of armor. Dragonboobs are just another boobplate - imposing male-oriented sexual imagery onto something that doesn't really need it, and probably shouldn't have it. Probably without a whole lot of thought about it.

The ire is recognition of our casual sexism.

Calling it "political correctness" is dismissive. I submit that recognizing our casual sexism is *actual* correctness.

 

[Grainger]

I have no problem playing a robotic/androgynous and/or asexual character in this game. Part of the role-playing.

Yeah, I don't see the logic in the argument that goes "I'm a female player, and demand my female PC has breasts, otherwise the DM is being sexist". It's a fantasy game - you can play a range of characters that can be very similar to you, or very, very different - some of them anatomically so. Why is the ideas of having non-Human properties on a species sexist?

BECMI used to allow Treant PCs. By this logic, only male players be able to relate to a Treant PC because they lack breasts. Or if this only relates to Humanoids, what about playing a Humanoid droid in a Star Wars RPG? Can neither men nor women relate to playing one because they lack the requisite body parts, even though droids can have a gendered personality (e.g. C3PO comes across as "male")? Doubtful.

Also, I wasn't aware that a creature cannot be regarded as female if it doesn't have breasts (in fact, that argument seems extremely sexist to me!).

That all said, I don't see a problem with Dragonborn having breasts. At first I thought the idea was totally stupid, but I've been persuaded by the many good arguments upthread.

As usual, I think it's very much the DM's call, and it should be decided one way or the other. Unless the DM is doing it to bait female gamers (and is therefore an enormous jerk and you wouldn't want to be in his campaign anyway) I don't see what the issue is whichever way the issue is decided. You're putting yourself into a foreign mind, exercising empathy, each time you roleplay. I truly don't see how a bit of physical anatomy here or there matters.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Hi all, just adding my 2 copper pieces to this thread.

First of all. Leave the female/male BS at the door, and lets move on to something much more sensible for this thread.

BIOLOGY.

Lets go with the basics.

• If a creatures young don't suckle ofter being born then there is no need for breasts nor nipples.
• If a creature gives birth to suckling young then:
  • Does it give birth to a bunch of young? More nipples/breasts.
  • Does it give birth to only a few or singular young? Then A pair will do.
  • Variants may include marsupials.
• Talking about marsupials, another major variant is the duck-billed-platypus. Birth via egg then suckling.

Now since humans are animals and assuming D&D's naturally evolved races are the same, then the above mentioned logic should apply.

this helps not one bit. I can design dragonborn with breasts by saying they suckle there young (Wotc did this and people still argued) or ones without by saying they don't.

SInce the suckleing doesn't effect 99% of games how do we decide who does and doesn't?

 

[DMZ2112]

[/COLOR]I dunno; it's kinda odd. What I find REALLY interesting is how many participants are either real old-timers here, or practically brand new. There are names cropping up I haven't seen in _years_.

Why does this surprise you? the dwarf females with beards argument was started in ancient days and still rages whenever someone is imprudent enough to bring it up. How people visualize their fantasy worlds is very important -- to them. Look at the D&D5 halfling debacle.

Also, to be frank this thread is reply-bait. Issues of sex and gender aside it's the intellectual equivalent of a game of dodgeball -- everyone's opinion is different and there are no right answers. Get hit in the face, wait for the teacher to blow the whistle, get up and hit someone else in the face. Posting here requires little thought, less sense, and no investment.

 

[Vic Ferrari]

this helps not one bit. I can design dragonborn with breasts by saying they suckle there young (Wotc did this and people still argued) or ones without by saying they don't.

But now we have the can't choose not to.

 

[Alzrius]

BECMI used to allow Treant PCs. By this logic, only male players be able to relate to a Treant PC because they lack breasts.

You know, I actually once saw a third-party product that had a race of tree-people where the females had breasts. I jumped up and down on them pretty hard for that, to the point where the text about them was edited in the compilation. I feel kind of bad about that now, what with my stance in my previous post and all...though it was still quite amusing to do at the time.

 

[Ragmon]

this helps not one bit. I can design dragonborn with breasts by saying they suckle there young (Wotc did this and people still argued) or ones without by saying they don't.

Since the suckling doesn't effect 99% of games how do we decide who does and doesn't?

Yea, I think thats what I said. Yay or nay, all up to you, unless defined by the developers, or just house rule it. Just like its always been.

Now for how it affects the game, its not the point, its about me replying to this thread.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

But now we have the can't choose not to.

of course you can, when you make up a race you can choose...

Yea, I think thats what I said. Yay or nay, all up to you, unless defined by the developers, or just house rule it. Just like its always been.

Now for how it affects the game, its not the point, its about me replying to this thread.

the problem is that even when WotC went out of there way to say that dragonborn are not reptile in origin, and that they do breast feed, that wasn't good enough...