Davies
Legend
Then again, so are the lung.I was going to mention the penangallan (sp?), but then realized that it was only in 3e that it moved to OA- in 1e, it was in the Fiend Folio.
Then again, so are the lung.I was going to mention the penangallan (sp?), but then realized that it was only in 3e that it moved to OA- in 1e, it was in the Fiend Folio.
That's good. I though the internet had chewed up and swallowed my post on me and I was stewing about it for several hours. I didn't want to have to type it out all over again.Thanks for the reference, when I get some time I will pull out the Dragon CD to check out 229.
While I don't know if Asians have felt an negative impact regarding the presentation of it's "dragons", but as an aside, I've seen a home-made partially translated Pathfinder Core rules in Japanese, as they play it in Japan. Neither the Japanese nor the Chinese would call their dragons, "dragons". In Japanese they are Ryu. They recognize European dragons as dragons, but they don't have dragons, they have Ryu. Ryu aren't dragons. So calling those dragon like beings, dragons, at least according to the Chinese and Japanese, is a kind of misappropriation.Many of the monsters are non-Japanese. Don't have time to go monster-by-monster, but there are monsters from Malaysia (bajang, bisan), Philippines (buso), Vietnam (con-tinh, doc cu'o'c) just as a start. The dragons use Chinese names but Chinese dragons are extremely similar to Japanese dragons anyway.
Bhutanese druk is generally translated as thunder dragon, and ryu and lung are both generally translated as "dragon." Plus I'm using dragon in the broadest sense, because even the standard perception of a "European dragon", so to speak, that is used in D&D is reductive and not actually reflective of dragons in much of European myth and folklore. I'm using "dragon" in the broad folkloric sense, and in that sense, ryu and lung are certainly dragons - large, serpent-like creatures, generally with magical powers.In Japanese they are Ryu. They recognize European dragons as dragons, but they don't have dragons, they have Ryu. Ryu aren't dragons. So calling those dragon like beings, dragons, at least according to the Chinese and Japanese, is a kind of misappropriation.
Bad example. Before Tolkien became de rigeur in peoples' minds, elf was a very general term, and dwarfs were generally seen as a type of elf. See for example svartalfar in Norse myth, which are seen as dark elves in modern interpretations but originally were synonymous with dwarf.It's like calling an elf, a dwarf - they aren't the same thing.
They have a particular idea of what dragons are, in their minds, based on one particular, narrow definition of dragon. But this is not the only definition of dragon. As stated, I'm not using that definition, as should be obvious since I included ryu in it, and ryu are very different from "standard" D&D dragons, which again are not completely reflective of a lot of European folklore about creatures collectively called dragons. My actual point was that lung and ryu are very similar.They know what dragons are, and ryu aren't dragons... simple.
I majored in Japanese Language and Culture in college, and spent some time living over there, and in my experience you're technically correct, but that's not a distinction that's applied very strictly.Neither the Japanese nor the Chinese would call their dragons, "dragons". In Japanese they are Ryu. They recognize European dragons as dragons, but they don't have dragons, they have Ryu. Ryu aren't dragons.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.