D&D 5E (2024) Opinions on the Topaz Dragon Reverse Wings?

[MonsterEnvy]

I like it. It's a weird thing but the dragon does not actually need it's wings to fly.

Here is some earlier Topaz art.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I always assume that in these illustrations the artist has captured the wing in motion, sure this particular position shows a weird angle, but I'm going to assume that in flight the shoulder articulation is such that the Topaz rotates its wing so that they are beneath its body rather than above.

But yes it is a weird angle

How...would they get their wings beneath their body? The joints attach above their shoulders...

But more importantly, wings pointed the way these point don't produce forward thrust. The flappy diaphanous membrane would create chaotic turbulence in that direction, even if the wing is somehow under the dragon's body.

 

[Charlaquin]

I like it. It's a weird thing but the dragon does not actually need it's wings to fly.

Here is some earlier Topaz art.

View attachment 413963

That wing doesn’t look like it’s actually backwards to me, it just looks like it’s being held in a weird position.

 

[IkeClanton]

Edit: I've just realized what specific thing this is, that makes it different from something like Escher's impossible staircase.

This is banal impossibility. It doesn't spark wonder, it leaves me disappointed.

Nailed it. It doesn't even create a particularly interesting aesthetic. It just looks like a lazy mistake.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

I like it. It's a weird thing but the dragon does not actually need it's wings to fly.

Here is some earlier Topaz art.

View attachment 413963

Here also is the concept art that would be turned into this piece. The backwards wings are more visible here.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nailed it. It doesn't even create a particularly interesting aesthetic. It just looks like a lazy mistake.

It definitely looks intentional to me. I just think it’s a terrible choice.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Nailed it. It doesn't even create a particularly interesting aesthetic. It just looks like a lazy mistake.

I, and apparently quite a few other people in this thread, do think it creates a particularly interesting aesthetic.

 

[Demetrios1453]

How...would they get their wings beneath their body? The joints attach above their shoulders...

But more importantly, wings pointed the way these point don't produce forward thrust. The flappy diaphanous membrane would create chaotic turbulence in that direction, even if the wing is somehow under the dragon's body.

Yeah, it is definitely physically and physiologically impossible.

But... so what?

In the end, it's also physically and physiologically impossible for any dragon to fly. In that case, why draw the line here? Once impossibility is reached, you might as well go for it and have some interesting variety in your impossibilities. Go weird! Go strange! When it comes to D&D, maybe, like the White Queen in Through the Looking Glass, it's best to believe in six impossible things before breakfast.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I have nothing against impossible dragon physiology, but the number 1 rule for dragons is that they should look cool, and this just looks like an AI rendering mistake.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, it is definitely physically and physiologically impossible.

But... so what?

In the end, it's also physically and physiologically impossible for any dragon to fly. In that case, why draw the line here? Once impossibility is reached, you might as well go for it and have some interesting variety in your impossibilities. Go weird! Go strange! When it comes to D&D, maybe, like the White Queen in Through the Looking Glass, it's best to believe in six impossible things before breakfast.

As noted, there is a difference between kinds of impossible.

Let me put it this way. If I tell you you need to guess a number that is greater than seven and less than three, does that sound exciting? It's also impossible, so since we're at impossible, that should make it rare and wonderful, right? But I suspect it doesn't. It most likely doesn't do much of anything for you, because merely being impossible is not very much on its own.

As far as we know, magic is impossible. And yet a fireball or a chain lightning is fantastical, while something like "an engine that works at 100% efficiency" is not, even though that is likewise impossible and for more or less the same reasons.

There is such a thing as banal impossibility, things that aren't possible but which fail to spark wonder or terror or joy. These wings are like that; they look like an error, not a fantastical thing defying what is possible.

If folks like it, more power to them. But the reason I don't, while I do love dragons generally, is that this is so aggressively ridiculous I can only respond with ridicule, not wonder.