D&D General The Appearance of Female Goblins

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
Minotaurs with udders?
One of the in-jokes from the Barnyard movie was that even the male cattle had udders (Because city folk expected it apparently)

4173C3F8-46C7-441F-8B56-6567A5F7782B.jpeg

So yeah why not?

Also since pectorals control shoulder and upper arm movement, I’ve tended to rationalise dragonborn ‘breast’ as actually hyper developed pectorals to control arms and (vestigial) wings (so no nipples)
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
But the horse part also has teats, right?
Obviously the human torso and the horse body each have one teat 🤣

More seriously though, 🤷‍♀️ Centaurs are a mess. How does their digestive tract work? How many hearts to they have? How many sets of lungs? The answer is centaurs are cool, don’t overthink it.

What I'm really thinking is that it's odd to attempt to apply real biology to mythical creatures. Depending on the myth, centaurs were either created by a nymph and a king having sex or the result of a dude having sex with a mare neither of which are biologically sound.
Neither of those is where they came from in D&D...

So I sometimes don't get when people bring up real biology when it comes to drow, dragonkin, etc., etc.
Biology done been brought up when the number tiddies cat people have was brought into question.
 



Doug McCrae

Legend
What I'm really thinking is that it's odd to attempt to apply real biology to mythical creatures.
That's what D&D and the 20th century fiction it's based on does. Tolkien was concerned with taxonomy and other aspects of biology in a way his sources, such as Beowulf and the Eddas, weren't, because he was influenced by late 19th century scientific advances. I think that's true of most, if not all, Appendix N fiction. It's not mythic, it wants to rationalise and to explain to contemporary audiences who have a modern scientific understanding. Consider the "dragon" Conan encounters in Red Nails that's really a dinosaur.

And that's even more true of D&D, which has even stronger taxonomic and explanatory urges than Appendix N.
 
Last edited:

Richards

Legend
In fact, that was the whole basis of the old "Ecology" articles in Dragon: to explain away some of the oddities of the creatures likely to be encountered in a D&D game.

Johnathan
 

Li Shenron

Legend
In our mixed gender D&D group I have noticed no difference between male and female players and stated attractiveness of the characters (which is usually not mentioned at all).

That has been my experience as well, physical attractiveness not getting mentioned much if at all. Those few cases when a PC decided to play the seduction card, it's always been resolved by talking/acting rather than looking.
 



Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top