Why do female dragonborn have breast?

[CyberThread]

This is just me, but I really just don't see a reason for it. Dragonborn seem to have that lump, for no real good reason.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The breast tissue doesn't get redistributed when you use the ritual thingie to go from mammal to reptile?

[Scow2]

The males like them. They don't really need any more reason than that. It's also a unique identifying trait of the Humanoid trait..

And what Grod said. Dragons are mammals too, even though they have scales.

[molten_dragon]

This is just me, but I really just don't see a reason for it. Dragonborn seem to have that lump, for no real good reason.

Well, physical characteristics from the previous race carry over to some extent (stat bonuses carry over, as does size). So maybe they're just there because the female mammals they used to be had breasts, and the transformation doesn't completely remove them.

[Arutema]

Redicuous implants? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0676.html)

[Manly Man]

The males like them. They don't really need any more reason than that. It's also a unique identifying trait of the Humanoid trait..

And what Grod said. Dragons are mammals too, even though they have scales.

Wrong, dragons are not mammals, but they are, in fact, endothermic (like mammals and birds). I don't think I'd put them in the Aves class, though, since if the Draconomicon is to be believed, there are a few big differences in the class Aves and whatever it is that dragons are in. Perhaps it should be called Draco?

But the main thing is that dragons do not have mammaries, and therefore are not mammals. If a dragonborn comes from a race that has them originally, then I suppose they might be kept for the sake of letting the dragonborn keep a physical representation of their sexual identity. In all honesty, I could see females with very broad hips (egg-laying and whatnot) and consider that good enough, although I'm sure it would make many dragonborn uncomfortable if the only way another race could determine your gender without you saying is if they stared at your butt.

[Snowbluff]

This is just me, but I really just don't see a reason for it. Dragonborn seem to have that lump, for no real good reason.
Because the ones in the pictures have them.

They don't really have a purpose for all of those horns and stuff, either.

[John Longarrow]

I think you are not recognizing their vast pectoral implants for what they are...

[Gavinfoxx]

4e dragonborn nurse their young.

[Deophaun]

This is just me, but I really just don't see a reason for it. Dragonborn seem to have that lump, for no real good reason.Probably the same reason why female fighters run around in chainmail bikinis.

[Zaydos]

In 3.X I'd say the ritual is actually a good explanation that makes sense.

In general though
The player (female) I've had play draconic races wanted them.
It's the most easily identifiable sexual dimorphism in humans and the artists use them as a means of allowing you to sex the character because of such.
They think boobs sell maybe :smallconfused:

[SoraWolf7]

Because of the rule of non-mammal mammaries. It's to make the character appealing to the human players because boobs.

[Urpriest]

In 4e, it doesn't make sense because Dragonborn are an essentially reptilian race, and is just in there because they thought that girls needed some tertiary sexual characteristics to identify with female characters.

In 3.5 though it's completely logical. You go into an egg, and when you come out you're covered in scales. It's still mostly your old body underneath.

[ShadowFireLance]

3.X: What the other guys said. :smalltongue:
4E: ...Because Boobs?

[Segev]

Nonsense. Those are etheric beam detectors.

[lsfreak]

Wrong, dragons are not mammals, but they are, in fact, endothermic (like mammals and birds). I don't think I'd put them in the Aves class, though, since if the Draconomicon is to be believed, there are a few big differences in the class Aves and whatever it is that dragons are in. Perhaps it should be called Draco?

I recently saw a screenshot of a Facebook conversation where someone who studied paleontology tentatively classified Skyrim dragons as archosaurs, possibly a pterosaur. If I understand my classifications right, this makes dragons either a sister group to both crocodiles and dinosaurs(birds), or a sister group to the combined crocodile/dinosaur group. The combined dinosaur/crocodile/dragon/pterosaur group is like, a subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup of the group that also includes lizards (which is a subgroup of the group that includes turtles, which is a subgroup of the group that includes mammals).

[Psyren]

Redicuous implants? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0676.html)

Beat me to it. "I was just trying to stay current!"

[Phelix-Mu]

Personally, I imagine Bahamut, having gained a long-lived, extremely devoted servant on the Prime in his big crusade against evil/Tiamat, probably would let someone

1.) Have breasts if s/he didn't already have them
2.) Not have breasts if s/he already had them
3.) Undergo wholesale gender change

All of that physical stuff is nice, but the whole thing is simply a symbol of the mortal's extreme devotion to the cause. All that cosmetic, and a large amount of the sexual stuff, is extremely secondary in importance.

In 3.5, were dragonborn a true-breeding race? Or doesn't a female dragonborn give birth to a normal offspring of her previous race (which might require her to have breasts to nurse the babe with)?

[Raven777]

Why do some birds have colorful feathers? Because the opposite sex likes them and it makes finding a mate easier. This is an evolutionary advantage.

[Manly Man]

I recently saw a screenshot of a Facebook conversation where someone who studied paleontology tentatively classified Skyrim dragons as archosaurs, possibly a pterosaur. If I understand my classifications right, this makes dragons either a sister group to both crocodiles and dinosaurs(birds), or a sister group to the combined crocodile/dinosaur group. The combined dinosaur/crocodile/dragon/pterosaur group is like, a subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup of the group that also includes lizards (which is a subgroup of the group that includes turtles, which is a subgroup of the group that includes mammals).

That's also Skyrim, not D&D. :P On top of that, I am not a paleontologist, so I'm a little lost at all the sister groups here, and most of what you said kind of went in one ear and out the other. Sorry.

[Phelix-Mu]

*puts away long-winded lecture on heat-exchange, heart structure, comparative efficiency of metabolism, and yet more arcane topics*

Um, then I'm going to have to stick with "because Bahamut doesn't really care about details like that." Alternatively, "because Bahamut wants it that way."

I guess part of it might be to maintain a distinct appearance from the dragonspawn of Tiamat.

[Qc Storm]

It's simple. Males keep their Draconis Fundamentum somewhere in their beer belly. Females have two of them higher up there.

[Scow2]

I guess part of it might be to maintain a distinct appearance from the dragonspawn of Tiamat.

"Stay away from the Dark Side: They lack titties"

Also, for 4e Dragonborn, This:
Why do some birds have colorful feathers? Because the opposite sex likes them and it makes finding a mate easier. This is an evolutionary advantage.

[RedWarlock]

3e dragonborn are sterile. They're crusaders of the cause against evil dragonkind, and thus have no time for child-rearing, plus Bahamut believes that it should be a choice of path, not something to be born into.

[Mando Knight]

In 4e, it doesn't make sense because Dragonborn are an essentially reptilian race, and is just in there because they thought that girls needed some tertiary sexual characteristics to identify with female characters.

Except they're only as reptilian as a dragon is... they're warm-blooded (and some spit fire or ice, things that an ectothermic creature couldn't). The additional supplementary material for 4e Dragonborn also has them nurse their young, meaning that yes, they do use them.

...Actually, in either edition, it doesn't matter where you put them in your taxonomy, Dragonborn are (in-game) a divinely created race (differing in that 4e has them as an ancient self-procreating race, while in 3.X they're special petitioners to Bahamut), and thus not necessarily needing to follow any kind of biological rules that apply here on earth.

I mean, really, in a game where the dead walk with unholy energy and giant skulls with dozens of eyes fly and shoot magic beams, people complain about a draconic humanoid having mammaries?

[Phelix-Mu]

I mean, really, in a game where the dead walk with unholy energy and giant skulls with dozens of eyes fly and shoot magic beams, people complain about a draconic humanoid having mammaries?

IN THE NAME OF BAHAMUT, WE WILL SPECULATE!

*ahem* Sorry for the loud-voice. Bahamut compelled me. /cop out

[Pokonic]

It's the place where the organ that produces breath weapons are stored in female dragonborn. It's also the reason the males tend to have big pecks, and as such, males find females with noticeble breast's attractive because, with any hope, there children should, by pure genetics, have a powerful natural weapon compared to their peers.:smallbiggrin:

[Phelix-Mu]

It's the place where the organ that produces breath weapons are stored in female dragonborn. It's also the reason the males tend to have big pecks, and as such, males find females with noticeble breast's attractive because, with any hope, there children should, by pure genetics, have a powerful natural weapon compared to their peers.:smallbiggrin:

My brain just concocted some unholy mix of eHarmony for dragonborn, and eugenics.

Hmm. I'm smelling an interesting adventure hook in there.

[Urpriest]

Except they're only as reptilian as a dragon is... they're warm-blooded (and some spit fire or ice, things that an ectothermic creature couldn't). The additional supplementary material for 4e Dragonborn also has them nurse their young, meaning that yes, they do use them.


The supplementary material only exists because they initially had breasts, though, not the other way around. It's a post-hoc justification. And dragons don't give milk, at least not in D&D (http://www.amazon.com/Dragons-Dragon-Chronicles-Susan-Fletcher/dp/1416997121).

[Scow2]

The supplementary material only exists because they initially had breasts, though, not the other way around. It's a post-hoc justification. And dragons don't give milk, at least not in D&D (http://www.amazon.com/Dragons-Dragon-Chronicles-Susan-Fletcher/dp/1416997121).But Dragonborn are not actually dragons.

Personally, I think the breasts (They aren't necessarily mammaries, though) are a result of the Humanoid figure, and serve no purpose other than show (And maybe breath-weapon source) - which is more than enough.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Why do some birds have colorful feathers? Because the opposite sex likes them and it makes finding a mate easier. This is an evolutionary advantage.
Oh boy, evolutionary biology time!

What you have there is about half true. Bright feathers, big antlers and so on are linked to sexual selection. But "birds have bright feathers because females like bright colors" is only half the story-- ask yourself why females like bright colors. The answer has to do with fitness.

Sometimes there's a direct link-- cardinals, for example, get their red color from the food they eat. A more successful forager will eat more carotenoids, so they'll be brighter colored. The female is like "oh dang, he's good at this, he'll be able to provide for my kids/pass on good genes."

Other times there's an indirect link. A male who can survive to breed despite having huge antlers, or hauling around his own body weight in useless feathers? That's one manly animal!

But breasts... don't fill that role so well. For mammals, sure-- they advertise fertility and ability to provide milk for your kids. But if dragonborn don't nurse their young, that's not a relevant message. They're not-- or don't seem to be, at any rate-- primary fat storage sites, so they're not advertising your ability to hunt. They don't really hinder you, so they're not trading in on the handicap thing. So... yeah. Pretty poor advertisement, there.

tl;dr: science says "good thought, but doesn't pan out."

[Greenish]

Except they're only as reptilian as a dragon is... they're warm-blooded (and some spit fire or ice, things that an ectothermic creature couldn't).It's not like exothermic animals could spit fire or ice, either. :smallamused:


So... yeah. Pretty poor advertisement, there.

tl;dr: science says "good thought, but doesn't pan out."The things favoured in sexual selection are often pretty random. Huge tails decorated by fancy patterns, bulging throat sacks, enormous antlers, prominent cheek bones… for a true-breeding race, almost anything could be a factor in selection without stretching the boundaries of credibility (well, aside from the fact that sexual selection usually acts more strongly on males, given that females by definition have more investment in the offspring, and thus higher stakes at picking the right mate).


For 3.5, I find the argument for "no reason to redistribute body fat" quite enough.

[nyjastul69]

Oh boy, evolutionary biology time!

What you have there is about half true. Bright feathers, big antlers and so on are linked to sexual selection. But "birds have bright feathers because females like bright colors" is only half the story-- ask yourself why females like bright colors. The answer has to do with fitness.

Sometimes there's a direct link-- cardinals, for example, get their red color from the food they eat. A more successful forager will eat more carotenoids, so they'll be brighter colored. The female is like "oh dang, he's good at this, he'll be able to provide for my kids/pass on good genes."

Other times there's an indirect link. A male who can survive to breed despite having huge antlers, or hauling around his own body weight in useless feathers? That's one manly animal!

But breasts... don't fill that role so well. For mammals, sure-- they advertise fertility and ability to provide milk for your kids. But if dragonborn don't nurse their young, that's not a relevant message. They're not-- or don't seem to be, at any rate-- primary fat storage sites, so they're not advertising your ability to hunt. They don't really hinder you, so they're not trading in on the handicap thing. So... yeah. Pretty poor advertisement, there.

tl;dr: science says "good thought, but doesn't pan out."

I'm sure you know this already. It supports what you said regarding sexual selection (Everyone should read Darwin's 'Descent of Man'). It isn't relevant to the conversation really, but I couldn't resist.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-footed_Booby

[Tvtyrant]

But Dragonborn are not actually dragons.

Personally, I think the breasts (They aren't necessarily mammaries, though) are a result of the Humanoid figure, and serve no purpose other than show (And maybe breath-weapon source) - which is more than enough.

Or we could have the males (or females) have the horns and the other doesn't? Or even one has wings and the other flame breath.

[Psyren]

I think PF is guilty of this too - the Nagaji in ARG looks like she has boobs, though their fluff says they were potentially bred from non-reptilitan stock so that at least can be explained.

Vishkanya have boobs too but to be fair, not all of them are scaly anyway so they're even less reptilian as a race.

[Greenish]

I think PF is guilty of this too - the Nagaji in ARG looks like she has boobs, though their fluff says they were potentially bred from non-reptilitan stock so that at least can be explained.Well, ARG has some of the most… how to put it… "fan service-y" art of PF books that I've seen.

[Honest Tiefling]

I wasn't even aware that some Vishkanya had scales in the art!

Through I gotta ask, if boobies are there to appeal to mates, would it not make more sense for males to have them? I believe in most species where the sexual dimorphism is due to males competing over mates. Or heck, both genders can have them and both genders compete for the highest status mate.

[John Longarrow]

Real reason. Artists like drawing boobs.

[Honest Tiefling]

Correction: Some artists like to draw boobs. I am very certain the artist for Pathfinder's Mythic book goes the other way.

[Greenish]

Correction: Some artists like to draw boobs. I am very certain the artist for Pathfinder's Mythic book goes the other way.It's not Wayne Reynolds, then? :smalltongue:

[Kuulvheysoon]

Why do some birds have colorful feathers? Because the opposite sex likes them and it makes finding a mate easier. This is an evolutionary advantage.


It's the place where the organ that produces breath weapons are stored in female dragonborn. It's also the reason the males tend to have big pecks, and as such, males find females with noticeble breast's attractive because, with any hope, there children should, by pure genetics, have a powerful natural weapon compared to their peers.:smallbiggrin:

People, people, people - read the fluff. 3.5e Dragonborn are all sterile.


It's not Wayne Reynolds, then? :smalltongue:
Sn-ap!

[Psyren]

Well, ARG has some of the most… how to put it… "fan service-y" art of PF books that I've seen.

Honestly I think the Bestiaries are worse. Catfolk is a clear example, and as for Vishkanya... Here's the ARG version:

http://cdn.obsidianportal.com/assets/170850/snake.jpg

Compared to the Bestiary 3 version:

http://alharadnd.wikidot.com/local--files/vishkanya/Vishkanya.jpg


I wasn't even aware that some Vishkanya had scales in the art!

Yep - see the ARG version above.

Actually their description says they all have fine scales, it's just that not all of them are green.


It's not Wayne Reynolds, then? :smalltongue:

Well he does the covers and the style guide, but actually a lot of different folks do the interior. Kinda like how M:TG has one guy set the tone for a given set (Matt Cavotta these days I think) and then the rest of the cadre follow suit.

[Honest Tiefling]

Is it just me, or even when Wayne Reynolds is drawing the poor magus, he seems to be stuck in an endless struggle to keep his shirt on?

Also, still not seeing where the scales are. A tacky shirt, maybe, but no scales.

And I did not know 'bout the dragonborn being sterile. I wonder why that is.

[Kuulvheysoon]

And I did not know 'bout the dragonborn being sterile. I wonder why that is.

AFB, but I believe it's something about not wanting a child to be born into the struggle between him and Tiamat.

[Psyren]

Also, still not seeing where the scales are. A tacky shirt, maybe, but no scales.

They're not always visible. B3:


A vishkanya’s flesh is made up of fine scales that from a distance of even a few feet look just like particularly smooth skin. These scales are usually a single dark color, although some of them have complex patterns like stripes or even spirals.

ARG then adjusted this slightly to make the "dark color" usually green.


Their supple skin is covered with tiny scales, often of a light green, which are sometimes arrayed in patterns not unlike those of a serpent.

A more facetious/cynical explanation is that the guy who drew the B3 version thought they were regular humanoids with white eyes and didn't bother trying to represent the scales at all, so they tweaked the description to fit. Heck, he could have thought he was drawing Alahazra or something.



And I did not know 'bout the dragonborn being sterile. I wonder why that is.

It seems pretty obvious to me - Dragonborn is supposed to be a gift from Bahamut after completing his goody-two-shoe dragon-fanboy ritual. If they could breed true, there's be a lot more non-good Dragonborn in the world after awhile.

[SciChronic]

While a dragonborn retains her sexual characteristics, she is essentially asexual. a dragonborn has no interest in even the visceral comfort of sex as most humanoid races know it. Indeed, no lures of the flash quicken either her pulse or her imagination. She has no drive to procreate, and dragonborn are in fact, sterile.
Even if peculiarities of circumstances lead to a dragonborn coupling with another creature, no child ever results. Bahamut created his children in such a way that only those who truly choose to become dragonborn may do so
as for why female dragonborn have breasts, its a remnant of their former life. Many characteristics of your original race remain, which is why you keep your stat boosts.

Typically, a dragonborn becomes larger and full-bodied in her new form, gaining 1 to 2 inches of height and 5% to 10% in weight
So you don't undergo some massive transformation where you change a size category and take a stock standard shape. Its more like you gain a new layer of skin, which is why if Bahamut find you no longer worthy of being dragonborn, your skin cracks and sloughs off, painfully (lasting your HD in rounds, taking 2d6 a round)

[Thurbane]

Silly question: does D&D actually specify anywhere that dragons or creatures with the dragonblood subtype are, in fact, reptiles? It quite possibly does, but I'd be interested to know where.

[CRtwenty]

To slightly alter a quote from a certain fantasy webcomic. It's because because Bahamut thinks it's funny when they bounce.

[Keneth]

Why do nagas have boobs? Why do harpies have boobs? Why do elementals have boobs? Why do devils have boobs?

It's one of the primordial fantasy rules: Anything that can have boobs, will have boobs. Because boobs.

Plus, it helps humans breed with anything that moves (or at least jiggles).

[Gemini476]

Why do nagas have boobs? Why do harpies have boobs? Why do elementals have boobs? Why do devils have boobs?

It's one of the primordial fantasy rules: Anything that can have boobs, will have boobs. Because boobs.

Plus, it helps humans breed with anything that moves (or at least jiggles).

No, man. Dragons breed with anything that is alive and corporeal. I'm pretty sure Half-Human is a bit more limited.

But yeah, dragonboobs have boobs because sex sells. Oh, and it helps female players identify with their character. Which is probably why they stopped with the "All dwarves have beards. Yes, even females." thing.
At least Thri-Kreen are still sacred. On the boob-front, that is, there's already erotic bug-fics out there. But at least they're still as flat as a grasshopper.

[Jeff the Green]

Plus, it helps humans breed with anything that moves (or at least jiggles).

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG201.jpg

:smalleek:

[Greenish]

Silly question: does D&D actually specify anywhere that dragons or creatures with the dragonblood subtype are, in fact, reptiles? It quite possibly does, but I'd be interested to know where.I dunno, reptilian is a separate subtype, and at least for dragonborn kobolds, it is stated they're warmblooded (as opposed to normal kobolds, who're coldblooded).

[Gemini476]

:smalleek:

What, why did you think Ooze Mages became immune to specific oozes? One you go Cube, you never go... Rube. Yeah, I dunno.

"You spin me round, baby, right round" was about Rubik's Cubes. (Un)True story, dude.

oh god cube rhymes with lube

[Keneth]

:smalleek:

More like this, really.

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2013/066/f/f/monster_3___slime_by_myrmirada-d5jz98c.png

[Scots Dragon]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG201.jpg

:smalleek:

You do see the rather regretful guy there trying to escape while being dissolved, right?

You may thank me later for that mental image.

[Gemini476]

You do see the rather regretful guy there trying to escape while being dissolved, right?

You may thank me later for that mental image.

Well, he at least succeeded in impaling if with how mighty spear. Sir Meltsalot is an inspiration to all the oozophiles out there.

[CRtwenty]

You do see the rather regretful guy there trying to escape while being dissolved, right?

You may thank me later for that mental image.

He's reaching for the cigarettes that are just outside of the ooze. :smallamused:

[Jeff the Green]

You do see the rather regretful guy there trying to escape while being dissolved, right?

You may thank me later for that mental image.

Eh, it's probably no worse a fate than some people with, er, idiosyncratic choices of species for companionship end up with. Turns out that being attacked by a half-ton animal with your pants down is a good way to earn a Darwin Award.

And that's all I'll say, lest mods shut down this thread.

[Psyren]

You do see the rather regretful guy there trying to escape while being dissolved, right?

You may thank me later for that mental image.


He's reaching for the cigarettes that are just outside of the ooze. :smallamused:

Oh you guys :smallbiggrin:

Actually, I can almost kinda see a cig between his knuckles (PF version):

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/comicsalliance.com/files/2012/10/ac05.jpg

[Kuulvheysoon]

Silly question: does D&D actually specify anywhere that dragons or creatures with the dragonblood subtype are, in fact, reptiles? It quite possibly does, but I'd be interested to know where.

Well, if it helps, it states in Serpent Kingdoms that Dragons are not "Scalykind". Make of that what you will.

[turbo164]

WOTC said in a panel a while back that the 4E Dragonborn had curves because their previous attempts at differentiating the genders (size, horn shapes, neck frills etc) kept scoring low with test audiences.

[Segev]

A fairly easy explanation for it would be that "dragonborn" are actually humanoids; they're like "fiendish" or "celestial" creatures with heavy influence from long-distant dragon and half-dragon ancestors, but generations of interbreeding and more human-breeding (including human-based selection-for-attractive-to-human-mates) has led to their current form.

Since human males like their mates to have sexy curves, dragonborn males have inherited this preference, and dragonborn females with curves have been preferred mating partners for both dragonborn and other humanoid males.

Similarly, humanoid females select their mates for certain criteria that have led to dragonborn females inheriting these preferences, and dragonborn males being selectively bred to meet them.


Essentially, even if Dragonborn don't use certain secondary sexual characteristics for genuine survival benefits, their humanoid ancestry creates sexual-selection pressures which make them have those traits.

More basically: they're sexy because humans find them so. And not just in a meta-game sense.

[jedipotter]

WOTC said in a panel a while back that the 4E Dragonborn had curves because their previous attempts at differentiating the genders (size, horn shapes, neck frills etc) kept scoring low with test audiences.

The reason is simple enough, everyone is human. When you make something in fiction, you have to meet the expected standards of humans. And people are very picky as to what things look like. Take anything, like say vampires. What does a vampire look like? How far would you let that image go before you'd say that it was not a vampire? Could you accept anything as a vampire?

And when it comes to body types, people have expectations too. A female must look a set way. And a female that does not look that way, will not 'look' right to most people. And this is why all women in Hollywood look the way they do, and we have things like Hollywood Homely and why you don't see many 'ugly' people. And why most female news people are young and pretty and few are anything else.

[Segev]

And people are very picky as to what things look like. Take anything, like say vampires. What does a vampire look like? How far would you let that image go before you'd say that it was not a vampire? Could you accept anything as a vampire?

Now, this is an interesting question. Not the least because I, for one, actually tend to think Twilight Vampires don't really seem all that vampiric. (This is entirely aside from whether I think the story or even the species of monster is any good, fictionally or narratively. I just don't think "sparkles in the sunlight" and the like is...within the bounds of the definition.)

I also tend to question the "vamiric mind flayers" being really "vampires," based on both their look and their behavior, on top of the fact they're still brain-eaters, too. It is a valid monster-sort, but it's not all that much a "vampire," to me.

[Starbuck_II]

Now, this is an interesting question. Not the least because I, for one, actually tend to think Twilight Vampires don't really seem all that vampiric. (This is entirely aside from whether I think the story or even the species of monster is any good, fictionally or narratively. I just don't think "sparkles in the sunlight" and the like is...within the bounds of the definition.)

I also tend to question the "vamiric mind flayers" being really "vampires," based on both their look and their behavior, on top of the fact they're still brain-eaters, too. It is a valid monster-sort, but it's not all that much a "vampire," to me.

Twilight vampires are as hard as a diamonds (which is why vampires are hard to kill and sparkle because diamonds sparkle in the sunlight: seriously that is Canon). They also have supernatural powers (D&D does same).

The problem you have is more the good vampires "The Colins" that are the stars.

[3WhiteFox3]

Twilight vampires are as hard as a diamonds (which is why vampires are hard to kill and sparkle because diamonds sparkle in the sunlight: seriously that is Canon). They also have supernatural powers (D&D does same).

The problem you have is more the good vampires "The Colins" that are the stars.

Actually, I kind of like the basic idea of sentient diamond constructs who can disguise themselves as humans while using them as a food source. It's just that they don't work very well as vampires and because the books are focused on a creepy vampire-human romance.

[Segev]

Twilight vampires are as hard as a diamonds (which is why vampires are hard to kill and sparkle because diamonds sparkle in the sunlight: seriously that is Canon). They also have supernatural powers (D&D does same).It's really the "sparkle" and the lack of fangs. Their behavior is so-so, tending more towards the feral than the erudite, but they just mainly look and act like a unique kind of monster that happens to drink blood.


The problem you have is more the good vampires "The Colins" that are the stars.
Not at all. I've no problem with "good" vampires "struggling against their hunger" or whatever. But something in particular about "sparkling in the sun" really steps them away from having the "vampire" look to them.

Just like modern-infected-style zombies cross the line to being ghouls, to me, rather than zombies, due to their hunger and their mobility.

[tbok1992]

WOTC said in a panel a while back that the 4E Dragonborn had curves because their previous attempts at differentiating the genders (size, horn shapes, neck frills etc) kept scoring low with test audiences.


The reason is simple enough, everyone is human. When you make something in fiction, you have to meet the expected standards of humans. And people are very picky as to what things look like. Take anything, like say vampires. What does a vampire look like? How far would you let that image go before you'd say that it was not a vampire? Could you accept anything as a vampire?

And when it comes to body types, people have expectations too. A female must look a set way. And a female that does not look that way, will not 'look' right to most people. And this is why all women in Hollywood look the way they do, and we have things like Hollywood Homely and why you don't see many 'ugly' people. And why most female news people are young and pretty and few are anything else.

Or, in other words, "Holy @#$% the gaming community is sexist".

But I do have a plausible explaination as to why the 4e Dragonborn might have GREAT STONKING TI-

Humans primarily evolved breasts that were pronounced even compared to other mammals mainly as a sexual display feature optimized for bipedalism, replacing the bright puffy behinds of our ancestors because that doesn't work too well for bipedal critters.

So, I could totally see the 4e Dragonborn having boobs thanks to A) Convergent evolution, making similar parts for the same purpose B)To allow the Dragonborn to better fit in with the other races and C) Because Io was probably a total perv if the amount of half-dragons "concieved" by his children (The regular dragons) is anything to go by.

Also, there's the fact that the same person who created the Dragonborn also wrote The Book of Erotic Fantasy. No, seriously, she did.

[Lord Vukodlak]

They think boobs sell maybe :smallconfused:
Have you seen some of the older edition books? Female nudity in monsters was the norm. If dragonborn were in 1st edition females would not only be drawn with breasts but also nipples.


It's really the "sparkle" and the lack of fangs. Their behavior is so-so, tending more towards the feral than the erudite, but they just mainly look and act like a unique kind of monster that happens to drink blood.
Those are Faries not vampires, all they need to complete the ensemble are annoying voices and wings.

[Frosty]

Do Dragonborn lay eggs?

[Lord Vukodlak]

Do Dragonborn lay eggs?

They do in 4th edition where they're a true race.(they also nurse young for that matter). Before anyone says a warmblooded egg laying creature that nurses its young is stupid I say platypus.

[Gemini476]

They do in 4th edition where they're a true race.(they also nurse young for that matter). Before anyone says a warmblooded egg laying creature that nurses its young is stupid I say platypus.

My personal headcanon is that they're monotreme mammals related to the Pangolin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangolin), but that's so completely not canon I dhouldn't even need to put a disclaimer there.

And as far as extant monotremes go I'd say they're more similar to the echidna than the platypus, but that's my opinion yet again.

[MinMax Hardcore]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG201.jpg

:smalleek:

"My body is ready." from My Paladin.

[Lord Haart]

Plus, it helps humans breed with anything that moves (or at least jiggles).
IMG]http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG201.jpg[/IMG]:smalleek:I've once conned a guy into roleplaying a half-human half-gelatine cube girl in a not very serious D&D campaign. Good times were had.

My personal headcanon is that they're monotreme mammals related to the Pangolin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangolin)
You mean convergent with the pangolin, right? Because pangolines are not really related to monotremes (that is, they have not-pangolin-looking-at-all relatives far closer than the common ancestor would be).

[Pokonic]

People, people, people - read the fluff. 3.5e Dragonborn are all sterile.


Well, yeah, but I was addressing the 4e one's that cannot be explained by "being another race with some added scales".:smallsigh:


He's reaching for the cigarettes that are just outside of the ooze. :smallamused:

Hee.

[Gemini476]

You mean convergent with the pangolin, right? Because pangolines are not really related to monotremes (that is, they have not-pangolin-looking-at-all relatives far closer than the common ancestor would be).

I'm an engineer, not a biologist! I guess?
What I was meaning was more that A)Dragonborn in 4e are Monotremes, and B)Hey guys, look at this scaled mammal! Isn't that neat?
Aren't mammaries a sign of being mammalian? I suppose that they could be draconian otherwise, but they honestly don't seem to share much with Dragons other than scales and the breath weapon.
Of course, going by what fluff I know the closest relative to the Dragons are the Kobolds, who were literally birthed out of their bloodaccording to Races of the Dragon. That's in 3.5, though. And they don't have a breath weapon, nor six limbs, although they can get both through classes and/or dragonblood feats. It's magic! I ain't gotta explain ****!

[Manly Man]

It's magic! I ain't gotta explain ****!

D&D in a nutshell.

[Sith_Happens]

WOTC said in a panel a while back that the 4E Dragonborn had curves because their previous attempts at differentiating the genders (size, horn shapes, neck frills etc) kept scoring low with test audiences.

Ah, yes, "test audiences." The representative samples of your potential customers that allegedly give valuable artistic feedback. We have dismissed that claim.:smalltongue:


Because Io was probably a total perv if the amount of half-dragons "concieved" by his children (The regular dragons) is anything to go by.

The sad part is, of all the possible in-universe explanations, this one probably makes the most sense.

[Ceiling_Squid]

My personal interpretation, based on simplistic assumptions:

4e dragonborn have no tails at all (seriously, check the art!), and therefore produce a more-humanoid silhouette. Ergo, buttocks. This is an attractive feature to males of the species.

Breasts are a purely-aesthetic feature that resembles aforesaid buttocks. They are intended to attract mates.

Dragonborn (at least in 4e) have breasts because they don't have tails. In terms of body structure, they have more in-common with humanoid females, rather than reptiles. The lack of tails (and therefore noticeable buttocks) led to the development of breasts.

The stupidity emerges when you factor in additional splatbook material. The idea of dragonborn nursing their young was an attempt to later justify their original art decision, when in reality they should have just kept it simple. This further confused matters. Seriously. Dragonborn don't exactly have lips with which to suckle!

I just ignore the splatbook, take the original racial entry at face value and say hey, dragonborn breasts are just there to perform an aesthetic function. They're a sexual characteristic intended to attract mates, and serve no function beyond resembling a butt. They probably don't even have nipples. Bipedalism and a lack of a tail did it.

Or maybe a wizard did, in fact, do it. You know how it goes, right? Those wacky (perverted) wizards.

[Phelix-Mu]

As this is the 3.5e forum, I'm not sure how pertinent the 4e art decision was to this discussion. It both came after, and is fairly non-connected to, the original concepts for dragonborn in 3.5.

As 3.5 dragonborn aren't a true-breeding race, the breasts clearly serve no evolutionary function. They seem entirely cosmetic, and it seems to me that Bahamut (or the DM) must allow some kind of self-determination when it comes to final features. Otherwise, the DM should probably design a random table, since it really isn't in keeping with the tenor of the game if the pcs final appearance is a matter for the DM to decide.

Or they just all look very similar. It's indicated that they do, but the illustrations and the racial feature that grants wings leaves some doubt on this issue, in my mind.

[jedipotter]

Now, this is an interesting question. Not the least because I, for one, actually tend to think Twilight Vampires don't really seem all that vampiric.

The Gothic Image of vampires is really stuck in most peoples minds. And anything else is not really a vampire. Just look at all the popular vampire fiction: Twilight, The Vampire Diaries, True Blood, Blade, Buffy/Angel, and Blood Ties. What ones look and feel right?

Think, would you accept a female character that did not have a ''hot female body''? Now, sure the PC Zombies will say a woman can look like anything....but everyone knows that is not true. Beauty pageants, models, actresses, news hosts and such sure tell a one sided story. No matter how many times people repeat ''a woman can look like anything'', it sure does not seem that way in the real world.

Would you be ok with anthropomorphic animal females with no breasts? Would they still look ''female'' to you?

[Phelix-Mu]

Would you be ok with anthropomorphic animal females with no breasts? Would they still look ''female'' to you?

But some of them already exist in-game, from what I recall. Female lizardfolk look just like the males, except maybe a height/weight difference. Various other races are pretty indeterminate. Crucians, nycter, and a couple others really don't touch on the issue.

Frankly, I could care less what a character race I am permitting in my game looks like. Players can and do play individuals that look/act like total freaks. Basing too much of the game around what the human players think things should look/feel/seem like breaks suspension of disbelief, in my mind. Life isn't terribly predictable or pretty. Too much departure from that in-game is counterproductive.

[3WhiteFox3]

But some of them already exist in-game, from what I recall. Female lizardfolk look just like the males, except maybe a height/weight difference. Various other races are pretty indeterminate. Crucians, nycter, and a couple others really don't touch on the issue.

Frankly, I could care less what a character race I am permitting in my game looks like. Players can and do play individuals that look/act like total freaks. Basing too much of the game around what the human players think things should look/feel/seem like breaks suspension of disbelief, in my mind. Life isn't terribly predictable or pretty. Too much departure from that in-game is counterproductive.

Yeah, but fantasy is also partly escapism. Humans tend to relate better to things that are similar, this isn't bad really, it's just a fact of life that conscientious people should try and compensate for when it comes to hurting other people or having unrealistic, harmful or unfair expectations. I'm not saying that every being has to be maxed out for sex appeal, but it's fantasy, the simple fact that a species of dragon/reptile that is already primarily humanoid looking, has breasts just doesn't bother me. From what I know about biology, the simple fact that dragonborn walk, talk and move like a humanoid is already pretty strange; even if the argument is that Dragons don't have breasts, then dragon born shouldn't walk upright, shouldn't act in a reasonably human fashion, and shouldn't exist because well a humanoid/whatever-species-dragons-are probably wouldn't work very well logically.

But if it bugs you, I understand that, different tastes and dislikes.

[Phelix-Mu]

But if it bugs you, I understand that, different tastes and dislikes.

It's not so much that it bugs me. Just that I don't think the game is some kind of census or wish-fulfillment thing. A good story can be beautiful, ugly, nondescript, dramatic, boring at times, a mix of all of the above, or something totally different. The characters in that story may or may not meet with the expectations of the players, and really, the DM really doesn't need to pander to make a good story. Just like real life, a story is not at all reliant on the appearance of it's cast members.

Given a preference, I'm sure some people will vote "boobs," and there is, most assuredly, a time and a place for boobs.

I'm just not sure that it's on the chest of what is essentially a reptilian species (ignoring that dragons are much more than reptiles...they certainly are not mammals).

[Lord Vukodlak]

3.5 Dragonborn are created from races that have breasts, and if you become fallen you revert to your original race. So there is no reason to remove certain body parts.

4e Dragonborn are mammals, really they are. The platypus lays eggs and the pangolin has scales both are considered mammals.


But some of them already exist in-game, from what I recall. Female lizardfolk look just like the males, except maybe a height/weight difference.
I believe ecology of a lizardfolk stated that males have one large frill while females have two smaller ones.


The stupidity emerges when you factor in additional splatbook material. The idea of dragonborn nursing their young was an attempt to later justify their original art decision, when in reality they should have just kept it simple. This further confused matters. Seriously. Dragonborn don't exactly have lips with which to suckle!
The platypus doesn't have lips either(or nipples for that matter) but it manages to nurse its young.

[Segev]

Honestly, unless there is some plot-relevant point to be made of it, arguing about it is pointless. If it's just aesthetics - and at the moment, it is - it's juts aesthetics. And that's all a matter of personal taste.

[Phelix-Mu]

Honestly, unless there is some plot-relevant point to be made of it, arguing about it is pointless.

We live in the land of the internets, where arguing is never pointless.:smalltongue:

[3WhiteFox3]

We live in the land of the internets, where arguing is never pointless.:smalltongue:

Can I sig that? That's just perfect.

[Segev]

We live in the land of the internets, where arguing is never pointless.:smalltongue:
True. The rapier wits and the long knives of venomous bile are always pointed. ;)

[Phelix-Mu]

Can I sig that? That's just perfect.

Go ahead, sig away. I am honored.:smallsmile:

Are, as was earlier suggested, dragonborn in 3.5 sterile? I thought maybe they could still breed, but that the dragonborn racial traits weren't inherited; a human dragonborn would give birth to/sire a normal human child (assuming a human mate). Been a while since I read the fluff.

[Harry]

This is just me, but I really just don't see a reason for it. Dragonborn seem to have that lump, for no real good reason.

From my memory, dragonborn were originally turned into what they are, from the deity of dragons who name escapes me.

More or less the previous creatures had breasts, so they carried over.

[Prince Raven]

Why ask why female dragonborn have breasts, when instead you could ask why female catfolk only have 2?

[Lord Vukodlak]

Why ask why female dragonborn have breasts, when instead you could ask why female catfolk only have 2?
Because they don't have litters of course.

[Cerlis]

In 4e, it doesn't make sense because Dragonborn are an essentially reptilian race, and is just in there because they thought that girls needed some tertiary sexual characteristics to identify with female characters.

In 3.5 though it's completely logical. You go into an egg, and when you come out you're covered in scales. It's still mostly your old body underneath.

Yea i was going to say this about 3.5 also. I saw those pics and you can basically tell which one is human/elf/halfling.

So basically you go in , you turn all dragonic. But you dont like...turn into liquid...or die and grow from scratch. your new form, though draconic, is based off your old form. You can also expect to possibly still have scar tissue under your scales, and have your main hand (right handedvs left) be slightly larger than your offhand because it was before the ritual too.

This would probably be more obvious if 3.5 ones had Predator Hair like 4.0 ones do, as females would probably have faster growing dreads and indeed whatever you had would probably be about the same length coming out as when you went in.

[Scow2]

Go ahead, sig away. I am honored.:smallsmile:

Are, as was earlier suggested, dragonborn in 3.5 sterile? I thought maybe they could still breed, but that the dragonborn racial traits weren't inherited; a human dragonborn would give birth to/sire a normal human child (assuming a human mate). Been a while since I read the fluff.Apparently they are sterile (Doesn't mean they lack libidos, though! Stress relief and fun during downtime are important when waging war against relentless evil. A shame the template doesn't come with immunity to disease as well). However, as others have pointed out, Dragonborn have 'breasts', but not necessarily 'mammaries'. Yaybies (Because who says "Boo" to tits?) yes. Nipples? Possibly not. It's inherited from the humanoid form, and looks good on them. Also, it gives them something for plate bikinis to hold up!

[Weirdlet]

"Your prurient interest in my airsacs is neither appreciated nor appropriate, mammal. When it comes time for me to call out for a mate, it will not be directed at you."

[Phelix-Mu]

Apparently they are sterile (Doesn't mean they lack libidos, though! Stress relief and fun during downtime are important when waging war against relentless evil. A shame the template doesn't come with immunity to disease as well). However, as others have pointed out, Dragonborn have 'breasts', but not necessarily 'mammaries'. Yaybies (Because who says "Boo" to tits?) yes. Nipples? Possibly not. It's inherited from the humanoid form, and looks good on them. Also, it gives them something for plate bikinis to hold up!

Bahamut really should throw in free cosmetic reformation with the transformation. Want a tummy tuck? Voila. Want horns (no game effect)? Go ahead. Want to be a girl? Fine. After all, pledging centuries of future service to a godly patron is a big decision. It should at least come with a few perks.:smallwink:

[Phelix-Mu]

This would probably be more obvious if 3.5 ones had Predator Hair like 4.0 ones do, as females would probably have faster growing dreads and indeed whatever you had would probably be about the same length coming out as when you went in.

Sorry for the double-posting, BUT SAY WHAT?

PREDATOR DRAGONBORN?

zomgwth AWESOME. I am totally doing that. A tribe of dragonborn that roam the planes looking for the strongest (evil) prey to hunt.

Wow. And they could even have those funky mouths. Maybe a whole new race that just resembles dragonborn in appearance....

*brain on fire*

[Weirdlet]

PREDATOR DRAGONBORN?

Instead of shoulder-cannons, they've got breath weapons!

[Phelix-Mu]

Instead of shoulder-cannons, they've got breath weapons!

YES. This is win. I might have to scrap some of the Bahamut stuff. Or maybe a bunch of them went rogue under the leadership of some kind of rebel dragonborn. This is actually pretty likely, given that free-willed sentient beings that suddenly have their body and lifespans seriously altered are likely to flake out, even if only a small percent of the time due to the vetting process that Bahamut puts them through.

[Ralcos]

The way I see it, Dragons are their own classification of animal, with elements of Mammal, Amphibian, Fish, and even Bird in each individual species.
Which means that some species of dragons can have mammory glands (AKA Breasts).

EDIT: For the 3.5 Dragonborn explanation, I'd say that they are still the same person under the scales.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Here's a better question why shouldn't they? People have one on about various reasons as to why they do. But no one has given a good reason why they shouldn't

[TuggyNE]

Here's a better question why shouldn't they? People have one on about various reasons as to why they do. But no one has given a good reason why they shouldn't

Same reason alligators and snakes don't, how's that?

[Lord Vukodlak]

Same reason alligators and snakes don't, how's that?

Dragonborn aren't reptiles so that's not a valid reason.

[Weirdlet]

It breaks verisimilitude, that is, the appearance of fitting in sensibly with what one already knows. And a lot of us 'know' that things with scales shouldn't have boobs. In a world of fantasy, sure, anything can go- but does that anything fit in with everything else in that particular world?

[Phelix-Mu]

Dragonborn aren't reptiles so that's not a valid reason.

Did we really judge reasons they do by validity? Cause there was some distinct silliness in that court, too.

Frankly, I like it when there are reasons for things to be the way they are. Randomness happens, but too much or really obvious stuff can break verisimilitude.

I don't mind that they do, I just feel that the transformation entails a big thing that the player should be involved in. If the player wants their character to look like dragonborn x, fine. Not a big deal. If they want y, fine. It has no game effect, either way, so who cares?

I certainly don't feel that 3.5 dragonborn can be held to an evolutionary standard (not a breeding race), and neither can it really be said to be about attraction (since, while that might be a factor, clearly mating was not a primary consideration of Bahamut).

Defaulting to the character's earlier appearance + scales is fine by me, but I think it would be cool if there was some flexibility in the final form, which the character, or at least the player, could be involved in.

[Scow2]

Same reason alligators and snakes don't, how's that?
It breaks verisimilitude, that is, the appearance of fitting in sensibly with what one already knows. And a lot of us 'know' that things with scales shouldn't have boobs. In a world of fantasy, sure, anything can go- but does that anything fit in with everything else in that particular world?Alligators, snakes, and other reptiles also aren't humanoid bipeds, nor do they have quite as much fun during mating as human(oids) do.

I certainly don't feel that 3.5 dragonborn can be held to an evolutionary standard (not a breeding race), and neither can it really be said to be about attraction (since, while that might be a factor, clearly mating was not a primary consideration of Bahamut).Actually, it could very well be about attraction: Bahamut wouldn't have anywhere NEAR the support in his crusade if the rebirth process was also a castrating one: They need it for recreation, not procreation.

[Phelix-Mu]

Actually, it could very well be about attraction: Bahamut wouldn't have anywhere NEAR the support in his crusade if the rebirth process was also a castrating one: They need it for recreation, not procreation.

But, if that were an actual consideration, the physical transformation would benefit from being more minor, making it more likely that a dragonborn could find mates among their native race or those like them (something akin to a spellscale in appearance...patches of scales, tinted flesh, reptilian eyes, etc).

Even accepting that some people probably have a thing for the scaly ones, making the dragonborn at once extremely different from what they used to be, yet then allowing for elements of attraction, which are likely (as evidenced by the breasts) to follow the lines of what they were attracted to before, seems strange. Not to mention that they are quite uncommon as a race, and two that meet are unlikely to have come from similar native races anyway.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Did we really judge reasons they do by validity? Cause there was some distinct silliness in that court, too.

If your going to say the reason dragonborn shouldn't have breasts is because reptiles don't have them it'd help if dragonborn were reptiles but they aren't unless the base race was a reptile.The point was to actually challenge people to come up with reasons why a scaled creature can't have breasts.

The real reason (3.5) Dragonborn shouldn't have breasts is because they don't require gender at all. They don't have romantic attachments they are devoted to the cause of slaying chromatic dragons and their servants so they don't need gender. The only purpose they serve is if you become tarnished and revert to your previous race. Though Bahamut punishing his fallen servants by stripping them of gender sounds hilarious..

[Scow2]

They don't have romantic attachments they are devoted to the cause of slaying chromatic dragons and their servants so they don't need gender.This right here is 100% nonsense. We're talking badass evil-slaying heroes here, not a bunch of stuffy completely-asexual, aromantic, emotionally-repressed jedi wannabes. Just because they don't have time for raising children doesn't mean they don't have time for fun!

[Lord Vukodlak]

This right here is 100% nonsense. We're talking badass evil-slaying heroes here, not a bunch of stuffy completely-asexual, aromantic, emotionally-repressed jedi wannabes. Just because they don't have time for raising children doesn't mean they don't have time for fun!

Have you read the passage on dragonborn(3.5), the word asexual is even used when describing them. They retain their sexual characteristics but lose all desire to use them and are thus "essentially asexual."

[Phelix-Mu]

Have you read the passage on dragonborn(3.5), the word asexual is even used when describing them. They retain their sexual characteristics but lose all desire to use them and are thus "essentially asexual."

Amazing the thread had 100 posts before anyone mentions this. I asked about this like a page ago. Thanks for providing this, as it basically irons out the issue.

Bahamut doesn't care what they look like, and now, neither do they. Done and dusted.:smallcool:

[Sith_Happens]

Amazing the thread had 100 posts before anyone mentions this. I asked about this like a page ago. Thanks for providing this, as it basically irons out the issue.

Actually, try post #46 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16085990&postcount=46).

[Phelix-Mu]

WHAT? I missed the diamond among the 110 posts of rough? (Of which I am responsible for like 10:smallamused:)

*Home Alone face*

(Seriously dated myself there.)

[MinMax Hardcore]

Meanwhile, still thinking how to seduce the Ooze.
Then somehow use the offspring to make a monk/paladin
and see how quickly it is ban for being too OP.

[Manly Man]

Well, silver dragons are immune to acid, and a black pudding does only acid damage, so...

Half-silver dragon black pudding Monk/Paladin that looks like a lump of mercury-flavored dessert with wings and a breath weapon?

[Gemini476]

Meanwhile, still thinking how to seduce the Ooze.
Then somehow use the offspring to make a monk/paladin
and see how quickly it is ban for being too OP.

...There's a magic item that lets you ride inside an ooze and use it as a mount. Wink wink, nudge nudge.
Oh, and there's the... Ooze mage? Slime Lord? Prestige class, which gives you immunity to certain oozes and gives you ooze traits.
And then there are magic items that make you immune to Acid damage, but where's the fun in that?

[Azernak0]

I love the DnD Nerd Culture.

This thread has mostly men talking about boobs on a fictional creature. However, unlike the League of Legends threads, it is not how they are so great and stonking and wonderful but rather "does it actually make sense for creatures that are reptilian in nature to have breasts?"

I'm going to add little to this thread, but here is my two cents:

1. The artist didn't think about it when they were drawing it.
and/or
2. Dragonborn keep their same characteristics as they did in 'life.'

[Rakaydos]

As for 4E dragonborn, they are the spiritual decendants of the 2E Halfdragons, who were invented for the Council of Wyrms campain setting. Even the lore is similar- Arkhosia was a nation rulled by a council of dragons, and had a great war with a nation of Human(-decended tieflings). When Io bled in 2E, the Io's Blood Islands formed, wheres in 4E, Dragonborn were created as a race.

[Prince Raven]

Another question, why would becoming a Dragonborn arbitrarily remove sex characteristics?

[3WhiteFox3]

Another question, why would becoming a Dragonborn arbitrarily remove sex characteristics?

It doesn't, the fluff for the Dragonborn clarifies that they retain any sexual characteristics they have, they just wouldn't function anymore. If you're asking what reason they would lose them beyond the already stated fluff, the only reason is that Bahamut wanted them to not just be unable to rear kids (after-all hunting evil is a full-time job) but also lose what anything related to sex. Why would that be? I dunno, could be any reason.

[Segev]

It doesn't, the fluff for the Dragonborn clarifies that they retain any sexual characteristics they have, they just wouldn't function anymore. If you're asking what reason they would lose them beyond the already stated fluff, the only reason is that Bahamut wanted them to not just be unable to rear kids (after-all hunting evil is a full-time job) but also lose what anything related to sex. Why would that be? I dunno, could be any reason.

According to the totally reliable source, Tiamat, her brother suffers from a condition that makes him similarly uninterested, and doesn't wish his chosen warriors to show him up in that category.

[Manly Man]

According to the totally reliable source, Tiamat, her brother suffers from a condition that makes him similarly uninterested, and doesn't wish his chosen warriors to show him up in that category.

A picture that says just about as much when it comes to Tiamat's thoughts on the subject. (http://images.wikia.com/gameofthrones/images/f/ff/Cersei_2x01b.jpg)

[tbok1992]

So, how does this all fit in with the new D&D Next backstory for Dragonborn, which reminds one an awful lot of the Draconians...

[The Oni]

3.5 explanation is pretty obviously because why would he remove them? If they were capable enough fighters before the dragonborn process, removing their boobs probably wouldn't make them any more effective (possibly less, as it might throw off their balance? I'm not an expert on what effect mastectomy has on athletic/combat ability) so there's no reason for them not to keep it. Many real-life women are quite proud of their boobs and would be disappointed to lose them, I would guess that probably applies to D&D warrior women, too. Even if they're not interested in sex, they can be a status symbol.

As for 4e, it's probably because so much about them is different from humans that it might be difficult to tell them apart in full plate armor.

[Talya]

3.5 Dragonborn are not a race. They are a template. They are still the creature they were before becoming Dragonborn, but more. They maintain the primary and secondary sexual characteristics that their original species had, although their ovaries and dangly bits cease to function. The stranger thing would be of their breasts disappeared. You really wouldn't even call them vestigial, as they were born with the potential to actually use them. They are not completely remade when they become Dragonborn. (All of this is official and in the books. It is not conjecture or speculation.)

[magotter]

Apologies if I'm retreading other people's posts, but I've seen this thread pop up a few times on various forums, and the reasons I've come up with for reptilian mammaries in general seem to be along the lines of:

1) There are plenty of non-mammals who lactate (Flamingos, Platipii, and certain species of Spider, for example), so it's not entirely without warrant.
2) A (horny) wizard/mage did it.
3) Just like bearded lady-dwarves, flat-chested amazonian reptile girls weird/disturb/squick/entice/arouse different sectors of the gaming and fantasy community.
4) If we're talking the transformation-themed 3.x template, well then many of them used to be mammals.
5) They wanted to troll 4chan.
6) Given the whole classic "your mom slept with a dragon" origin stories for the average half dragon, I'm thinking Bahamat may just have a thing for them, and so they're a feature, not a bug.

Seriously though, number 6 does remind me of a Gamma World game I played in. One character was a nagalike mutant from a culture/town full of other naga/lamia types. Though played for laughs, she had a huge foot fetish. She'd get the other PCs to wiggle their toes as often as possible, and was all "that is soooo weird. How the hell do you move them all like that?"

Edit: Terribad early morning grammar.

[Gemini476]

A
1) There are plenty of non-mammals who lactate (Flamingos, Platipii, and certain species of Spider, for example), so it's not entirely without warrant.

Platypi are mammals. One of the few egg-laying mammals, in fact.

Oh, and flamingos (and perhaps the spiders?) lactate by secreting the milk through their skin, rather than having mammaries.

Of course, this is a world with things like Owlbears and Flail Snails, so we don't need to worry about biological probability.

[Starbuck_II]

Platypi are mammals. One of the few egg-laying mammals, in fact.

Oh, and flamingos (and perhaps the spiders?) lactate by secreting the milk through their skin, rather than having mammaries.

Of course, this is a world with things like Owlbears and Flail Snails, so we don't need to worry about biological probability.

Platypi lactate through their skin as well.

[Thurbane]

If I'm reading the Draconomicon correctly, it doesn't say definitively anywhere that Dragons are in fact reptiles.

[CyberThread]

you are fully correct thurbane

[CRtwenty]

If I'm reading the Draconomicon correctly, it doesn't say definitively anywhere that Dragons are in fact reptiles.

They aren't. They share many traits with them, but they're a completely seperate class of creatures. I'm pretty sure that true dragons don't lactate though, most of the examples I've read have shown hatchling dragons being fed scraps of food by their parents similar to how birds feed their young.

[ArqArturo]

Of course, this is a world with things like Owlbears and Flail Snails, so we don't need to worry about biological probability.

Flail snails are intelligent gastropods that subsist on fungus, mold, and vermin, though they may attack larger creatures in self-defense. Known for their magic-warping shells and club-like tentacles, flail snails roam slowly through subterranean caverns writing great epics in their slime trails.

Greatest Character Concept ever: Snail Flail bard.

[Forrestfire]

Flail snails are intelligent gastropods that subsist on fungus, mold, and vermin, though they may attack larger creatures in self-defense. Known for their magic-warping shells and club-like tentacles, flail snails roam slowly through subterranean caverns writing great epics in their slime trails.

Greatest Character Concept ever: Snail Flail bard.

I don't even think you need the blue, there, because that is amazing.