PDA

View Full Version : Four-Legged Dragons or Two?



VoxRationis
2015-06-08, 01:26 AM
Quick, informal poll here: Which do you prefer, six-limbed dragons (four legs, two wings), or four-limbed dragons (two legs, two wings)? I'm working on defining how dragons work in one of my settings and I'm stuck choosing between the two.

Four legs has the benefit of appearing regal; the dragon can repose in the fashion of a lion or sphinx, which lends it a certain dignity which is often lacking when a creature forced to use its wings as forelegs.* The dragon can also grasp, pin down, or otherwise manipulate objects with its forelimbs while keeping the object in sight, which is a bonus. Also, the extra pair of limbs is in keeping with what springs to mind as the quintessential Western dragon in the modern eye; profiles of dragons without them (I'm looking at you, Targaryen family crest) seem like they're missing something, and all that bare chest seems excessively featureless.

Two legs, however, make far more sense for a flying creature, particularly one the size of a dragon. Adaptation for flight demands weight reduction, and forelimbs are pretty redundant. Wings can be used as forelimbs in most contexts, save grasping (which may or may not even be relevant), and if they are used to help launch the animal into the air, additional muscle for launch can also be used for the flightstroke; by contrast, if the animal has wings and forelimbs, any muscle and bone dedicated to the forelimbs becomes dead weight once it's in the air. If the dragon clambers about on its wings and hind legs, it gains a foreign, alien appearance, unlike that of most animals people encounter on a daily basis; even bats, which do so, aren't generally seen doing so regularly, since we generally see them flying and they go back to caves to roost. This foreignness gives it a kind of bestial menace, whereas the four-limbed posture is reminiscent of cats and dogs, and makes them seem more familiar. On the other hand, the "bestial" look makes them seem less like sapient creatures.

Finally, the question of taxonomy springs to mind when considering this; the development of an extra pair of functioning legs as a consistent, heritable trait is extraordinarily unlikely (extra limbs occur in nature, of course, but usually as the sort of some teratogenic agent such as a parasitic infection, and rarely result in high functionality). Thus, four-legged dragons would have to be in a sister taxon to Tetrapoda. This isn't actually too bad, since I already have hippogriffs and manticores in my setting, so I could make them all distant relatives in this sister clade, but it's worth mentioning.



*And for the record, I am firmly opposed to giving it a bipedal stance; it's entirely too theropodal and I don't want dragon encounters to become Jurassic Park references. Furthermore, such a stance requires long hind legs which become awkward-looking in flight; birds get away with it because the legs become lost among the feathers and you don't see them as much (with the exception of herons).

NRSASD
2015-06-08, 01:46 AM
I'm a huge fan of 6-limbed dragons myself for a wide variety of reasons. They are more classically Western in appearance, they have way more options for destruction, they can take more regal positions, etc. I suppose it depends on what you want your dragons to be in your campaign. If you want them to be an uncommon high-level threat, make them 4-limbed. If you want them to be Smaug (one dragon routs an entire kingdom), go with 6-limbed.

As for realism, they are unfortunately similarly unrealistic due to the nigh-catastrophic calorie requirements. The only animal that even approaches a dragon in size would be Quetzalcoatlus, a pterosaur with a 36' wingspan and at most weighed 550 pounds. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus ). Dragons need magic or weird physics to work, so a 6-limbed creature in a world dominated by 4-limbed isn't that odd in comparison.

goto124
2015-06-08, 02:58 AM
Does appearance matter much in a tabletop, where descriptions are given in words and maybe a single picture?

Starwulf
2015-06-08, 03:19 AM
Does appearance matter much in a tabletop, where descriptions are given in words and maybe a single picture?

I would think so, especially considering a 4 legged dragon is going to have better stability when it lands, allowing it to attack more ferociously, whereas a 2 legged(chinese) dragon is going to be virtually helpless on land, or at the least will use entirely different tactics(I imagine it slithers more like a snake).

Doorhandle
2015-06-08, 04:00 AM
I would think so, especially considering a 4 legged dragon is going to have better stability when it lands, allowing it to attack more ferociously, whereas a 2 legged(chinese) dragon is going to be virtually helpless on land, or at the least will use entirely different tactics(I imagine it slithers more like a snake).

Just here to nitpick: two legs (as in actual legs, and not limbs) is a wyvern, and is very western in appearance and outlook. http://www.heraldicclipart.com/catalog/wyvern%20erect%202.GIF

Chinese dragons, in addition to having no wings and 4 legs, look VERY different. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Proposed_Reunified_Chinese_Flag.png

Unless you mean a lindworm...which is actually norse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindworm)

As for my preference... I dunno. While 4 limbs is more anatomically plausible (remember: verisimilitude, not realism!) at the same time I still somehow feel that they're inferior to ones with the full 6 limbs.

Segev
2015-06-08, 08:02 AM
As has been stated, the classic western two-legged (and two-winged) "dragon" is usually termed a "wyvern," and they're also - at least in D&D-flavored things - more apt to have a scorpion-like stinger than the traditional dragon breath weapon.


If you want them to be Smaug (one dragon routs an entire kingdom), go with 6-limbed.Ironically, Smaug in the most recent movie depiction is of the "wings as forelimbs" variety. He is otherwise awesome, which makes up for it. Because I agree; dragons should have six limbs, with two being wings and four being legs.


As for realism, they are unfortunately similarly unrealistic due to the nigh-catastrophic calorie requirements. The only animal that even approaches a dragon in size would be Quetzalcoatlus, a pterosaur with a 36' wingspan and at most weighed 550 pounds. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus ). Dragons need magic or weird physics to work, so a 6-limbed creature in a world dominated by 4-limbed isn't that odd in comparison.
In the movie Flight of Dragons (and, presumably, the book on which it is based, though I've never read that), dragons consume limestone to give them "fire," which lets them fly. The science-minded individual who is having this explained to him realizes that the limestone breaks down in the dragons' stomach acids to produce hydrogen, which makes them lighter than air (and the movie has them visibly balloon up in size as the hydrogen fills their bellies). They have an organic spark plug in their mouths which ignites it on the way out, which gives them their fiery breath. Dragons breathe fire to land after a flight, and using it in a battle makes them have to land before too long.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-08, 08:27 AM
I vote for no legs, because I find that it can confuse people ('It's not a dragon!':smallconfused: 'It's a Roman dragon':smallamused:) while still brining the dragony traits to the table, especially if you give them wings. In my setting dragon refers to humans who have ascended to immortality, and the Dragon form is almost invariably snake-like with either no limbs (most common), a pair of legs and set of wings, four legs (rarest), or a set of wings almost invisible when not in use. They fly mainly because they have the most magic power in the setting (there are no gods, the last one sacrificed himself to give humans magic, and has now been forgotten), and just tell physics to shut up and let them swim in the air.

goto124
2015-06-08, 08:29 AM
Isn't that a Chinese dragon.

DigoDragon
2015-06-08, 08:33 AM
It's fascinating that the concept of a 'dragon' has sprung up in nearly all cultures around the world, even those that didn't interact with one another. :smallcool: Anyway, I prefer the '6 limb' dragon. It's a classic design.

goto124
2015-06-08, 08:37 AM
That baked teenage dragon who would be distracted by a bucket of fried chicken, is she 6-legged?

Segev
2015-06-08, 08:37 AM
It's fascinating that the concept of a 'dragon' has sprung up in nearly all cultures around the world, even those that didn't interact with one another. :smallcool: Anyway, I prefer the '6 limb' dragon. It's a classic design.

Eh, to be fair, there is a LOT of variance between cultures' versions of dragons. The fact that the chinese dragon, the "feathered serpent," and the like are all called "dragons" is likely at least as much due to Western explorers assigning a familiar name to a creature they thought sounded similar enough.

(I think it's interesting that we associate the Japanese ki-rin more with unicorns than dragons; they are more like one-horned dragon-horses than unicorns.)

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-08, 08:41 AM
It's fascinating that the concept of a 'dragon' has sprung up in nearly all cultures around the world, even those that didn't interact with one another. :smallcool: Anyway, I prefer the '6 limb' dragon. It's a classic design.

I thought that was Europeans went everywhere, saw something that looked vaguely dragony, and just went 'that's a dragon, nice that we know this stuff'. When writing settings I try to avoid mixing up various 'dragons', either sticking to the wyrm (European dragon) or making my own version inspired by the Lung (which, as my friend likes to remind me, are beautiful creatures and so much better than English dragons), so my current setting uses a look between roman and Chinese, gives them a role closer to the Lung but still distinct, and says 'yeah, these aren't your dad's dragons, what you gonna do about it?' I'll occasionally have a couple of types in the world, but then it'll be dragon/Lung/feathered serpent/etc and not just lumping them all under dragon.

Seriously, can you please tell me how the mythological western dragon and the Lung are similar, because I can't find any more similarities than between Giants and Aes Sidhe.

EDIT: ninja'd

Maglubiyet
2015-06-08, 08:57 AM
Finally, the question of taxonomy springs to mind when considering this; the development of an extra pair of functioning legs as a consistent, heritable trait is extraordinarily unlikely (extra limbs occur in nature, of course, but usually as the sort of some teratogenic agent such as a parasitic infection, and rarely result in high functionality).

Magic is a wicked teratogen/mutagen. They ought to have warning labels for it.


Thus, four-legged dragons would have to be in a sister taxon to Tetrapoda. This isn't actually too bad, since I already have hippogriffs and manticores in my setting, so I could make them all distant relatives in this sister clade, but it's worth mentioning.


It seems an unlikely relationship since manticores are probably mammals. Maybe even hippogriffs too...if mammals had feathers and beaks. Or they could all be distantly related members of a Hexapod offshoot of Theropods -- Order Hexatheropoda. They are only reported to have mammalians characteristics by ignorant travelers in distant lands, but in reality they're close relatives of dinosaurs and birds.

DigoDragon
2015-06-08, 08:58 AM
That baked teenage dragon who would be distracted by a bucket of fried chicken, is she 6-legged?

Iris? She was 6-limbed.

Ettina
2015-06-08, 08:59 AM
Finally, the question of taxonomy springs to mind when considering this; the development of an extra pair of functioning legs as a consistent, heritable trait is extraordinarily unlikely (extra limbs occur in nature, of course, but usually as the sort of some teratogenic agent such as a parasitic infection, and rarely result in high functionality). Thus, four-legged dragons would have to be in a sister taxon to Tetrapoda. This isn't actually too bad, since I already have hippogriffs and manticores in my setting, so I could make them all distant relatives in this sister clade, but it's worth mentioning.

In one story I have, I explained it as convergent evolution with two separate groups of fish being the ancestors of land animals. I reasoned that:

a) fish seem to have more flexibility than land vertebrates regarding number of limbs

b) in addition to the group that lead to land vertebrates, there are other fish species that have evolved to spend at least some time on land

c) ergo, it's possible in an alternate universe that two separate vertebrate coloniztions of land could occur, with one involving four-limbed vertebrates and the other involving six-limbed vertebrates

So, in addition to dragons, that setting has a few other six-limbed creatures, like crocolisks (which I admit I ripped off of WoW). However, the four-limbed vertebrates mostly out-competed the six-limbed ones, kind of like monotremes compared to placental mammals.

hamishspence
2015-06-08, 09:25 AM
In one story I have, I explained it as convergent evolution with two separate groups of fish being the ancestors of land animals.

The Dragon Eel looks very much like a slimmer, 6-limbed version of Dunkleosteus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkleosteus

Dragon Eel:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20040903a

http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/mmiii_gallery/82963.jpg

- the perfect "six-limbed fish" for your purposes.

Segev
2015-06-08, 09:39 AM
There is an obscure game called "Battle Dragons" that is all about building and playing dragons. In theory, it's a full-on setting with RPG rules sufficient to run a campaign. In practice, its "alternate mode" as a "build a dragon and fight it against your friends' dragons" game is fairly clearly where most of the attention was put. It looks like a lot of fun, but I haven't found anybody who wants to play it with me.

In said game, there are 8 "races" of dragon:

Great Dragon (standard western design, 4-legged)
Mystic Dragon (chinese-style, no legs)
Hydra
Basilisk (gets stone gaze for free, plus one extra pair of legs)
Wyvern (poison is their primary feature; comes with stinger "for free")
Feathered Serpent (Quetzacoatl-like, has no legs but a free pair of wings)
Bipedal (a lot like very large dragonborn)
Wyrm (no limbs, burrowing, heavily armored, and big)

Except for the Feathered Serpent, they all have the option to buy 0-1 set of wings from a number of choices. Except for the Basilisk, they all can buy different kinds of eyebeams if they want them (one set per head; hydras can buy additional heads and start with a second one for free), and they all can buy breath weapons of varying sorts (again, one per head).


I think the designers did a pretty good job of capturing the huge variety possible in dragon design from myth, legend, and modern fantasy. Race gives you different numbers of points to spend, as well as different starting perks (and, in some cases, special discounts for things you might want to buy). But there's a lot you can do with it, design-wise, and it really does drive home just how varied the concept of "dragon" can be.

LibraryOgre
2015-06-08, 11:05 AM
IMO, the standard dragon is 6 limbs. Anything else is an odd kind of dracoform, but not what I default to when thinking "dragon."

Kantaki
2015-06-08, 11:24 AM
I will join the choir and say that a proper Dragon has six limbs. Two wings, two hindlegs and two forelegs/arms. Four limbs would be a wyvern and more limbs and or no wings a Lindwurm.

The Great Wyrm
2015-06-08, 11:37 AM
In the movie Flight of Dragons (and, presumably, the book on which it is based, though I've never read that), dragons consume limestone to give them "fire," which lets them fly. The science-minded individual who is having this explained to him realizes that the limestone breaks down in the dragons' stomach acids to produce hydrogen, which makes them lighter than air (and the movie has them visibly balloon up in size as the hydrogen fills their bellies). They have an organic spark plug in their mouths which ignites it on the way out, which gives them their fiery breath. Dragons breathe fire to land after a flight, and using it in a battle makes them have to land before too long.

Limestone + acid = carbon dioxide, NOT hydrogen. Carbon dioxide is denser than air.

However, hydrogen can be produced biologically by certain microorganisms.
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biohydrogen)

VoxRationis
2015-06-08, 11:50 AM
In one story I have, I explained it as convergent evolution with two separate groups of fish being the ancestors of land animals. I reasoned that:

a) fish seem to have more flexibility than land vertebrates regarding number of limbs

b) in addition to the group that lead to land vertebrates, there are other fish species that have evolved to spend at least some time on land

c) ergo, it's possible in an alternate universe that two separate vertebrate coloniztions of land could occur, with one involving four-limbed vertebrates and the other involving six-limbed vertebrates

So, in addition to dragons, that setting has a few other six-limbed creatures, like crocolisks (which I admit I ripped off of WoW). However, the four-limbed vertebrates mostly out-competed the six-limbed ones, kind of like monotremes compared to placental mammals.

That is exactly what I was thinking of. Six limbs are energetically inefficient in most contexts; I assume that the only existing examples of this clade are the ones which developed a competitive advantage (like fire) capable of making up for it, and that the other surviving examples (hippogriffs, etc.) are as distantly related to dragons as we are to birds.

By the way, I've already decided that for both cases, the dragons will be extremely specialized for soaring flight, and won't have the heavy body armor or fearsome claws typical of D&D dragons. The dragon's fire is its main schtick. With it, it can kill prey and rivals without risking injury, enabling it to skimp on claws, scales, and teeth, and cook its food, making it easier to digest and thus skimp on large digestive systems.

Edit: It seems like people unilaterally prefer 4 limbs, at least of the two options I've mentioned. I'm not actually big on the serpentine options, such as a Chinese lung or a Greco-Roman dragon.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-08, 12:31 PM
it's possible in an alternate universe that two separate vertebrate coloniztions of land could occur, with one involving four-limbed vertebrates and the other involving six-limbed vertebrates


Especially if there are multiple worlds connected by planar gates. The same germlines could propagate throughout dozens and dozens of ecospheres with different selection pressures and different outcomes on each one.

Something like that could also explain the wide variety of sentient beings in D&D that are able to interbreed. An ancestral hominid/humanoid line that migrated to different worlds accidentally via portals and was separated for tens or hundreds of thousands of years might be produce dwarves, halflings, elves, orcs, etc.

Oddman80
2015-06-08, 12:42 PM
6 limb dragons... always.

Dienekes
2015-06-08, 12:55 PM
Dragons are coolest with 6 limbs.

braveheart
2015-06-08, 01:00 PM
If you are intending for the dragons to be more flight centric then the 2 legs and 2 wings option makes more sense, and makes them seem more foreign and potentially provide a more frightening visual as their ground movement would be similar to a bat's. However if you intend for the dragons to be intelligent and wise, potentially having players speak with them and negotiate with them, then the 6 limbed variety makes more sense due to it being more familiar. Personally I'd use both and have the 2 legged variety be completely feral, slightly darker and more common.

Segev
2015-06-08, 01:03 PM
Limestone + acid = carbon dioxide, NOT hydrogen. Carbon dioxide is denser than air.

However, hydrogen can be produced biologically by certain microorganisms.
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biohydrogen)

Somehow, they supposedly separate the calcium out of the limestone and react that with the HCl, yielding H2 as one of the products. I am many years away from the last time I did chemistry-balancing equations, so while I could possibly arrange the letters to form an appropriate reaction, I would have no confidence that I'd actually put them in the lowest energy state, and so I won't claim it's really possible.

The story claimed it as the explanation, which was my point. Substitute any means you like for making hydrogen via biological processes, and you can achieve the "doesn't require ignoring physics" idea of dragon flight.

VoxRationis
2015-06-08, 01:15 PM
If you are intending for the dragons to be more flight centric then the 2 legs and 2 wings option makes more sense, and makes them seem more foreign and potentially provide a more frightening visual as their ground movement would be similar to a bat's. However if you intend for the dragons to be intelligent and wise, potentially having players speak with them and negotiate with them, then the 6 limbed variety makes more sense due to it being more familiar. Personally I'd use both and have the 2 legged variety be completely feral, slightly darker and more common.

Ah yes, perhaps I should provide you all with the context in which the dragons will appear in my setting. Dragons are meant to be intelligent but not "civilized;" they don't talk to anyone but express sociality among themselves. They were once found throughout the game setting but years of the efforts of powerful, unified states resulted in them being extirpated from all but the most remote regions. A recent collapse in law and order has resulted in them starting to gradually filter into slightly less remote regions.

Flickerdart
2015-06-08, 01:48 PM
I rather enjoy serpentine dragons with no legs at all, but that doesn't work with RPGs such as D&D that require the dragon to have claw attacks. I suppose you could split the difference and have dragons be serpentine creatures with arms and wings but a snake tail instead of legs.

BWR
2015-06-08, 02:22 PM
Six limbs. Everything else is not a true Western dragon. Eastern dragons can get by with four limbs (legs, all of 'em). Two wings two legs is just wrong.

Talakeal
2015-06-08, 02:26 PM
http://hdwallnpics.com/wp-content/gallery/pictures-of-welsh-dragon/Welsh_Dragon.jpg

This is a dragon. Anything else is merely a cheap knock off.

Soommor
2015-06-08, 02:42 PM
A two legged dragon is a wyvern. I will not yield on this, and I hope no one else will. It's a wyvern. Period.

Psyren
2015-06-08, 02:43 PM
Adding my vote (are we voting?) to the 4-legs+2-wings camp.


Six limbs. Everything else is not a true Western dragon. Eastern dragons can get by with four limbs (legs, all of 'em). Two wings two legs is just wyvern.

FTFY but otherwise agreed.

veti
2015-06-08, 03:16 PM
There's quite a lot of six-limbed creatures in the basic D&D lexicon. As well as the ones you mention, there's centaurs, chimeras, whatever the plural of "sphinx" is (I want to say "sphinctres", but somehow...), even before we get into the giant-invertebrates category.

But for dragons, I must go against the groupthink in this thread. Six limbs are most certainly not necessary. A dragon can look quite reasonably intimidating with just the four. I was looking at a life-sized model of a Haast's eagle last weekend, and dammit, that was pretty intimidating; imagine it with scales, fiery breath, and a 20 metre wingspan, and just holy yikes. It will put the dragon at a disadvantage when fighting on the ground, but on the other hand, it'll allow it to fly and perch more freely in places people can't reach. Swings and roundabouts, y'know.

Wyverns? Wyverns are something different, let's not confuse the issue.

Segev
2015-06-08, 03:17 PM
Wyverns? Wyverns are something different, let's not confuse the issue.

Yeah, isn't that a castle some rich guy has on his skyscraper in New York?

anti-ninja
2015-06-08, 03:36 PM
A dragon can look quite reasonably intimidating with just the four.intimidating yes dragon no, true dragons (from western cultures at least)have 6 limbs .Put my vote in for dragons with 6 limbs.

Flickerdart
2015-06-08, 03:46 PM
http://hdwallnpics.com/wp-content/gallery/pictures-of-welsh-dragon/Welsh_Dragon.jpg

This is a dragon. Anything else is a derivation from the norm.
Surely you mean "deviation."

Talakeal
2015-06-08, 03:47 PM
Surely you mean "deviation."

I think I meant derivative, but with bad grammar. Let me fix that :smallbiggrin:

Zaydos
2015-06-08, 03:50 PM
4 legs + 2 Wings looks the coolest, the most awesome, and all three options require suspension of disbelief enough to justify it. If you go 4 limbs, go wyvern and have them walk exclusively on their hind legs (like birds). Crawling around on their wings (like bats, wyverns, or the new movie Samug) is just not effective on the ground at all, unimposing, and ultimately makes no more sense than 4 + 2. I mean 4 +2 can work if they can get around the flight weight thing which is a problem for all 3, it's just something that didn't evolve in real world vertebrates because limb number is highly conserved. 2 + wings used as legs only works if they don't go onto the ground ever... which makes those weight problems bigger.

TurboGhast
2015-06-08, 04:02 PM
I prefer 4-leg 2-wing dragons, and all of the eastern style dragons I can think of have 4 limbs or no limbs. (Rayquaza (4 limbs), Kamigawa dragon star cycle (no limbs), a few Yu-gi-oh cards I don't remember the names of (4 limbs, generally))

Gavran
2015-06-08, 04:16 PM
whatever the plural of "sphinx" is

"Sphinges" per my googling.

Six-limbs here. Not a fan of Eastern dragons, and while I can accept a feral bat-like wyvern, I stand firmly against intelligent dinosaur-like ones.

Segev
2015-06-08, 04:54 PM
Let's buck the trend: anybody like 4-winged, two-legged dragons? :smalltongue:

Gavran
2015-06-08, 05:04 PM
What's this clinging to even numbers? I'll take 3 legs, 3 wings thanks.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-08, 05:07 PM
Let's buck the trend: anybody like 4-winged, two-legged dragons? :smalltongue:

Sir you ain't hipster enough, our dragons have eight wings, sixteen legs, twelve heads, and more eyes than a parliament saying yes. Oh, wait, that's angels, four winged dragons sound badass though.

YossarianLives
2015-06-08, 05:11 PM
If I have to pick between dragons with two or four legs, definitely four. However I like exploring different kinds of dragons. Like Chinese dragons, serpent dragons, and other variations.

Zaydos
2015-06-08, 05:16 PM
I've made 4 legged 6 winged dragons before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9635172&postcount=540), 8 legged 2 winged dragons (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=9635172&postcount=540), 2 legged 2 winged and 10 tentacled (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=13508650&postcount=930), 2 legged no wings dragons (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=10510816&postcount=656), and 6 legged 2 winged dragons (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18032967&postcount=983) but I can't seem to find any 4 winged 2 legged dragons... hmm...

VoxRationis
2015-06-08, 05:20 PM
Let's buck the trend: anybody like 4-winged, two-legged dragons? :smalltongue:

Though I think it will make most people think of Avatar, that's not a wholly bad design. A four-winged design can be aerodynamically successful, as dragonflies establish. It is a little redundant, though; unless the dragon's body is quite long, two pairs of wings won't really be able to do what one pair of larger wings could not. Birds experimented with four-winged designs for a while, but as we all know, that didn't pan out.

I never understand why anyone likes Chinese dragons. Their body plan is ridiculous.

Segev
2015-06-08, 05:34 PM
I never understand why anyone likes Chinese dragons. Their body plan is ridiculous.

Eh, to be fair, they're snakes. They fly almost invariably by magic, whether with their little claws perched on magical clouds or just slithering through the air. Their body design doesnt fail to make sense compared to real-world creatures, in that respect.

anti-ninja
2015-06-08, 05:39 PM
I never understand why anyone likes Chinese dragons. Their body plan is ridiculous. also if I remember correctly there pseudo gods in Chinese myth so they can break whatever scientific law they want:smallcool:

Draz74
2015-06-08, 06:04 PM
Finally, the question of taxonomy springs to mind when considering this; the development of an extra pair of functioning legs as a consistent, heritable trait is extraordinarily unlikely (extra limbs occur in nature, of course, but usually as the sort of some teratogenic agent such as a parasitic infection, and rarely result in high functionality). Thus, four-legged dragons would have to be in a sister taxon to Tetrapoda. This isn't actually too bad, since I already have hippogriffs and manticores in my setting, so I could make them all distant relatives in this sister clade, but it's worth mentioning.

Why is evolving a third pair of limbs any less likely than evolving a second, or a first, or a fourth pair of limbs? (Other than the flying/weight issue, which you covered in another paragraph.)

Considering most of Earth's animal organisms have 6, 8, or 10 limbs (and some have many more), I don't see anything sacred about 4 limbs that makes it the evolutionary equilibrium point.

Nightcanon
2015-06-08, 06:13 PM
Pretty sure that as far as D&D goes, 'true' dragons have 4 legs plus 2 wings, while wyverns have 2 and 2, by definition. Harry Potter movie dragons and Smaug in the recent Hobbit movie went with 2 and 2, which perhaps goes better with a hunched over, menacing posture on film, and also avoids the problem of what to do with wings when on the ground (keep 'em out? fold 'em in like a duck?) It would be interesting to know whether use of motion capture tech has influenced this in newer films.

Draz74
2015-06-08, 06:28 PM
Pretty sure that as far as D&D goes, 'true' dragons have 4 legs plus 2 wings,

... And I hope that everyone realizes that, since this is primarily a D&D-fans' forum, this will no doubt skew the results being collected in this informal, self-selected poll.

(Including mine, as I'm another D&D player who likes the 6-limbed variety.)

veti
2015-06-08, 08:40 PM
I never understand why anyone likes Chinese dragons. Their body plan is ridiculous.

Nobody's arguing for Chinese dragons (which generally have no wings at all) in this thread. But for the record, are you contending that there's some variant of a giant snake with four legs and huge leathery wings that isn't "ridiculous"?

But there's real-life precedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur#Ground_movement) for a gigantic winged predator using its wings as forelegs.

Hytheter
2015-06-08, 11:28 PM
Why is evolving a third pair of limbs any less likely than evolving a second, or a first, or a fourth pair of limbs? (Other than the flying/weight issue, which you covered in another paragraph.)

Considering most of Earth's animal organisms have 6, 8, or 10 limbs (and some have many more), I don't see anything sacred about 4 limbs that makes it the evolutionary equilibrium point.

None of the creatures on earth with more than 4 limbs are vertebrates though. A third pair of limbs is unlikely to arise in any vertebrate organism because all limbed vertebrates are derived from animals with a 4 limb body plan. Invertebrate limbs are a convergent evolution with different genetic mechanisms involved.

That said trying to justify a full-fledged dragon from an evolutionary perspective is a pointless endeavour to begin. You might as well just well accept that a magical flying fire-breathing dinosaur can have as many limbs as it damn well pleases.

goto124
2015-06-09, 01:03 AM
2-legs 2-wings makes it look like a bird. I can't really imagine it to be intimidating. I mean, yes, birds can be highly intimidating, but it's not the same kind of scary as 4-legged dragons.

VoxRationis
2015-06-09, 01:13 AM
Nobody's arguing for Chinese dragons (which generally have no wings at all) in this thread. But for the record, are you contending that there's some variant of a giant snake with four legs and huge leathery wings that isn't "ridiculous"?

But there's real-life precedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur#Ground_movement) for a gigantic winged predator using its wings as forelegs.

Yeah, I'm familiar with pterosaurs. That's why I argued in the original post that 4 limbs work better from a biomechanical standpoint.

I think that if we get past the initial point where a six-limbed creature develops, the idea that one taxon descended from the hexapodal ancestor develops flight based on membranous wings isn't too far-fetched.

Seltsamuel
2015-06-09, 01:53 AM
A dragon has as many limbs he need for the place he lives and reigns :smallwink:

I wouldn´t define only one type of dragon as that dragon but I would consider the biomes they usually live in. The Dark Eye for example had a dragon with a bunch of feets because it is a cave dragon.


http://www.wiki-aventurica.de/images/1/11/Khorasan.jpg


Black Dragons in D&D have their lair usually in a swamp where four legs could be useful to not sink into the mug or climb up a ledge. On the other hand dragons which prever open space and high mountains could sport two or no legs

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-09, 02:28 AM
I never understand why anyone likes Chinese dragons. Their body plan is ridiculous.

A) Lung aren't actually dragons, but closer to spirits, and B) unlike western dragons, which follow a design to make them terrifying but awe inspiring (awesome if you will) Lung are meant to look majestic and beautiful, which the body, mane, and antlers pull off (YMMV of course, I personally think snakes look majestic).

But they are completely different, which is why you should use Lung for them and not dragon.

Strigon
2015-06-09, 10:19 AM
I just can't get used to 2-legged dragons; in my mind, they're the top of the food chain. The biggest, baddest thing around. The T-rex of fantasy.
They aren't giant flying, fire-breathing lizards;
They're colossal lizards that breath fire, make the ground quake as they walk, and also they fly.
Aerodynamics aren't a huge concern for them, as they mostly just brute force the air into submission, and then land when they feel like truly ruining someone's day.

Segev
2015-06-09, 10:31 AM
Hm. What if their 4-legged design was to give them monstrously powerful legs designed for running. Running so fast that they can take a leap at sufficient speeds to generate airplane-like lift with their wings.

Perhaps their claws are actually webbed, as well, so that they can use that same massive leg-thrusting motion to shove enormous scoops of air backwards at tremendous speeds, maintaining at least biplane-like speed in the air when combined with their wings' occasional flapping.

Essentially, they overcome their enormous mass with sufficient thrust, all generated by supremely poweful muscles designed to propel them forward whether on the ground or in the air. And that's why they "need" 4 legs.

VoxRationis
2015-06-09, 11:51 AM
I find it implausible that it could generate more thrust by doing a doggy-paddle in the air than by simply allocating more muscle to the thrust-generating parts of the flightstroke.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-09, 01:00 PM
I find it implausible that it could generate more thrust by doing a doggy-paddle in the air than by simply allocating more muscle to the thrust-generating parts of the flightstroke.

Sir, please stop ruining the majestic image of a flying dragon.

Buckethead
2015-06-09, 01:46 PM
If a dragon only had 4 limbs how does it smoke it's pipe? All dragon's smoke right?
6 limbs for all dragons in my book.

Knaight
2015-06-09, 01:55 PM
I generally favor the two wing four leg design, but that's far from the only viable one. No legs, two wings, and a more serpentlike body works fairly well, dropping the wings works well, so on and so forth.

On the tangent regarding the shape of Chinese Dragons - they're heavily culturally associated with the ocean. The serpentine shape is similar to that of sea snakes, which are generally very good swimmers.

VoxRationis
2015-06-09, 02:18 PM
I generally favor the two wing four leg design, but that's far from the only viable one. No legs, two wings, and a more serpentlike body works fairly well, dropping the wings works well, so on and so forth.

On the tangent regarding the shape of Chinese Dragons - they're heavily culturally associated with the ocean. The serpentine shape is similar to that of sea snakes, which are generally very good swimmers.

Really? I thought they were associated with rivers.

Knaight
2015-06-09, 02:32 PM
Really? I thought they were associated with rivers.

They are also associated with rivers, but oceans come up a lot. Either way, a shape suited for swimming makes a lot of sense.

almondsAndRain
2015-06-09, 04:19 PM
I prefer the two legged version. Four legged dragons always looked kind of silly to me.

NRSASD
2015-06-09, 04:48 PM
Since your dragons aren't going to be physics-defying flying cargo ships like Smaug, I would suggest going with the 2 leg-2 wing design. It fits in much better with the idea of them being consummate soaring creatures, because extra limbs means extra weight. Going with this design, I'd recommend looking up Haast's eagle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haast%27s_eagle) for an idea of size to weight ratios. Haast's eagle hunted practically everything in New Zealand, from 11 ft moas to even humans. Hope this helps!

Susano-wo
2015-06-10, 02:31 AM
I like dragons to have individuality. So 4 legs, 2 legs, wingless, winged snake, its all good, as long as it looks menacing and fits the feel you are going for with that dragon. (like that Cave Dragon. that thing is badass!). 4 legs can definitely look more regal, and 2 legs looks more feral, but both can look sufficiently dragonlike. And yes, eastern style is a different animal entirely (pun only semi-intended), so though they look awesome, the visual design follows a different direction entirely.

Brother Oni
2015-06-10, 06:34 AM
Somehow, they supposedly separate the calcium out of the limestone and react that with the HCl, yielding H2 as one of the products. I am many years away from the last time I did chemistry-balancing equations, so while I could possibly arrange the letters to form an appropriate reaction, I would have no confidence that I'd actually put them in the lowest energy state, and so I won't claim it's really possible.

The story claimed it as the explanation, which was my point. Substitute any means you like for making hydrogen via biological processes, and you can achieve the "doesn't require ignoring physics" idea of dragon flight.

We've discussed it in this thread (link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?367460-How-Many-Dragons-Could-Live-on-Earth)) and it's simpler to use a hydrogen bioreactor than whatever arcane and esoteric metabolic pathways that effectively causes elemental calcium to react with HCL.

Of course using a hydrogen bioreactor has its own issues, primarily you end up with a semi-translucent photosynthetic dragon, which has a combined flaming hydrogen and methane breath, along with hydrogen sulphide and all manner of nasty biological waste products.


A) Lung aren't actually dragons, but closer to spirits, and B) unlike western dragons, which follow a design to make them terrifying but awe inspiring (awesome if you will) Lung are meant to look majestic and beautiful, which the body, mane, and antlers pull off (YMMV of course, I personally think snakes look majestic).

They also display sexual dimorphism; boy dragons get a glowing pearl on their throat, whiskers and a spiker mane, girl dragons have rounder spine spikes, a fan-like tail and a slightly shorter snout.


They are also associated with rivers, but oceans come up a lot. Either way, a shape suited for swimming makes a lot of sense.

They're actually associated with water, so rivers, oceans, rain (and hence the sky), etc, all come under their purview.

It's Japanese mythology where their dragons (ryu) are more closely tied to physical things like rivers - see the film Spirited Away for two great examples of this.

Knaight
2015-06-10, 10:37 AM
They're actually associated with water, so rivers, oceans, rain (and hence the sky), etc, all come under their purview.

While there is the general water connection, in the literature you get lots and lots of dragons that are explicitly of some ocean or sea or other, and significantly fewer tied to other aspects. Hence my comment about them being connected to oceans.

Aedilred
2015-06-10, 01:39 PM
I heard somewhere once, possibly not from a reputable source, speculation that dragons are an old psychological construct of humans from a fairly early stage in our hominin evolution, representing a fusion of characteristics of some of the more dangerous predators around at the time, especially for infants: cats, snakes and birds of prey. That would seem to indicate a four-legged dragon, although it's still pretty vague.

Here you go; I found the article in question (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=P1uBUZupE9gC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=dragon+cat+snake+bird&source=bl&ots=Uyii2lBZl4&sig=Wmqn_2fBrkxA3Qso_aH1dZPkyyY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCWoVChMIncn6_uGFxgIVzNcUCh39iACl#v=on epage&q=dragon%20cat%20snake%20bird&f=false).

For my part, while I recognise the anatomical superiority of a two-legged dragon, like many others in this thread and elsewhere, the dragon my brain defaults to has four legs.

VoxRationis
2015-06-11, 02:06 PM
Here's another good question relating to the logistics of dragons: How does one ride one? (It's probably not going to be a thing in my setting, but this is just a general question.) You can't sit on most of the length of the back because the wing membrane will be where your legs should. I suppose you could sit far forward, where the neck meets the body, but in many cases that leaves you sitting on the shoulders that support the wings, and that seems like it would interfere with the dragon's flight. You could lie down on the back, like the people do with Quetzalcoatlus in James Gurney's Dinotopia, but that means you can't really do anything but cling on and give direction: no jousting or other weapon use, no spellcasting, not even the ability to look dignified. You could sit on the neck or the head itself, but that demands that the dragon be even larger than it would have to be to lift your weight generally.

Flickerdart
2015-06-11, 03:31 PM
Here's another good question relating to the logistics of dragons: How does one ride one? (It's probably not going to be a thing in my setting, but this is just a general question.) You can't sit on most of the length of the back because the wing membrane will be where your legs should. I suppose you could sit far forward, where the neck meets the body, but in many cases that leaves you sitting on the shoulders that support the wings, and that seems like it would interfere with the dragon's flight. You could lie down on the back, like the people do with Quetzalcoatlus in James Gurney's Dinotopia, but that means you can't really do anything but cling on and give direction: no jousting or other weapon use, no spellcasting, not even the ability to look dignified. You could sit on the neck or the head itself, but that demands that the dragon be even larger than it would have to be to lift your weight generally.
You surf on the dragon.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-11, 04:32 PM
Here's another good question relating to the logistics of dragons: How does one ride one?

I suggest starting with a meal out, before asking a biology mage to work out the logistics. Don't be annoyed if they don't agree to riding right away.

Knaight
2015-06-13, 12:01 AM
Here's another good question relating to the logistics of dragons: How does one ride one?
Kneeling on top of the back should generally work for most dragon configurations. You might need some sort of specialized harness to stay on, but it shouldn't affect flying too much.

Segev
2015-06-13, 12:11 AM
It's usually portrayed either as on the neck near the shoulders, or on a saddle that is almost a chair with how high up it raises you. In How To Train Your Dragon, they actually ride on the necks right behind the heads, typically. Hiccup lays along the neck with his saddle just ahead of the wings and his stirrups underneath them.

LibraryOgre
2015-06-13, 08:12 AM
Here's another good question relating to the logistics of dragons: How does one ride one?

The Halfblood Chronicles (by Mercedes Lackey and Andre Norton) have the folks riding dragonback further back, near the hind legs, as the muscles near the wings are always moving.

NRSASD
2015-06-13, 01:04 PM
Yay Andre Norton reference!

In Naomi Novik's Temeraire series, they have the captain up on the shoulders of the dragon while the flight crew hangs on to a harness that resembles a ship's rigging. This lets them maneuver all over the dragon, where they can drop bombs, take potshots, and deflect hostile dragons approaching at angles their dragon would have difficulty responding to. Additionally, everyone is strapped in so that the dragon can roll, dive, etc. with only a small chance of losing it's crew.

VoxRationis
2015-06-14, 03:04 AM
Yeah, well, the Temeraire series is Horatio Hornblower ON A DRAGON!!!* The dragons in that series are practically ships with wings, and if you don't have dragons that ridiculously huge, that setup doesn't really work.


*Not that I dislike the series; what I have read of it has been quite entertaining.

Closet_Skeleton
2015-06-14, 11:49 AM
Technically a Wyvern can have either have the wings as forelimbs or hindlimbs, but winged hindlimbs and clawed forelimbs looks really weird so modern artists ignore it as a possibility. Wyvern itself is just a renaissance mistrancription of 'Wyver', which is just an alternate spelling of 'Viper'. Vipern is a logical alternative name that I've never seen use but illustrates something if you try to say it out loud. The reason Wyvern are poisonous while dragons are usually not probably comes from the Viper link.

The standard description of a Dragon is from Pliny the Elder and was re-used in medieval bestiaries. They just describe a form of large constrictor snake that lives in India and attacks elephants. The standard depiction comes from artists taking liberties. Originally described as not being poisonous, later manuscripts made them poisonous and then the fire breathing thing was just poison taken to a fantastical extreme. In lots of languages, poison and burning are etymologically linked concepts, this still survives in the talk of 'acid burns', acid and poison being not entirely separate concepts until the modern period.

A Dragon is etymologically a kind of snake, not a lizard, so no limbs is actually the most correct option. But 4 limbs for 'realism' is just stupid because come on, realistic dragons?

There's a real world lizard that has four legs and uses its rib cage as a wing. I think that's a good thing to point out to the 'but anatomy' crowd.


I heard somewhere once, possibly not from a reputable source, speculation that dragons are an old psychological construct of humans from a fairly early stage in our hominin evolution, representing a fusion of characteristics of some of the more dangerous predators around at the time, especially for infants: cats, snakes and birds of prey.

The four legged European dragon is pretty set in time and place as a motif. Anything that ancient and archetypal is going to vary a lot in its expression, not coincidentally look like one drawing.

Frozen_Feet
2015-06-14, 12:58 PM
Flying dragons, I've always imagined as mostly bird-like, so Smaug in recent Hobbit films is pretty much dream of my childhood brought to life. Forelimbs in addition to wings always looks extraneous to me.

But crocodile-like and snake-like are also fine with me, as are four-legged dragons with frills rather than wings (think of some lizards (http://easyscienceforkids.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Flying-Dragon.jpg) and dinosaurs (http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/walkingwith/images/a/aa/SpinosaurusInfobox.png/revision/latest?cb=20131217214946)). Lung (chinese dragons) are also fine.

Susano-wo
2015-06-14, 02:57 PM
Technically a Wyvern can have either have the wings as forelimbs or hindlimbs, but winged hindlimbs and clawed forelimbs looks really weird so modern artists ignore it as a possibility. Wyvern itself is just a renaissance mistrancription of 'Wyver', which is just an alternate spelling of 'Viper'. Vipern is a logical alternative name that I've never seen use but illustrates something if you try to say it out loud. The reason Wyvern are poisonous while dragons are usually not probably comes from the Viper link.

The standard description of a Dragon is from Pliny the Elder and was re-used in medieval bestiaries. They just describe a form of large constrictor snake that lives in India and attacks elephants. The standard depiction comes from artists taking liberties. Originally described as not being poisonous, later manuscripts made them poisonous and then the fire breathing thing was just poison taken to a fantastical extreme. In lots of languages, poison and burning are etymologically linked concepts, this still survives in the talk of 'acid burns', acid and poison being not entirely separate concepts until the modern period.

A Dragon is etymologically a kind of snake, not a lizard, so no limbs is actually the most correct option. But 4 limbs for 'realism' is just stupid because come on, realistic dragons?

There's a real world lizard that has four legs and uses its rib cage as a wing. I think that's a good thing to point out to the 'but anatomy' crowd.



The four legged European dragon is pretty set in time and place as a motif. Anything that ancient and archetypal is going to vary a lot in its expression, not coincidentally look like one drawing.

A lot of interesting things I had never heard before. hurray! :smallbiggrin:

But I think the general tone of the thread was that it made more sense anatomically to have 4 limbed dragons, but people tend to prefer the 6 limbed kind :smallsmile:

But yeah, anatomical arguments on a dragon do tend to be silly (though I love seeing fake anatomies of fantastical creatures, like in the recent centaur thread)

Segev
2015-06-14, 02:59 PM
Interestingly, six-limbed fantasy creatures are not uniquely draconic. Gryphons, pegasi, and other "winged quadrupeds" are not uncommon, and winged humanoids also show up. More unique are centaurs, which are also six-limbed, but have four legs and two arms.

A winged centaur is a more recent fantastical adaptation (really a sort of pegataur?), and would have eight limbs (four legs, two arms, two wings).


I have more than once thought that the six-limbed design was a neat way to unify Pandoran creatures in The Last Samurai Dances With Space Smurfs Avatar, and therefore found the fact that the space smurfs themselves remained four-limbed to be odd.

VoxRationis
2015-06-15, 03:13 AM
There's a real world lizard that has four legs and uses its rib cage as a wing. I think that's a good thing to point out to the 'but anatomy' crowd.


The "but anatomy" crowd is also the crowd that knows that that lizard only glides and its "wings" have extremely rudimentary articulation. I'm not sure it makes sense to apply to a flying creature many times the size of the original lizard.

@Segev: Yes, I believe there was some discussion of griffons and hippogriffs elsewhere. I was of the opinion that additional pairs of limbs were difficult enough to develop that it makes those species more likely to be related to 6-limbed dragons than a reptilian but 4-limbed creature.

LibraryOgre
2015-06-15, 07:35 AM
Dragons are what happens when dinosaurs spend millions of years in magical experimentation.

TheCountAlucard
2015-06-15, 08:46 AM
Size/Type: Large DragonWould ya look at that. :smallamused:

Jay R
2015-06-15, 07:56 PM
I've studied European heraldry enough that a four-legged one is called a dragon, and a two-legged one is called a wyvern, pretty much automatically. I know these definitions have changed over time, but that's still my automatic assumption..