PDA

View Full Version : So when does a dragon stop being a dragon?



Silus
2015-06-14, 04:54 PM
So last Friday during a planning session for an upcoming campaign, there was a rather lengthy disagreement between myself and one of the other guys in my group on, essentially, what is required to be a dragon (the disagreement was resolved upon finding an appropriate template, so this thread isn't about that. Template in question was the Feral Dragon template from the Advanced Bestiary for Pathfinder).

The position I held was that a dragon didn't have to be the super intelligent, highly magical creature that it seems that modern fantasy is pushing. In fact I really dislike the Machiavellian plotting, scheming kind of dragons (admittedly pulled from a few years of playing WoW and dealing with Onyxia's crap) and was aiming for less "clever magical fire breathing lizard" and more "scaled fiery engine of pyroclastic destruction", a creature that, on the base level, existed simply to burn and devour.

Essentially, the dragons from Reign of Fire.
https://justbeyondinfinity.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/722182efd2de.jpg

My friend however insisted that the high intelligence and magical nature was outright essential for dragons being dragons (along with, ya know, the breath weapons, scales, natural weapons, etc). Take that away and you essentially have drakes, weaker and less intelligent than "true" dragons.

He was advocating for a more Smaug type dragon, or at least one right out of the Bestiary.
http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/87327.jpg

Anyway, I ask you GitP peoples, at what point does a dragon stop being a "dragon" and become something else? Like what can you add or take away before it stops being a dragon? Genuinely curious here.

Closet_Skeleton
2015-06-14, 05:18 PM
Sounds like he's played too much D&D and has no experience of wider contexts.

Drake is literally just an alternate spelling of Dragon. You can't have a 'mere drake, not a true dragon'. Unless you're talking about ducks that is.

A dragon can be anything.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-14, 05:32 PM
Basically, when you change the spelling.

Otherwise, go nuts. I have dragons as the raw elemental powerhouses of the setting, with only as much intelligence as they had when human. It leads to a lot of smashed castles and desperate research into how dragons get their power (in short, a mixture between raw magical skill, a pact with the world, and lots of mana to jump start the transformation) as none have appeared on the supernatural radar since 1500 or so.

Eldan
2015-06-14, 05:32 PM
Have your friend look at some medieval paintings of dragons.

Like these:


http://bogleech.com/scrapbook/dragon-eyes.jpg
http://www.artwis.com/wp-content/uploads/content_images/104/Hoogsteder/Hendrick%20Goltzius%20-%20Cadmus%20His%20Companions%20and%20the%20Dragon% 20.jpg
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/103634/1/St.-George-Slaying-The-Dragon.jpg
https://saintalbanstudio.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/30-marco-polo-journals1.jpg
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/67162000/jpg/_67162503_313deed8-c8f9-48db-bc3b-c1569a69dcc1.jpg


Notice the trend? Small, bestial, often quite pitiful looking.

Silus
2015-06-14, 05:45 PM
Basically, when you change the spelling.

Otherwise, go nuts. I have dragons as the raw elemental powerhouses of the setting, with only as much intelligence as they had when human. It leads to a lot of smashed castles and desperate research into how dragons get their power (in short, a mixture between raw magical skill, a pact with the world, and lots of mana to jump start the transformation) as none have appeared on the supernatural radar since 1500 or so.

The ones we were trying to make for the setting I'm running were like a mix between the dragons from Reign of Fire and the Monsterous Nightmare from How to Train Your Dragon. Essentially monstrous, self-immolating dragons that exist to burn and feed.

Luckily they're all stuck on an island a la Jurassic Park.

Closet_Skeleton
2015-06-14, 06:05 PM
Have your friend look at some medieval paintings of dragons.

Notice the trend? Small, bestial, often quite pitiful looking.

They're small because they need to fit into the frame. A St George banner where St George is tiny compared to the dragon would be a dragon banner not a St George one.

Iormagund is big enough to envelope the world, Tiamat is big enough to build the world out of her corpse, the Lambton Worm can wrap itself seven times round a decent sized hill, one of Zilant's heads could swallow a young human whole, the seven headed Yilbegän would cause eclipses by try to swallow the moon and stars.

JAL_1138
2015-06-14, 06:07 PM
Small, bestial, often quite pitiful looking.

There's also swamp dragons from Discworld. Small, pitiful, stupid animals that frequently explode.

EDIT: Well, as a species they frequently explode. An individual swamp dragon only explodes once.

sktarq
2015-06-14, 06:17 PM
When does a dragon stop being a dragon? When. It dies-then it is a Dracolich or a collection of messy but useful parts.

ExLibrisMortis
2015-06-14, 06:28 PM
'Dragon' as word can be appropriated by a creator and used for lots of things. The Wheel of Time series is a good example.

As a creature, I do feel that better-than-animal intelligence is critical. Dragons have to, at minimum, be able to kidnap princesses and scare villagers into providing tribute. They must also be hard to kill, and they must be capable of great destruction.

I really like the D&D dragons, as pictured and described in the Monster Manual. A dragon should have the package of flight (and wings), four legs (long, sharp claws), scales, a fairly long, sinuous body, spines and horns preferred (but manes are cool, too), and something special with its breath (poison, fire). The more of these you drop, the less I'll like it if you call it a dragon, but one or two absences shouldn't be a problem.

Dienekes
2015-06-14, 06:30 PM
Have your friend look at some medieval paintings of dragons.

Like these:


http://bogleech.com/scrapbook/dragon-eyes.jpg
http://www.artwis.com/wp-content/uploads/content_images/104/Hoogsteder/Hendrick%20Goltzius%20-%20Cadmus%20His%20Companions%20and%20the%20Dragon% 20.jpg
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/103634/1/St.-George-Slaying-The-Dragon.jpg
https://saintalbanstudio.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/30-marco-polo-journals1.jpg
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/67162000/jpg/_67162503_313deed8-c8f9-48db-bc3b-c1569a69dcc1.jpg


Notice the trend? Small, bestial, often quite pitiful looking.

To be fair, a lot of medieval artwork had a thing about a sense of scale, in that they didn't have them. Sometimes you'd get priests who were bigger than the churches they worshiped in.

Anyway, your point is right. The concept of the majestic dragon that is popular nowadays isn't universal. Though, it can be noted that stupid monstrous dragons like you see in these pictures were from legends from about the same time as Fafnir who was an intelligent dragon (well a dwarf that transformed himself, but you get the idea).

Ultimately, dragons are what you say they are. Though, like vampires (who can be traced back to bloated corpses, idiotic ghouls, and even werewolf like beasts), the modern audience has a sort of standard idea of what a dragon is. At least in Western cultures. Big, reptilian, wings, generally 2 to 4 legs, breathe weapon. Often, but not universally intelligent.

Now personally, in games I like my dragons intelligent. But that's because killing an animal doesn't really feel all that epic to me. It can sure be difficult still, but it just doesn't have the same accomplishment as tricking and beating a Smaug expy. For books, or tv shows, or movies, or whatever, I've read and enjoyed stories with dragons being intelligent or animalistic. One particularly good portrayal I found was sort of like the velociraptors of Jurassic Park. They can't speak, but they're cunning understand more than you'd expect, and hungry. Sadly, can't remember the book that was in, and honestly, I thought it was pretty much crap, but I did like the dragons.

OldTrees1
2015-06-14, 06:35 PM
A dragon stops being a dragon when it is more like a dragon than like a dragon.

In all seriousness this is the case. Dragon has been used to describe scaled snake-lizards with some number of legs(including 0) and some number of wings(including 0). They range from bestial to divine intellect. They may or may not have a breath weapon(commonly fire). They may or may not have access to a magical nature and if it does have a magical nature that nature could be one of a large number of varieties.

However for me, a dragon stops being a dragon when it is more like a wyvern or a purple worm than like the Smaug. So an overt magical nature is unnecessary for me and both a subhuman intellegence 2 legged Smaug and a bestial breathless Smaug would count as dragons.

Kurald Galain
2015-06-14, 06:50 PM
Notice the trend? Small, bestial, often quite pitiful looking.

Yes. The modern conception of the huge kind of dragon probably stems from either Grendel or Jormungand (who aren't technically dragons, but they're certainly huge), not from some nameless critter St. George fought.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-14, 07:09 PM
I don't see the people most likely to be speaking about dragons being overly concerned about their exact taxonomy.

"Run, the dragon is approaching!"

"Dragon? Where? Next to the drake?"

"No, THAT is the dragon!"

"Now see here, my good man, that is clearly no dragon. Notice the dull, lifeless gaze and the palpable absence of any enchantments. Why if you would only..."

FA-WHOOOOSH!!!!

goto124
2015-06-14, 09:23 PM
When the drake/wyvern/etc insists it's not called a dragon.

Mastikator
2015-06-14, 09:55 PM
When the drake/wyvern/etc insists it's not called a dragon.

Isn't wyvern just another type of dragon? It would be like a human saying it's not a great ape.

cobaltstarfire
2015-06-14, 09:58 PM
A dragon stops being a dragon, when it doesn't meet whatever the definition of a dragon is for the setting/culture it is from.


I think for me to personally consider something to be a dragon, it has to have a long tail similar in form to a reptiles, as well as some form of muzzle/beak for a face. It must be capable of reasoning, planning, and socializing at least on a level similar to cetaceans, apes, and elephants. A dragon does not need to be magical in nature, nor does it need to have a breath weapon, a dragon can be very small, or quite large, it can have or lack any kind of integument (fur/feathers/scales/ect).


If it "looks" like a dragon but is merely a beast, than it should have a different name to help differentiate it from intelligent dragons, because they're going to represent different kinds of challenges.

That's just me personally though, end of the day if a settings says dragons are all big dumb beasts, or adorable little fluff balls or whatever else, than I'm going to call it a dragon.

Edit:

Isn't wyvern just another type of dragon? It would be like a human saying it's not a great ape.

No it'd be more like an ape saying it's a human. A human is an ape but not all apes are humans.

dafrca
2015-06-14, 10:20 PM
I have only ever given myself one restriction on Dragon's in RPG games. They need to be consistent. If they are super smart and rich powers behind the powers like in Shadowrun, then so be it. Or if they are just large and deadly animals that works too. I just want them to be what ever they are in some sort of consistent manor. But that is my hang up. :smallbiggrin:

Flickerdart
2015-06-14, 10:49 PM
The priest-to-church scale issues only exist in the pre-Renaissance period, before people figured out what perspective was. At that time, figures were depicted with size proportional to their importance, so a victorious knight would be depicted as larger than his enemy, because he won.

As for St. George's dragon, if we consult the original sources, they describe it as a creature that was fed two sheep per day, and once slain was carried from the scene upon four ox-carts. Its depiction in later artworks as an alligator-sized animal only goes to show that cultural constructs are mutable and OP's friend is a stick in the mud for trying to canonize some kind of "real" dragon.

Kane0
2015-06-15, 02:34 AM
A 'true' dragon has legs, wings, a breath weapon, intellect and a magical nature. Size usually indicates age and thus power, but exceptions exist.

A less pure dragon can drop up to 3 of those 5 before it ceases to be a dragon of some variety. So for example wyverns lack two legs, a breath weapon and often a magical nature or intelligence but are still dragons (though often treated as second rate dragons but thats not the point), as are drakes that lack wings and often breath weapons.

If you cease to appear lizardy or serpenty enough you also lose dragon status, no refunds.

Cazero
2015-06-15, 03:45 AM
Tarrasque is the name of a specific folklore dragon of France. Yet in D&D, the tarrasque is not a dragon at all. The same is true (to an extent) for the wyvern. Dragons from classic european lore were savage beasts, most of them barely self aware. Nothing like asian dragons, who were highly intelligent and mystical creatures.

Calling something a dragon (or a troll, or a goblin, or a dwarf...) is an entirely lore-specific thing. If you want your universe to have the D&D monster manual official seal of approval, your dragons must have high intellect, four legs, wings, a breath weapon, thick scales, and a convenient color coding. There is nothing wrong with subverting that expectation, deliberately or not.

I think the most important points are the reptilian nature, the massive size and the physical power that goes with them. Without those, calling something a dragon start to be a deliberate attempt to screw with people.

Eldan
2015-06-15, 06:24 AM
Yes. The modern conception of the huge kind of dragon probably stems from either Grendel or Jormungand (who aren't technically dragons, but they're certainly huge), not from some nameless critter St. George fought.

Fafnir, as mentioned above. Huge, poisonous, intelligent. I forgot about that one, I must admit.

Yora
2015-06-15, 06:44 AM
A dragon has to be a big lizard with long legs and a long tail. Everything else is optional. Having wings and breathing fire are very common, though.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-15, 07:26 AM
A dragon has to be a big lizard with long legs and a long tail. Everything else is optional. Having wings and breathing fire are very common, though.

Legs be optional, lizard be optional, big be optional.

I personally love serpentine (rhymes with Constantine) dragons, with or without legs.

Milo v3
2015-06-15, 07:36 AM
Weren't the original dragons just sea serpents?

DigoDragon
2015-06-15, 08:09 AM
My personal definition for a dragon has one head, one tail, four legs, and one pair of wings. Breath-weapons, spell-casting, and intelligence are optional, but useful.


Notice the trend? Small, bestial, often quite pitiful looking.

And sometimes sporting a nice crown. :3

Mastikator
2015-06-15, 08:14 AM
No it'd be more like an ape saying it's a human. A human is an ape but not all apes are humans.
I thought the classification went
Dragon
-> Wyvern
-> Wym
-> Drake


Like
Canine
-> Dog
-> Wolf

But you're saying it's the other way around?
Wyvern
-> Dragon

Milo v3
2015-06-15, 08:26 AM
Inevitable TvTropes Link (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurDragonsAreDifferent).

TheCountAlucard
2015-06-15, 08:32 AM
Size/Type: Large DragonWould ya look at that. :smallamused:

Psyren
2015-06-15, 08:42 AM
When it turns into a driveway.

(Didn't we do this thread already?)

TheCountAlucard
2015-06-15, 08:52 AM
(Didn't we do this thread already?)Very much so.

Yora
2015-06-15, 10:24 AM
Legs be optional, lizard be optional, big be optional.

I personally love serpentine (rhymes with Constantine) dragons, with or without legs.

It also does not need to be called a dragon.

http://img.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/behold-a-satan.jpg

Segev
2015-06-15, 11:05 AM
(Didn't we do this thread already?)

We just keep dragin' the point out.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-15, 12:28 PM
It also does not need to be called a dragon.

Neither does a giant winged lizard. A giant winged lizard could be called a demon, a doomlizard, a smerp, an 'oh no it's coming run', a giant winged lizard, or many other things. So while a giant serpent does not need to be called a dragon, neither does a giant winged lizard.

I fully expect a 'but a dragon is commonly seen as a blahblahblah firebreathing doomlizard lalala demon *insert words here* you're wrong' reply (which with the modern image of a dragon is a perfectly valid response), but my point is, that just because something does not fit a specific definition of something does not mean that a specific name cannot be used. Do you look at a German Shepherd and say 'that can't be a dog, it's too big, the legs are too long, and the coat isn't a single colour'. So I'd argue that the following is the key trait of a dragon: being reptilian. Then you must satisfy a few of the following conditions:
-Predatory
-Large
-Winged
-Fire Breathing
-Intelligent
-Looks totally badass


We just keep dragin' the point out.


Time for the 'Dragons, a monster that should not exist' thread?

Fiery Diamond
2015-06-15, 03:16 PM
When it turns into a driveway.

(Didn't we do this thread already?)


I thought I was the only one who remembered that song! Excellent!

With regards to the topic: "if the setting calls it a dragon, it's a dragon" is my general philosophy. That said, I prefer "person" dragons to "beast" dragons. This is one reason I like shape-shifting dragons. It's easier to recognize that the fire-breathing, winged lizard bigger than any other animal of the land or sky is a person if he/she can shapechange into a humanoid form.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-15, 03:26 PM
A dragon has to be a big lizard with long legs and a long tail. Everything else is optional. Having wings and breathing fire are very common, though.

In Alien 3 they called that alien-dog a dragon and it wasn't a lizard. Of course they were mostly ignorant, brutish convicts on a penal colony. Also, that was a terrible movie.

Closet_Skeleton
2015-06-15, 06:09 PM
With regards to the topic: "if the setting calls it a dragon, it's a dragon" is my general philosophy.

Its the only one that really works, but then you always have "The X3-Dragon is a two man spacefighter with an inbuilt faster than light drive" settings where you'd probably say that the Dragons aren't Dragons but vehicles named after Dragons. Or settings like ASoIaF where 'dragons' can mean either a member of a certain dynasty, a large fire breathing lizard or a type of coinage (or is that another setting? I forget).

So clearly the 'some form of reptile' bit is at least useful.


Weren't the original dragons just sea serpents?

Sea Serpent and dragon have been synonymous, but 'original dragon' is a case of bookkeeping. One could say 'oldest thing I choose to put the world dragon on' or 'oldest use of the word dragon or its root words' and either could be considered 'the original dragon'.

Reltzik
2015-06-15, 07:52 PM
When does a dragon stop being a dragon?

When the PCs kill it and chop it into parts to sell for absurd prices. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya7mwQYeICQ) :smallamused:

More seriously, as I'm sure everyone knows, there's a hell of a lot of grey area. You can deviate by the DnD standard quite a bit and still have a dragon. But the more you deviate... and the more WAYS in which you deviate... the harder it will be to sell the "dragon" label to your players.

Some of the most important things:

Physical threat. These things must be serious threats, at least for their size. Nothing robs a dragon of its dragonness quite like being a pushover. Dragons should be physically tough and intimidating. Getting killed in a single round should be preying on the mind of all witnesses. Ideally, a single dragon could level buildings without much difficulty and be a threat to an entire village or even city on its own.

Physical features. Start with the original mythical fusion of animals -- horse's head and skin and body that is lizard, snake, or both. You can vary the details a bit. Add bat wings and a shorter, stockier body (like a komodo dragon) if you want a European dragon, or make it long and snakelike (with or without lizard feet) if you want an Eastern dragon. Both sell equally well. Legs are optional, especially in aquatic environments, but if you push it beyond two pairs of legs you're in for a challenge. You can substitute bird feet for lizard easily. A crocodile's head or even a dog's head work just as well, but you need a snout, lotsa teeth, two eyes, and ears on the side. Scales are important. You can get away with a bit of hair here and there, especially tufts near where men usually have beards or mustaches, but if you cover the entire thing with fur it won't be a dragon. The same with feathers -- bits here and there are okay, especially on the wings (you can easily claim the coatl is another type of dragon) but scales must predominate. Avoid parts from invertebrates. No chitinous exoskeleton, no crab claws, no scorpion stingers, no mandibles. Dinosaur features are awesome all around.


Less important:

Breath weapon. Fire is traditional, but almost anything dangerous will fly, especially among veteran DnD players. (A cone of glass shards? The crystal dragon from AD&D had that IIRC. A beam of sunlight so intense it incinerates everything it touches? I can think of at least three Bahamut summons from Final Fantasy.) You can get away without having this, but expect people to assume it or at least anticipate it.

Flying: You can shake this up and still have a dragon. It's not a hard sell at all to have a wingless, burrowing dragon or a wingless, swimming dragon. But again, players will expect it until proven wrong.

Intelligence: You can have or discard this at will. But if you get rid of it, let it keep a level of animal cunning and unpredictability. Otherwise it becomes a pushover, and that's a big problem. Even in Reign of Fire, the dragons knew enough to come for you where you lived and attack when and where you weren't expecting.

Magic: It helps. Especially when you need to explain why the square-cube law ran away from dragonfear. But it's not essential.

Jay R
2015-06-15, 07:54 PM
I have deliberately changed how dragons (and many other monsters) work, to put the mysteries of fantasy back in the game. My introduction to the game includes the following:

DO NOT assume that you know anything about any fantasy creatures. I will re-write many monsters and races, introduce some not in D&D, and eliminate some. The purpose is to make the world strange and mysterious. It will allow (require) PCs to learn, by trial and error, what works. Most of these changes I will not tell you in advance. Here are a couple, just to give you some idea what I mean.
1. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefits of the PCs.
2. Of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, and orcs, at least one does not exist, at least one is slightly different from the books, and at least one is wildly different.
3. Several monsters have different alignments from the books.
4. The name of an Undead will not tell you what will or won’t hurt it.
5. The first time you see a member of a humanoid race, I will describe it as a “vaguely man-shaped creature.” This could be a kobold, an elf, or an Umber Hulk until you learn what they are.

Dienekes
2015-06-15, 08:42 PM
I have deliberately changed how dragons (and many other monsters) work, to put the mysteries of fantasy back in the game. My introduction to the game includes the following:

DO NOT assume that you know anything about any fantasy creatures. I will re-write many monsters and races, introduce some not in D&D, and eliminate some. The purpose is to make the world strange and mysterious. It will allow (require) PCs to learn, by trial and error, what works. Most of these changes I will not tell you in advance. Here are a couple, just to give you some idea what I mean.
1. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefits of the PCs.
2. Of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, and orcs, at least one does not exist, at least one is slightly different from the books, and at least one is wildly different.
3. Several monsters have different alignments from the books.
4. The name of an Undead will not tell you what will or won’t hurt it.
5. The first time you see a member of a humanoid race, I will describe it as a “vaguely man-shaped creature.” This could be a kobold, an elf, or an Umber Hulk until you learn what they are.

Wouldn't a character who lives in this setting know some of these things? Seems kind of like deliberately hiding information just to say "Gotch ya, made you look like a fool!" for no real reason.

TurboGhast
2015-06-16, 07:29 AM
Wouldn't a character who lives in this setting know some of these things? Seems kind of like deliberately hiding information just to say "Gotch ya, made you look like a fool!" for no real reason.

Some of said things, yes. All of those things, not quite. Hiding information can work as long as it isn't just pointlessly being a grognard. Use lack of info when it increases tension to not know, and occasionally a bit more to make sure that it isn't ultrametagameable.

(Yay, using terms before you know what they mean...)

Jay R
2015-06-16, 10:24 AM
Wouldn't a character who lives in this setting know some of these things? Seems kind of like deliberately hiding information just to say "Gotch ya, made you look like a fool!" for no real reason.

In general, they all grew up in an isolated village, and don't have a lot of knowledge of the world.

In specific,
1. They do know that dragons are not color-coded for the benefits of the PCs.

2. They have heard stories about all of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, and orcs. But neither gnomes or halflings exist. The people who think they've seen them actually saw the Fair Folk of Prydain, who deliberately hide from humans when possible. (The party is now friends of the Fair Folk.) Goblins aren't that close to the stories, being half instinctual and much easier to break morale when their leaders are dead. [The players have now learned how to defeat goblin hordes.) After a long genocidal war; the only dwarves left alive are held as slaves by the giants, but nobody outside the giant halls knows that they exist. 200 years ago, they were standard dwarves. When they are rescued, they will be much more distrustful and cynical, from 200 years of slavery. The players know all about elves. They know that elves are wonderful, marvellous, fantastic, glamorous, enchanting, and terrific. And this is all true. But when the elves finally show up, they will be the elves from Terry Pratchett's Lords and Ladies. As Pratchett put it.


Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.

The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.

Nobody ever said elves were nice.

3. Travelers' brags and old wives' tales are not particularly precise about alignment. And eventually I want them to stumble into a long-running war of humans trying to exterminate the Chaotic Evil orcs, and to eventually figure out that orcs are no more a single alignment than humans are. They're just trying to defend themselves against the "Lawful Evil" humans who keep invading.

4. The Death Lord is still creating different kinds of undead. The party has fought four different versions of zombies already. Since the first time some of them appeared on this world was to face the PCs, obviously, they had never heard about them. My words in the introduction were intended to prepare the players for this sort of thing.

5. They've heard travelers talk about slaying monsters, but most of them were liars, and the rest didn't describe their looks in great detail. So when the party first saw goblins, they were just "vaguely man-shaped creatures.” When they saw Orogs in daylight, I pointed out their great size. When they saw an evil priest in semi-darkness, from behind, with a cloak, from fifty feet away, I told them he was a "cloaked shape”.

The players seem to be enjoying exploring a strange world.

Ettina
2015-06-16, 04:46 PM
What about a bearded dragon?

http://www.petco.com/assets/product_images/live_animal/beardedDragon_D.jpg

Bad Wolf
2015-06-16, 11:55 PM
As long as it has four legs, wings, scales, some sort of breath weapon, and a fascination with treasure, its a dragon.

Ninjaxenomorph
2015-06-17, 11:04 AM
OP's friend here. I enjoy different interpretations of dragons as much as the next guy, but my argument was specifically rooted in the fact that, in the context of Pathfinder/D&D, dragons have to be some variety of smart, magical creature. This is because of numerous mechanical things that, fluffwise, come from dragons: dragon bloodline for sorcerers (though I admit in Pathfinder that becomes a less and less convincing argument over time, since damn near everything has its own sorcerer bloodline now. Orcs even have their own bloodline.), and the dragon disciple PRC, which is all about becoming more like a dragon, including intelligence. I know that you could do all sorts of reflavoring work on everything, but that kind of defeats the point.

Flickerdart
2015-06-17, 01:03 PM
dragon bloodline for sorcerers
A creature can be magical without being a spellcaster.


the dragon disciple PRC, which is all about becoming more like a dragon, including intelligence.
Fox's Cunning boosts Intelligence, and foxes have 2 Int.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-17, 01:06 PM
A creature can be magical without being a spellcaster.


Fox's Cunning boosts Intelligence, and foxes have 2 Int.

Now we just need Rabbit's Strength, Elephant's Agility, Gnat's Constitution, Adventurer's Wisdom, and Fighter's Charisma (he had to pick a dump stat).

Bard1cKnowledge
2015-06-17, 03:46 PM
A dragon stops being a dragon when it become a dragoff.

I'll see myself out now

Susano-wo
2015-06-17, 06:59 PM
A creature can be magical without being a spellcaster.


Fox's Cunning boosts Intelligence, and foxes have 2 Int.

Yeah, the bloodline argument is weak, but there is a huge difference between a spell with a stylized name and a class that gradually turns you draconic. It can definitely be said that the stat boosts are indicative of the stats associated with dragon-ness.

Of course you don't have to go that far to create a baseline for what makes something a dragon in 3.5/d&D. The games have stat-blocks for dragons, so we can see that intelligence and magic are hallmarks of "True-Dragons." Even the dumbest ones, the bestial white dragons, have a roughly human intelligence(10 at adult, 18 at the highest).

Of course if we are trying to ask when dragons in general become not dragons, I will basically echo congress on pron: I'll know it when I see it. :smallbiggrin: I am fine with all sorts of things being dragons. The only thing I can think of that would be hard to sell me on is if they aren't in some way serpentine or lizard-like.

Ninjaxenomorph
2015-06-18, 08:41 AM
Another thing, more on a meta level, is that one of the best ways to play a Dragon Disciple is like how a dragon would play. Against melee, they fly and fry them with breath weapons and spells. Against ranged/magic, they go in, natural attacks blazing. Literally, with some heritages.

The Dragon creature type also favors smart, magically inclined predators: whopping d12 HD, fast BAB, all good saves, 6+Int skill ranks, with a bevy of knowledge and magic-related class skills. Of course, as things like wyverns and drakes show, it is possible to downgrade that and go for animalistic.

Hawkstar
2015-06-18, 11:33 AM
With all that firepower (And CHA-based casting), why is intelligence necessary?

Ninjaxenomorph
2015-06-18, 11:37 AM
So one actually knows what a spell is, and how to properly apply tactics? Stupid things tend not to live very long

Flickerdart
2015-06-18, 12:14 PM
Another thing, more on a meta level, is that one of the best ways to play a Dragon Disciple is like how a dragon would play. Against melee, they fly and fry them with breath weapons and spells. Against ranged/magic, they go in, natural attacks blazing. Literally, with some heritages.
DDs get one crappy breath weapon use per day, so "fly and fry" is not gonna work.


The Dragon creature type also favors smart, magically inclined predators: whopping d12 HD, fast BAB, all good saves, 6+Int skill ranks, with a bevy of knowledge and magic-related class skills. Of course, as things like wyverns and drakes show, it is possible to downgrade that and go for animalistic.
None of those three things are required for beefy stats. Dumb mundane herbivores would also enjoy having stacks of HD and good fighting ability to defend against predators, and lots of skill points to invest in things like Climb, Spot, Hide, etc. In fact, a dumb creature is better served with those skill points, since its INT is not going to be helpful when determining how many points per level it gets.

Silus
2015-06-18, 12:28 PM
So one actually knows what a spell is, and how to properly apply tactics? Stupid things tend not to live very long

But stupid things have the potential to be massively destructive.

See: Pathfinder Goblins

Ninjaxenomorph
2015-06-18, 12:34 PM
A Sorc 10/DD 10 will have five uses per day of a 20d6 breath weapon. Not especially special, but not what I would call 'crappy' either. I'm using PF rules, since its the system we are using. And any number of creatures would enjoy bigger numbers for everything, but what numbers you do get tend to influence your role. Big HD means you are going to be hit a lot. Big BAB means you are going to be hitting things a lot. More skills means... you're more skilled. Obviously. Let's not overlook, though, that at least half the class skills of the Dragon type require intelligence: Spellcraft, all the Knowledges, Craft, Appraise, Linguistics... I'm pretty sure that's all of the Int-based skills.

Flickerdart
2015-06-18, 01:51 PM
Many of a rogue's skills require Dexterity. Is a character with the rogue class who doesn't take any of them, and has a low dexterity, still a rogue?

Ninjaxenomorph
2015-06-18, 02:15 PM
But stupid things have the potential to be massively destructive.

See: Pathfinder Goblins

Even goblins have basic tactics, being sentient creatures. Plus, they have the numbers to throw at things to get things done. Dragons often don't have that luxury.

VoxRationis
2015-06-18, 02:28 PM
OP's friend here. I enjoy different interpretations of dragons as much as the next guy, but my argument was specifically rooted in the fact that, in the context of Pathfinder/D&D, dragons have to be some variety of smart, magical creature. This is because of numerous mechanical things that, fluffwise, come from dragons: dragon bloodline for sorcerers (though I admit in Pathfinder that becomes a less and less convincing argument over time, since damn near everything has its own sorcerer bloodline now. Orcs even have their own bloodline.), and the dragon disciple PRC, which is all about becoming more like a dragon, including intelligence. I know that you could do all sorts of reflavoring work on everything, but that kind of defeats the point.

Sorcerers in 3e were originally presented as magic-users with innate magic which might have come from many sources, draconic ancestry being one (possibly self-delusional) explanation. Explicitly draconic origins are only necessary if you plan on taking prestige classes (an optional rule, though later works seemed to forget that) or making use of sourcebook content.

Wardog
2015-06-18, 04:08 PM
Sounds like he's played too much D&D and has no experience of wider contexts.

Drake is literally just an alternate spelling of Dragon. You can't have a 'mere drake, not a true dragon'. Unless you're talking about ducks that is.

A dragon can be anything.

To be precise, "drake" is a modern English version of the Old English version of an Old Germanic version of the Latin "draco". While "dragon" is the English version of the Old French version of the Latin "draco". (With "draco" being the Latin version of the Greek for dragon/snake/sea-monster).

Likewise "wurm"/"wyrm" are the Old English for "serpent, snake, dragon, reptile" (and later for "worm").

(It does seem that the ancients didn't seem that bothered about distinguishing between one long crawling thing and another).

Hawkstar
2015-06-18, 09:07 PM
So one actually knows what a spell is, and how to properly apply tactics? Stupid things tend not to live very long

Stupid things that don't live very long tend to not be nigh-invulnerable and capable of bending reality to their whims. They don't need to know what a spell is to instictively deal with it (Either casting one themselves through their presence alone, or dealing with one cast at them by reflex). Dragons also don't really require anything more than the most simple of tactics, thanks to their incredible durability, mobility, and firepower. Now, if they had a D8 HD and 3/4ths BAB, and poorer saves, they may require more intelligence.

No brains
2015-06-18, 11:54 PM
I think dragons should represent the desires of the humans that interact with them. The simplest physical description of a dragon is something that has a lot of stuff people don't; scales, fangs, a tail and a general sense of durability that contrasts against the universal fear of injury and mortality all people have.

Past this, what a dragon has is symbolic of what the hero's society wants. Beowulf's dragon had immense wealth, but no intellect or magic because his people didn't really care about that. St. George's dragon was a visage of evil that had control over some people, but people with sufficient faith found the strength to defeat it. Smaug had knowledge, wealth, the Lonely Mountain, the power of an army, and a legacy- all of which Thorrin's party desperately wanted back. The dragons in Reign of Fire just had a the run of the entire planet and marginal comfort, which was all Mr. Bale & company really cared for anyway.

While anything with a scaly and pointy body could be called a 'dragon', it's sort of the same way one could technically call a Pomeranian a dog or even a wolf. If you want your creature to be a "capital D" Dog or Dragon, its going to need to be much more imposing, clever, and capable to live up to the title given to the legendary beasts that only gods and heroes could fell.

Also by hit dice. A dragon could have 1/12th its d12 HD with crap stats and no specials, but it would be a dragon by the books.

Closet_Skeleton
2015-06-19, 11:19 AM
Many of a rogue's skills require Dexterity. Is a character with the rogue class who doesn't take any of them, and has a low dexterity, still a rogue?

A character with rogue levels, lots of rogue skills (decipher script, disable device, diplomacy, intimidate, gather information, knowledge [local], move silently, search, sense motive and use rope) and high dex and decent intelligence who has been in the city watch for his entire adult life, works as a detective and is LG to a fault isn't really a rogue in any real life sense of the word. He's just a guy with a certain skill set.

A CN fighter who mugs people for a living would be a rogue to anyone who knew him. No one in universe should be able to tell the difference between a PC class and an NPC class, but they would be able to tell a wyvern from an adult green dragon.

People are just a completely different thing to categorise than species.

Honest Tiefling
2015-06-22, 05:56 PM
If the argument against dumb brute dragons is a single prestige class, you...Could just ban that one class or re-fluff it. It's not terribly powerful, it often runs into tonal issues in parties of more normal races, and there are other options for sorcerers. I am not really in favor of Dungeon Masters being forced to run things in their setting a certain way because of a few options presented for players.

To me, the best dragon is a creatively made race that suits the setting. I want new and exciting flavor over old ideas. Especially if it inspires the DM.