PDA

View Full Version : Shower thoughts: the dragonboobs argument on dragonborn



Ralanr
2017-07-07, 11:20 AM
Kinda a dead topic, but something kinda bothered me: how come people don't complain about cat girls only having pair of breast? Cats normally have three total pairs, yet no one is bothered by cat people having only one pair.

Almost as if arguing anatomy in games where Dwarves as a race should have some issues with the sun given how they are depicted as staying underground in their cities or where elves probably stand out like a sore thumb in forests is a completely meaningless argument?


Granted I wouldn't mind if dragonborn sexual dimorphism was less human (body types could just be slimmer for example) but the boobs argument is arguably pointless.

Just wanted to share some boring shower thoughts.

Psyren
2017-07-07, 12:18 PM
I was just trying to stay current! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0676.html)

Millstone85
2017-07-07, 12:32 PM
Other than these races not exactly being evolved from cats or dragons, there is the possibility of saying that catfolks do have six nipples but only the upper two get to be on noticeable breasts.

Ralanr
2017-07-07, 12:33 PM
I was just trying to stay current! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0676.html)

Oh my god I forgot about that one. Lol.

Bohandas
2017-07-07, 01:33 PM
Kinda a dead topic, but something kinda bothered me: how come people don't complain about cat girls only having pair of breast?

I have on occasion

Nifft
2017-07-07, 01:45 PM
how come people don't complain about cat girls only having pair of breast? Cats normally have three total pairs, yet no one is bothered by cat people having only one pair.

1e "catgirls" got you covered:


http://i.imgur.com/3qCI776.png


Regarding Dragonborn, in their original 3.5e body-horror incarnation, they were the result of a humanoid voluntarily changing into a dragon-person. The boobs would be the atavistic remnants of the character's original form.

IMHO, 4e and 5e dropped the ball by making Dragonborn a generic race of dragon-people.

Mastikator
2017-07-07, 01:57 PM
Other than these races not exactly being evolved from cats or dragons, there is the possibility of saying that catfolks do have six nipples but only the upper two get to be on noticeable breasts.

Isn't it more likely that they evolved from humans? I mean they share more characteristics with humans than with cats/dragons/what have you. They are basically hominids.

Millstone85
2017-07-07, 02:10 PM
Isn't it more likely that they evolved from humans? I mean they share more characteristics with humans than with cats/dragons/what have you. They are basically hominids.Shifters are descended from weretigers or werewolves, and kind of ill-named since their whole race is stuck mid-shapeshifting. And there is probably a few races of animal people whose ancestors were druids. I guess that counts as fantasy evolution.

Mechalich
2017-07-07, 02:10 PM
Isn't it more likely that they evolved from humans? I mean they share more characteristics with humans than with cats/dragons/what have you. They are basically hominids.

There is no evolution in D&D. All known settings were specially created by deities. Evolutionary arguments do not apply. The gods chose to create catfolk and lizardfolk and whatnot in their current forms for some reason - perhaps they created humans first and then just tweaked that model a lot (or if you believe the elves, tweaked that model) to save time.

Nifft
2017-07-07, 02:49 PM
There is no evolution in D&D.
D&D 3.5e Rules Compendium, p.130 ... uses the term metaphorically.
http://i.imgur.com/Bp3qH07.png


All known settings were specially created by deities. Evolutionary arguments do not apply.
Not my settings, and probably not Eberron -- which has dinosaurs explicitly because it did not have an ice-age mass-extinction event.

Greyhawk might have evolution.

Dark Sun? Dunno.

Ravenloft? Maybe if it made things worse, somehow.

Dragonlance? Kender are evidence of inbreeding, so probably yes.

Forgotten Realms? I think their ancient progenitor reptiles snarfed the PC races as slaves from some other world(s) anyway, so presumably there's no conflict with evolution.

warty goblin
2017-07-07, 04:32 PM
Dragonlance? Kender are evidence of inbreeding, so probably yes.


Your Dragonlance is off. Most of the sapient species on Krynn were created by the gods in their current forms; exceptions being kender, gnomes and draconians. Kender and gnomes are dwarves altered by the Greygem of Gargath, and draconians are, well, draconians. None of them evolved.

There is I think a passing reference to adaption to cold making white dragons stupid in Dragons of Winter Night, but that strikes me as more one of Weis & Hickman's side jokes than anything else.

Nifft
2017-07-07, 04:34 PM
Your Dragonlance is off.

No doubt -- I've never played there.

Thanks.

Keltest
2017-07-07, 04:58 PM
Your Dragonlance is off. Most of the sapient species on Krynn were created by the gods in their current forms; exceptions being kender, gnomes and draconians. Kender and gnomes are dwarves altered by the Greygem of Gargath, and draconians are, well, draconians. None of them evolved.

There is I think a passing reference to adaption to cold making white dragons stupid in Dragons of Winter Night, but that strikes me as more one of Weis & Hickman's side jokes than anything else.

Its been a while since ive read that book, but isn't that specifically a character (a dragon I think, or possibly a dragon rider) making a disparaging remark about the legitimately stupid whites?

Knaight
2017-07-07, 05:06 PM
There is no evolution in D&D. All known settings were specially created by deities. Evolutionary arguments do not apply. The gods chose to create catfolk and lizardfolk and whatnot in their current forms for some reason - perhaps they created humans first and then just tweaked that model a lot (or if you believe the elves, tweaked that model) to save time.

All known settings were created by deities a minimum of thousands of years ago, and it's often at least tens of thousands. This removes the possibility of a single shared ancestor for all life*, and it reduces the likelihood of speciation for complex organisms pretty dramatically. Allele shifting is still very possible, and judging by how these settings routinely have distinct ethnic groups of humans emerge after the creation point it appears to happen.

*With obvious caveats for aliens and the like.

Coidzor
2017-07-07, 05:20 PM
The principle error is that dragonborn are only sexy to flurries.

Cat girls are sexy to about everyone up until a certain point in the human:animal ratio where it crosses into furrydom.

Bohandas
2017-07-07, 05:28 PM
IIRC Eberron explicitly has guided evolution as a thing that exists. IIRC the way the daelkyr create aberrations was explained as through use of a machine that 1.) creates mutated copies of creatures and then makes further mutated copies of the more interesting mutant duplicates and 2.) dialates time in such a way that millions of years of selective breeding can be fit into an afternoon; or something like that.

cobaltstarfire
2017-07-07, 05:31 PM
The principle error is that dragonborn are only sexy to flurries.

Cat girls are sexy to about everyone up until a certain point in the human:animal ratio where it crosses into furrydom.

Being sexually interested in anthropomorphic creatures is not a defining characteristic of furries.

Millstone85
2017-07-07, 05:32 PM
Cat girls are sexy to about everyone up until a certain point in the human:animal ratio where it crosses into furrydom.Like this 4e shifter versus this 5e tabaxi.http://www.pk1475.org/visitor/referrer/taabyrnaakol.jpghttps://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/a/a2/Tabaxi-5e.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/416

Bohandas
2017-07-07, 05:34 PM
Also IIRC some of the stuff from the fiendish codices implies that some kind of material life preceeded the gods (in addition the the obryiths, yugoloths, ancient baatorans, and elder evils preceeding the gods as well)

Also it's strongly implied in many places that the gods aren't just empowered by mortal belief, but actually generated from it.

BeerMug Paladin
2017-07-07, 05:46 PM
The principle error is that dragonborn are only sexy to flurries.

Cat girls are sexy to about everyone up until a certain point in the human:animal ratio where it crosses into furrydom.

This sentiment amuses me.

Mechalich
2017-07-07, 06:11 PM
All known settings were created by deities a minimum of thousands of years ago, and it's often at least tens of thousands. This removes the possibility of a single shared ancestor for all life*, and it reduces the likelihood of speciation for complex organisms pretty dramatically. Allele shifting is still very possible, and judging by how these settings routinely have distinct ethnic groups of humans emerge after the creation point it appears to happen.

*With obvious caveats for aliens and the like.

Well yeah, but that's not going to get you from humans to catfolk or from cats to catfolk. And the ability of magic to cause macro-scale shifts in form and body type is a much more potent in the context of D&D than any evolutionary process.


IIRC Eberron explicitly has guided evolution as a thing that exists. IIRC the way the daelkyr create aberrations was explained as through use of a machine that 1.) creates mutated copies of creatures and then makes further mutated copies of the more interesting mutant duplicates and 2.) dialates time in such a way that millions of years of selective breeding can be fit into an afternoon; or something like that.

Such ridiculous kludges are not a point in Eberron's favor, and simply illustrate that when you try and shoehorn evolution into an explicitly mythical setting it quickly becomes stupid.

Keltest
2017-07-07, 06:23 PM
Such ridiculous kludges are not a point in Eberron's favor, and simply illustrate that when you try and shoehorn evolution into an explicitly mythical setting it quickly becomes stupid.

I dunno, it sounds like the Eberron version of "a wizard did it." Sure, ok, its a machine instead of a spell, but is that really so much worse just because its got levers or buttons instead of spiderwebs and bat poop?

Mechalich
2017-07-07, 08:01 PM
I dunno, it sounds like the Eberron version of "a wizard did it." Sure, ok, its a machine instead of a spell, but is that really so much worse just because its got levers or buttons instead of spiderwebs and bat poop?

At D&D's level of magical power, if you're going to manufacture new creatures by magic, just do that. Don't go about using magic to alter the flow of time and somehow breed your way to new creatures in the same time frame. It's still 'a wizard did it' because the explanation is nonsensical, but it's 'a wizard did it Rube-Goldberg style for no reason.'

cobaltstarfire
2017-07-07, 08:37 PM
An easy answer to the OP is D&D Dragonborn aren't based on animals known to lactate at all, but Catfolk are.

Though one could just as well argue that catfolk shouldn't have visible mammary glands most of the time either, unless they've recently given birth or are nursing.

warty goblin
2017-07-07, 10:53 PM
I dunno, it sounds like the Eberron version of "a wizard did it." Sure, ok, its a machine instead of a spell, but is that really so much worse just because its got levers or buttons instead of spiderwebs and bat poop?

Wait, you're saying there's things that aren't better with spiderwebs and bat poop?

Huh, maybe this explains why everybody seems to hate my cooking.

Coidzor
2017-07-07, 11:49 PM
@Mechalich: Well, the point was less creating new species ex nihilo, because it wasn't creating new species ex nihilo.

It was painfully and gruesomely mutating and physically mutilating base creatures into others. Like when they took two goblins, smooshed them together, and then doubled-down on the insanity that initial smooshing would have produced.


IIRC Eberron explicitly has guided evolution as a thing that exists. IIRC the way the daelkyr create aberrations was explained as through use of a machine that 1.) creates mutated copies of creatures and then makes further mutated copies of the more interesting mutant duplicates and 2.) dialates time in such a way that millions of years of selective breeding can be fit into an afternoon; or something like that.

And Humans look like them and can breed with just about every sapient race. Which scared the patoots out of the surviving goblinoids when they came to Khorvaire.

Winter_Wolf
2017-07-08, 04:01 AM
I dunno, it sounds like the Eberron version of "a wizard did it." Sure, ok, its a machine instead of a spell, but is that really so much worse just because its got levers or buttons instead of spiderwebs and bat poop?

Duct tape: "because we ran out of spider webs and bat poop."

Mastikator
2017-07-08, 09:32 AM
There is no evolution in D&D. All known settings were specially created by deities. Evolutionary arguments do not apply. The gods chose to create catfolk and lizardfolk and whatnot in their current forms for some reason - perhaps they created humans first and then just tweaked that model a lot (or if you believe the elves, tweaked that model) to save time.

In that case there is no reason to question why lizardfolk would have boobs or not or why catfolk only have two boobs. All those features are artistic decisions, not the result of natural processes.

Psyren
2017-07-08, 11:55 AM
Humans are very rarely the first humanoids in most settings, which makes the term a bit humorous when you think about it.

Keltest
2017-07-08, 12:16 PM
Humans are very rarely the first humanoids in most settings, which makes the term a bit humorous when you think about it.

They are, however, typically the ones to create the common tongue. From that perspective it makes sense they would name things after themselves and in relation to themselves.

Ralanr
2017-07-08, 12:56 PM
An easy answer to the OP is D&D Dragonborn aren't based on animals known to lactate at all, but Catfolk are.

Though one could just as well argue that catfolk shouldn't have visible mammary glands most of the time either, unless they've recently given birth or are nursing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangolin

Though this brings up more questions on Dragons since they can mate with anything.

Edit: I don't know if those things actually lactate, I don't have as much time to read it as I want atm. I'm just assuming all mammals lactate to some degree. I'm probably wrong.

Psyren
2017-07-08, 01:27 PM
They are, however, typically the ones to create the common tongue. From that perspective it makes sense they would name things after themselves and in relation to themselves.

That.... is a pretty damn good point actually. The elven word for "humanoid" may in fact translate more directly to "elfoid." Kudos to you, headcanon accepted.

Beleriphon
2017-07-08, 01:41 PM
I dunno, it sounds like the Eberron version of "a wizard did it." Sure, ok, its a machine instead of a spell, but is that really so much worse just because its got levers or buttons instead of spiderwebs and bat poop?

In fairness, the machine is also a gooey looking thing that is a machine in the sense it isn't natural processes at all. This is the daelkyr body horror/extraplanar monsters from beyond time and space we're talking about.

Nifft
2017-07-08, 01:45 PM
An easy answer to the OP is D&D Dragonborn aren't based on animals known to lactate at all
Maybe Dragonborn can lactate, but it comes out as napalm.


And Humans look like them and can breed with just about every sapient race. Which scared the patoots out of the surviving goblinoids when they came to Khorvaire.
You know, if Humans are the new species on the block, and Humans are weird for being able to breed with anything, and humans are everyone's second-best friend...

That makes me wonder if Humans were created specifically as a blend of all sapient races, for the purpose of working as a neutral go-between -- as ambassadors, traders, and servants to the great demi-human empire.

Humanity is everyone's second best friend because each race sees themselves in Humanity, and that's because humans are composites of all demi-human races.

(Originally "demi-" meant "a component which is stronger than the whole", which is how it's still used in old words like "demi-lich". Demi-humans were the original components for humans, therefore demi-humans were obviously superior. When humans gained power, the meaning of "demi-" started to change.)


They are, however, typically the ones to create the common tongue. From that perspective it makes sense they would name things after themselves and in relation to themselves.
Human languages, like Humans themselves, were created from "what we have in Common".

"The Common tongue" was once identical to the pidgin created by the new Human race, who were "the Common".

FabulousFizban
2017-07-08, 06:57 PM
reptiles. aren't. mammals!

Nifft
2017-07-08, 07:11 PM
reptiles. aren't. mammals!

Yet some nurse: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101029104603.htm

Kane0
2017-07-08, 08:14 PM
Well bug visible breasts arent that useful to humans either, its a sexual characteristic based around social behaviour.

On another thought, a lot of stuff in D&D is specifically designed to be appealing to the target audience for sales purposes, so putting tits on everything you can makes a certain sort of sense.

Ralanr
2017-07-08, 11:35 PM
reptiles. aren't. mammals!

I don't think dragonborn are considered reptiles actually. I can't remember where Wizards said it, but they akined them and dragons more to pangolins than reptiles. Which made it less weird that dragons could make babies with humans.

It still made Dragon mating patterns weird.

Mechalich
2017-07-09, 01:26 AM
I don't think dragonborn are considered reptiles actually. I can't remember where Wizards said it, but they akined them and dragons more to pangolins than reptiles. Which made it less weird that dragons could make babies with humans.

It still made Dragon mating patterns weird.

"Reptiles" in the evolutionary context is a term of limited utility, since it includes all birds and doesn't include a very large number of scale-bearing creatures that most of the public thinks are reptiles (like this guy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimetrodon)). The Draconomicon makes a bunch of comments regarding dragon physical form, physiology, and metabolism that make it clear they are very dissimilar from extant animals with which they share superficial similarity like Crocodilians or Lizards. You can interpret these traits - particularly endothermy and an limb structure with an erect gait, as evidence of an origin from amongst mammals or something mammal-like somewhere in earlier Synapsida. However, there's an equally reasonable case for drawing on something like the Notosuchia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notosuchia) which also had an erect gait and could have acquired endothermy at some point as Dinosaurs apparently did.

Of course, again, we're not operating within an evolutionary paradigm and dragons are a very good example of this: because they would clearly be theropods but somehow they have 2 extra limbs in the form of wings that both do not fit on their bodies and have no way to evolve in the first place.

Logosloki
2017-07-09, 09:18 AM
Dragonborn and Catgirls come from different art traditions and each has their own historical and current art directions as well as their own expectations from their respective audiences and general public.

Now, as for people being more forgiving of catgirls having mammaries like humans. I was able to scour the internet to find out about bipedal or close to true bipedal mammals and their mammary configurations. Primates of course all share a similar body plan in this regard with their mammary glands coverging on two teats and the position being in the upper body, Pangolins are the same but the location is more towards mid body, Sloths though not bipedal make extensive use of their arms and also show a similarity in body plan where the teats are located in the upper body. Macropods whilst being bipedal have a different configuration entirely where the teats are usually located in a pouch closer to the centre of mass.

For an aside - monotremes have mammaries glands but no nipples and so secrete their milk from their skin in certain places on their body and Tenrecs have a wide range of nipple configurations with the largest number of nipples reported being 29, some species of opossum are the same.

So, catgirls get a pass for being bipedal mammalian humanoids drawn by (mostly) male humans using a body plan that is both similar to themselves, close species and with general reference to other mammals that are near bipedal.

Dragonborn might get more ire for having mammaries though because they are not mammalian, dragon females don't have mammaries and there is a group within dragonborn art traditions that want dragonborn to be more dragonlike than humanlike. In some respects it could be that a person may find mammaries on a dragon-like to be artistically lazy.

Max_Killjoy
2017-07-09, 10:42 AM
"Reptiles" in the evolutionary context is a term of limited utility, since it includes all birds and doesn't include a very large number of scale-bearing creatures that most of the public thinks are reptiles (like this guy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimetrodon)).


Edit -- nevermind, it appears that the classifications have been moving a LOT.

legomaster00156
2017-07-09, 12:28 PM
Question: What evidence is there that dragons are, in fact, reptiles? After all, the foremost characteristic of a reptile is being cold-blooded. You don't see dragons laying on rocks to absorb heat, and I'm pretty sure a red dragon cannot be considered cold-blooded. Is it not easier to consider dragons distant relatives of reptiles, and then dragonborn to be distant relatives of dragons?

Beleriphon
2017-07-09, 01:31 PM
Question: What evidence is there that dragons are, in fact, reptiles? After all, the foremost characteristic of a reptile is being cold-blooded. You don't see dragons laying on rocks to absorb heat, and I'm pretty sure a red dragon cannot be considered cold-blooded. Is it not easier to consider dragons distant relatives of reptiles, and then dragonborn to be distant relatives of dragons?

I think its pretty clear that white dragons aren't exothermic reptiles either, other than some surface characteristics that make them appear reptilian.

Ralanr
2017-07-09, 02:21 PM
Question: What evidence is there that dragons are, in fact, reptiles? After all, the foremost characteristic of a reptile is being cold-blooded. You don't see dragons laying on rocks to absorb heat, and I'm pretty sure a red dragon cannot be considered cold-blooded. Is it not easier to consider dragons distant relatives of reptiles, and then dragonborn to be distant relatives of dragons?


I think its pretty clear that white dragons aren't exothermic reptiles either, other than some surface characteristics that make them appear reptilian.

It's probably due to traditional views on dragons. I mean when you first think of dragons, being reptilian seems to make the most sense. But reptiles probably wouldn't work well with the ability to breath fire given their cold blooded nature.

Coidzor
2017-07-09, 10:46 PM
They are sometimes known as flying, fire-breathing lizards.

Nifft
2017-07-09, 10:49 PM
Question: What evidence is there that dragons are, in fact, reptiles?

Probably about the same evidence that dinosaurs were reptiles.

That is to say: misleading evidence.

Kane0
2017-07-09, 11:04 PM
IIRC the 3.5 Draconomicon partially likened them to felines which amused me immensely, especially when thinking of pseudodragon familiars.

BeerMug Paladin
2017-07-10, 02:58 AM
IIRC the 3.5 Draconomicon partially likened them to felines which amused me immensely, especially when thinking of pseudodragon familiars.

I read an art book that basically said that dragons have elements of birds, lizards and cats to them. The art book contained three different drawings of dragons with one of those features being more prominent than the others and it illustrated the point rather effectively. Lizards have bodies lower to the ground, so their walking stance as typically portrayed is more mammalian, with limbs similar to a feline.

Hey guys, how do we even know that dragons are eukaryotic?