So when does a dragon stop being a dragon?

[Silus]

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.


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.


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]

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]

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]

Have your friend look at some medieval paintings of dragons.

Like these:

Spoiler

Show

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

[Silus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

'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]

Have your friend look at some medieval paintings of dragons.

Like these:

Spoiler

Show

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]

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]

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]

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]

When the drake/wyvern/etc insists it's not called a dragon.

[Mastikator]

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]

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]

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.

[Flickerdart]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Weren't the original dragons just sea serpents?

[DigoDragon]

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]

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]

Inevitable TvTropes Link.

[TheCountAlucard]

Size/Type: Large Dragon

Would ya look at that.

[Psyren]

When it turns into a driveway.

(Didn't we do this thread already?)

[TheCountAlucard]

(Didn't we do this thread already?)

Very much so.