Why do female dragonborn have breast?

[turbo164]

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

[Segev]

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

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

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


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

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

[jedipotter]

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

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

[Starbuck_II]

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

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

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

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

[3WhiteFox3]

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

It's really the "sparkle" and the lack of fangs. Their behavior is so-so, tending more towards the feral than the erudite, but they just mainly look and act like a unique kind of monster that happens to drink blood.

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

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

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

[tbok1992]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Vukodlak]

They think boobs sell maybe

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

It's really the "sparkle" and the lack of fangs. Their behavior is so-so, tending more towards the feral than the erudite, but they just mainly look and act like a unique kind of monster that happens to drink blood.

Those are Faries not vampires, all they need to complete the ensemble are annoying voices and wings.

[Frosty]

Do Dragonborn lay eggs?

[Lord Vukodlak]

Do Dragonborn lay eggs?

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

[Gemini476]

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

My personal headcanon is that they're monotreme mammals related to the Pangolin, but that's so completely not canon I dhouldn't even need to put a disclaimer there.

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

[MinMax Hardcore]

"My body is ready." from My Paladin.

[Lord Haart]

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

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

I've once conned a guy into roleplaying a half-human half-gelatine cube girl in a not very serious D&D campaign. Good times were had.

My personal headcanon is that they're monotreme mammals related to the Pangolin

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

[Pokonic]

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

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

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

Hee.

[Gemini476]

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

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

[Manly Man]

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

D&D in a nutshell.

[Sith_Happens]

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

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

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

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

[Ceiling_Squid]

My personal interpretation, based on simplistic assumptions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Phelix-Mu]

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

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

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

[jedipotter]

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

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

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

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

[Phelix-Mu]

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

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

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

[3WhiteFox3]

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

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

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

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

[Phelix-Mu]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Vukodlak]

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

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

But some of them already exist in-game, from what I recall. Female lizardfolk look just like the males, except maybe a height/weight difference.

I believe ecology of a lizardfolk stated that males have one large frill while females have two smaller ones.

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

The platypus doesn't have lips either(or nipples for that matter) but it manages to nurse its young.

[Segev]

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

[Phelix-Mu]

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

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

[3WhiteFox3]

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

Can I sig that? That's just perfect.

[Segev]

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

True. The rapier wits and the long knives of venomous bile are always pointed. ;)

[Phelix-Mu]

Can I sig that? That's just perfect.

Go ahead, sig away. I am honored.

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