# Female Dragonborn - No longer have breasts?



## Trolls

Watch the latest GRZ carefully. If you look closely, you'll notice that the female dragonborn art, which appeared in Races and Classes, has been modified.







Notice anything different?


----------



## Yaezakura

Actually, the proportions are exactly the same. Only difference is, they removed the chest armor.


----------



## DandD

Yaezakura said:
			
		

> Actually, the proportions are exactly the same. Only difference is, they removed the chest armor.



Which, in theory, would indicate that they don't have mammalian-like breasts anymore to hide in pudency, but rather big pectoral muscles, which would only offend few people. 
At least, in theory.


----------



## Trolls

But without the chest armour, it suggests they have nothing to hide. Now we have female dragonborn with large upper chest muscles, rather than female dragonborn with breasts, if you catch my drift.


----------



## Ktulu

Weird...

I don't really have an opinion either way.  Same with Elf ear length, and Teifling tails.  If the players don't want it, it's easy to alter.

Kinda disappointed, though.  It makes the treasure trove of Playdragon harder to pass out.

Ktulu


----------



## Irda Ranger

I think this would be a good change. It's stupid to meaninglessly copy from one race to the next. I want at least a little thought put into "Does this make sense."  Boobs on a lizard are glaringly nonsensical.




			
				Ktulu said:
			
		

> I don't really have an opinion either way.  Same with Elf ear length, and Teifling tails.  If the players don't want it, it's easy to alter.



Yeah, but if you can never find an piece of art that matches your conception of the character, that takes a little something away from the game.


----------



## Ktulu

I agree, Ranger.  I'm just not gonna get worked up over art.  So long as it mostly conveys what I'm looking for, I can shrug a few..oddities.

Ktulu


----------



## HeavenShallBurn

Anyone have the original for a comparison?


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Here you go.


----------



## zerotkatama

Actually, it does appear that the chest has been flattened a bit between the two pics, chestplate notwithstanding.


----------



## VannATLC

> I think this would be a good change. It's stupid to meaninglessly copy from one race to the next. I want at least a little thought put into "Does this make sense." Boobs on a lizard are glaringly nonsensical




Like being warm-blooded?

Dragonborn are monotremes. They'll be keeping mammary glands, but have no nipples, like other momotremes, in my campaign.
They'll have a cloaca, and hold eggs internally for most of the gestation period.


----------



## lutecius

dragons gone wild

I really don't get it, it's like the harpy mini and card... if you absolutely want monsters to flash boobs, go ahead and draw boobs, not those half-assed pecs.


----------



## frankthedm

Glad to see the dragonborn without breasts.


----------



## Ktulu

actually, the only discernable difference is the shiny metal has been brushed darker.  The picture is smaller, but you can clearly make out the same straps that connect the breastplate to the...breasts.  I don't think they've really done anything but slightly de-emphasize the breasts.


----------



## Xethreau

DandD said:
			
		

> Which, in theory, would indicate that they don't have mammalian-like breasts anymore to hide in pudency, but rather big pectoral muscles, which would only offend few people.
> At least, in theory.



I was thinking "because rogues are proficient with leather armor, and not plate armor."


----------



## Moon-Lancer

I didn't mind the boobs so much as the fact the tifling? has a tail and they do not.

do people get upset that yuan ti have boobs?


----------



## Andor

*shrug* Human women don't have large breasts because mammary glands take up a lot of room (look at a chimp some time), human women have large breasts because human men think they are sexy. If, for some bizzare reason, male dragonborn decided they liked bewbs then female dragonborn would evolve bewbs. If this sounds unlikely to you take a look at the absurdities that male birds of paradise have evolved into based on female bird of paradise sexual preferences.


----------



## Ravingdork

I like the change. It makes sense that, with a racial strength bonus, even the females would have big muscles.


----------



## Pistonrager

BAD PHOTOSHOP IS BAD!


seriously they just put a bad "flesh tone" template where the bra was...whoopdi frickendo....

so either they got tired of people complaining(Complaining? are you people idiots it's art for a fantasy game! a female with ! forshame everyone that likes ...)  about  on a reptilian race, or they decided that as a reptilian race they have immediately obvious genitalia when not wearing cloths so they don't always wear it when appropriate.(which might explaine why the picture of the dragon born isn't really wearing pants either...)


----------



## Moon-Lancer

yeah. This is so sexist. Guy boobs are ok, but Girl boobs are not?


----------



## Keefe the Thief

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> I didn't mind the boobs so much as the fact the tifling? has a tail and they do not.
> 
> do people get upset that yuan ti have boobs?




Of course they do - this is the internet. Yesterday i found a hate page for milk.


----------



## I'm A Banana

No matter what they do at this point, it'll be at least a little dumb. They're in a vicious little catch 22.

Dragonboobs are kind of dumb (but really no big deal).

Dragon Pectoral Cancer is, to use a D&D term, a kludge (but still really no big deal).


----------



## Ten

I honestly never understood people's problem with dragonborn boobs.  Dragonborn are not lizards.  I think everyone has some serious issues where they are blotting out "dragonborn" in their mind and replacing it with "lizardmen".  I don't know why, but people love them some lizardmen.

NERDRAGE!  DRAGONBORN ARE NOT LIZARDS.  NEVER HAVE BEEN.  NEVER WILL BE.


----------



## Fiendish Dire Weasel

Ten said:
			
		

> I honestly never understood people's problem with dragonborn boobs.  Dragonborn are not lizards.  I think everyone has some serious issues where they are blotting out "dragonborn" in their mind and replacing it with "lizardmen".  I don't know why, but people love them some lizardmen.
> 
> NERDRAGE!  DRAGONBORN ARE NOT LIZARDS.  NEVER HAVE BEEN.  NEVER WILL BE.




I would find the boobs more acceptable if:

1. The dragonborn weren't so heavily scaled. They seem to have large, heavy armored scales, not tiny, supple scales like a snake.

2. They didn't lay eggs.


----------



## AverageCitizen

Fiendish Dire Weasel said:
			
		

> I would find the boobs more acceptable if:
> 
> 1. The dragonborn weren't so heavily scaled. They seem to have large, heavy armored scales, not tiny, supple scales like a snake.




Because real lizards with heavy scales don't nurse their young? Dragon scales are pure fantasy. Sure, some lizards have horns and things like that, but the truth is ALL lizards have scales that are supple, like a snake.


----------



## Spatula

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> do people get upset that yuan ti have boobs?



Hm?  The snake-like yuan-ti (half-bloods & abominations) have never been depicted with female breasts that I've seen.  Purebloods are supposed to look human.  In any case, yuan-ti are humans corrupted by dark magic, are they not?  Not a race of reptile-people.


----------



## VannATLC

Fiendish Dire Weasel said:
			
		

> I would find the boobs more acceptable if:
> 
> 1. The dragonborn weren't so heavily scaled. They seem to have large, heavy armored scales, not tiny, supple scales like a snake.
> 
> 2. They didn't lay eggs.




Do people not know what a monotreme is?


----------



## Andor

VannATLC said:
			
		

> Do people not know what a monotreme is?




A galley with only one bank of oars? *rimshot*


----------



## arscott

Monotremes = mammals.
Dragonborn = not mammals.

It'n not the biological necessity of the Dragonborn's boobs that make them stupid.  It's the haphazard anthropomorphization that they imply.

 When something looks that alien in some respects, distinctly human features such as big breasts just seem out of place.  If the dragonborn had more human-like faces, hands, or feet then the boobs wouldn't seem silly.  As is, though, they're out of place.


----------



## Spatula

Monotremes are hairy, not scaly, like other mammals.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

arscott said:
			
		

> Monotremes = mammals.
> Dragonborn = not mammals.
> 
> It'n not the biological necessity of the Dragonborn's boobs that make them stupid.  .




Nipples might make them stupid. Or their breasts growing during pregnancy or after childbirth  laying an egg.

The size (and shape) of the breast can just be something to attract males. 
[sblock]





[/sblock]
There is no hard biological reasons why male ducks have such a nicely colored feathers, except because females find them attractive. (There might a weak link between this attractiveness and his physical fitness, but, well, it's a weak link. And some animals actually can get in problems for focusing on its "sex appeal" this way - Elks or Reindeers, IIRC, sometimes grow antles that are too big to be practical or healthy)

The breasts of most female monkeys aren't particular big. A lot more noticeable are usually the buttocks. A suggested reason for this difference between humans and monkeys is that when humans learned to walk upright, the behind wasn't as much in the eyes as the breasts, and so the attention shifted there.  
We might be lucky that the attention didn't get shifted just to the head, otherwise we might now look like the coneheads . (I suppose it was easier to grow fat then bones.) Or maybe this would actually have been better for humans... more space for the brain? (But then, the brain is already consuming a lot of energy, we might get new problems...)
Still, some attention to the head remained - a beautiful face and hair are also very important (unless I am unique in that regard.)

Dragonborns also walk upright. I suppose female Dragonborn don't have the typical fat tissue and more muscles up there then humans. They might also grow more beautiful scales on the head, which to humans might also look vaguely female...

Now, for a twist, they could have made all this as features of male Dragonborn. But I'd say, two gay races are enough 



Spoiler



Elves and Eladrin


 are enough for one edition.


----------



## Lurks-no-More

arscott said:
			
		

> Monotremes = mammals.
> Dragonborn = not mammals.



So _you_ say. Me, I'm perfectly okay with them laying eggs and then nursing their young. It's not as if dragons, chimeras or griffons belonged to any real biological categories either.


----------



## DethStruck

Not that I really like the Dragonborn either way but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus


----------



## Mad Mac

> When something looks that alien in some respects, distinctly human features such as big breasts just seem out of place. If the dragonborn had more human-like faces, hands, or feet then the boobs wouldn't seem silly. As is, though, they're out of place.




  Dragonborn are in a tough middle ground, in my opinion. They don't look like Lizardmen at all. They've basically got Lizard heads on a human shaped body, with scales and claws. I've seen several fan attempts to draw female Dragonborn without Breasts, and it still looks weird. 

  They've basically got the "Minotaur" problem, I think. Drawing Male Minotaurs looks cool and is easy to do (leaving aside divisive issues like foot vs hoof)...female minotaurs present more of a challenge, and I've never seen a female minotaur pic everyone is happy with.


----------



## pawsplay

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Glad to see the dragonborn without breasts.




Will no one think of the scalies???


----------



## pawsplay

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Dragonborns also walk upright. I suppose female Dragonborn don't have the typical fat tissue and more muscles up there then humans. They might also grow more beautiful scales on the head, which to humans might also look vaguely female...




In reptiles and birds, it is usually the males that have flashy display characteristics.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

pawsplay said:
			
		

> In reptiles and birds, it is usually the males that have flashy display characteristics.



Well, but didn't you know that the subgroup of fire-breathing reptiles and birds has this reversed again? It's probably a not so known fact, since they seem to have gone extinct 12.000.000_i_ years ago, but it's true! Source


----------



## interwyrm

It would have been more interesting if they had just made the dragonborn asexual. To reproduce they lay eggs which grow without fertilization.

Oh well.


----------



## Derren

You know what is funny, in every other realism issue in 4E most people agree that playability trumps logic/realism/believability. But when it comes to dragonboobs everyone argues about biology instead of simply saying "This looks good/bad".


----------



## Greatwyrm

Derren said:
			
		

> But when it comes to dragonboobs everyone argues...




The truth contained in those eight words lets me rest easy that it'll be at least another edition of D&D beyond this one before gaming stops being the true sport of nerds, myself included.  Honestly, is there anything else that reinforces the basement-dwelling-socially-inept stereotype we get more than discussions of whether reptile women have breasts and if dwarven women have beards?


----------



## MinionOfCthulhu

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Will no one think of the scalies???




No one should think of the scalies, as they can yiff in hell.

Dragonborn with big honking lizardtits is stupid. Especially given that dragons themselves don't actually have them. You can say "But look at the platypus!" all you want; they don't actually have teats either. They release milk through pores in their skin.


----------



## pawsplay

MinionOfCthulhu said:
			
		

> No one should think of the scalies, as they can yiff in hell.
> 
> Dragonborn with big honking lizardtits is stupid. Especially given that dragons themselves don't actually have them. You can say "But look at the platypus!" all you want; they don't actually have teats either. They release milk through pores in their skin.




Exactly. Dragons do NOT bring all the boys to the yard.


----------



## GSHamster

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> They've basically got the "Minotaur" problem, I think. Drawing Male Minotaurs looks cool and is easy to do (leaving aside divisive issues like foot vs hoof)...female minotaurs present more of a challenge, and I've never seen a female minotaur pic everyone is happy with.




What about female tauren from World of Warcraft?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWuLexxvnRk&feature=related


----------



## lutecius

GSHamster said:
			
		

> What about female tauren from World of Warcraft?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWuLexxvnRk&feature=related



i'm sure it's another rick roll


----------



## RigaMortus2

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> (Complaining? are you people idiots it's art for a fantasy game! a female with ! forshame everyone that likes ...)  about




Just so I am clear, which "people" are you calling idiots?  I need to know if I should be offended or not or if I should report this or not.  Thanks...


----------



## Nifft

This image mathematically explains everything.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Ravingdork

The ability to breast feed its young is the single-most defining trait in a mammal (scientifically speaking). Having scales, laying eggs, etc., are all traits common in non-mammals, never-the-less there are mammals with many of these traits (take the platapus as an example).

To argue that dragonborn have true breasts is to argue that they are also mammals (since there is no such thing as a mammal that doesn't breast feed its young).

Dragons have been classified as warm-blooded creatures in D&D (and therefore aren't reptiles), but neither are they mammals since they don't breast feed their young. If dragonborn share the traits of true dragons (call it genes or whatever else you want) than, like their true dragon cousins, they should not have breasts, should not breast feed their young, and should not be classified as mammals.


----------



## Silverwave

Really. This is ridiculous. Why do we even care if dragonborn have boobs or not. Seriously?
For my part, wheter they have or not, it won't change a freakin' thing! Geez!


----------



## Shroomy

What, dragonborn females without boobs, 4e is dead to me!


----------



## Andor

If I had the artistic ability god gave a shrub this thread would make me draw a beholder with boobs.


----------



## DandD

Andor said:
			
		

> If I had the artistic ability god gave a shrub this thread would make me draw a beholder with boobs.



 And it would be considered an "abomination" by the very own xenophobic standard of the abominable Beholders, who would immeadiately try to kill the boob-holder.


----------



## Simm

Your mistake I suspect was in even thinking that dragonborn was female at all. That is a male dragonborn. It is overmuscled in the chest and shoulder because it will soon grow wings. That area is actually flight muscle.

Note: The above was made up by me on the spot but it's a good piece of rationalization and it fits well enough that I might keep it in my game.


----------



## Stone Dog

Simm said:
			
		

> Your mistake I suspect was in even thinking that dragonborn was female at all. That is a male dragonborn.



Just like T'Skrang.  The females bear eggs and the males bear milk and tend the young.


----------



## Andor

DandD said:
			
		

> And it would be considered an "abomination" by the very own xenophobic standard of the abominable Beholders, who would immeadiately try to kill the boob-holder.




Is beauty not in the eye of the boob-holder?


----------



## DandD

It's central breast would either charm, dominate or avert all magical attacks. Don't forget the boob-stacks...


----------



## am181d

Well, the back story for Dragonborn in the world I'm creating for 4e is that they were created by dragons to be their intermediaries with the humans. So I can go either way on dragon breasts...


----------



## pawsplay

am181d said:
			
		

> Well, the back story for Dragonborn in the world I'm creating for 4e is that they were created by dragons to be their intermediaries with the humans. So I can go either way on dragon breasts...




I'll bet you can.


----------



## Andor

DandD said:
			
		

> It's central breast would either charm, dominate or avert all magical attacks. Don't forget the boob-stacks...




I'm betting charm. Unless the target is a teenager, then it's a dominate.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

I really like this discussion, even if it's totally useless in the long run and meaningless either way. 



			
				raven_dark64 said:
			
		

> The ability to breast feed its young is the single-most defining trait in a mammal (scientifically speaking). Having scales, laying eggs, etc., are all traits common in non-mammals, never-the-less there are mammals with many of these traits (take the platapus as an example).
> 
> To argue that dragonborn have true breasts is to argue that they are also mammals (since there is no such thing as a mammal that doesn't breast feed its young).



Who's arguing that they have "true breasts"? 
The size of breasts has little to do with their ability to feed youngs. They might grow bigger if a female (mammal) is in a "phase" where she does this regularly. 

But they can be big because of muscles or fat in that area.

Or see here:  
[sblock]


			
				me said:
			
		

> There is no hard biological reasons why male ducks have such a nicely colored feathers, except because females find them attractive. (There might a weak link between this attractiveness and his physical fitness, but, well, it's a weak link. And some animals actually can get in problems for focusing on its "sex appeal" this way - Elks or Reindeers, IIRC, sometimes grow antles that are too big to be practical or healthy)
> 
> The breasts of most female monkeys aren't particular big. A lot more noticeable are usually the buttocks. A suggested reason for this difference between humans and monkeys is that when humans learned to walk upright, the behind wasn't as much in the eyes as the breasts, and so the attention shifted there.
> We might be lucky that the attention didn't get shifted just to the head, otherwise we might now look like the coneheads . (I suppose it was easier to grow fat then bones.) Or maybe this would actually have been better for humans... more space for the brain? (But then, the brain is already consuming a lot of energy, we might get new problems...)
> Still, some attention to the head remained - a beautiful face and hair are also very important (unless I am unique in that regard.)
> 
> Dragonborns also walk upright. I suppose female Dragonborn don't have the typical fat tissue and more muscles up there then humans. They might also grow more beautiful scales on the head, which to humans might also look vaguely female...



[/sblock]


----------



## UndeadScottsman

raven_dark64 said:
			
		

> The ability to breast feed its young is the single-most defining trait in a mammal (scientifically speaking). Having scales, laying eggs, etc., are all traits common in non-mammals, never-the-less there are mammals with many of these traits (take the platapus as an example).
> 
> To argue that dragonborn have true breasts is to argue that they are also mammals (since there is no such thing as a mammal that doesn't breast feed its young).
> 
> Dragons have been classified as warm-blooded creatures in D&D (and therefore aren't reptiles), but neither are they mammals since they don't breast feed their young. If dragonborn share the traits of true dragons (call it genes or whatever else you want) than, like their true dragon cousins, they should not have breasts, should not breast feed their young, and should not be classified as mammals.




The problem with this is that you're applying scientific reasoning as it pertains to fauna on Earth, to a fantasy world with little to no ties to scientific logic.

The it doesn't matter if breast feeding is the single-most defining trait of mammals on Earth.  The Dragonborn aren't from Earth.  Even if they were a natural evolution in the world they come from (they aren't, and I'll get to that a minute), that doesn't preclude the possibility that they would have evolved it.  Just because reptilians from Earth didn't evolve them, doesn't mean the Dragonborn couldn't have.

However, as I said, the Dragonborn didn't evolve.  They didn't come about through successive generations of evolution from a prior lizard ancestor.  They were created by the Gods. (According to Races and Classes; the gods took greater and lesser spirits and crafted them into mortal forms; the greater spirits became Dragons and the lesser ones became Dragonborn.)  So if you REALLY must have reasoning behind giving the Dragonborn boobs, there is it: the gods are crazy.


----------



## Leatherhead

Am I the only one that thinks dragonborn could be more avian than mammalian? 

Not every warm blooded egg-layer is a monotreme after all.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

UndeadScottsman said:
			
		

> The problem with this is that you're applying scientific reasoning as it pertains to fauna on Earth, to a fantasy world with little to no ties to scientific logic.
> 
> The it doesn't matter if breast feeding is the single-most defining trait of mammals on Earth.  The Dragonborn aren't from Earth.  Even if they were a natural evolution in the world they come from (they aren't, and I'll get to that a minute), that doesn't preclude the possibility that they would have evolved it.  Just because reptilians from Earth didn't evolve them, doesn't mean the Dragonborn couldn't have.
> 
> However, as I said, the Dragonborn didn't evolve.  They didn't come about through successive generations of evolution from a prior lizard ancestor.  They were created by the Gods. (According to Races and Classes; the gods took greater and lesser spirits and crafted them into mortal forms; the greater spirits became Dragons and the lesser ones became Dragonborn.)  So if you REALLY must have reasoning behind giving the Dragonborn boobs, there is it: the gods are crazy.



What, the gods are crazy for liking boobs? 



> Am I the only one that thinks dragonborn could be more avian than mammalian?
> 
> Not every warm blooded egg-layer is a monotreme after all.



Possible. Wasn't there a discovery recently showing that the Tyrannosaurus Rex seemed a lot closer related to avians then to reptilians?

But does it answer our "are boobs sensible" problem? 

---

The primary artistic goal for Dragonborn Breasts was to convey the difference between male and female Dragonborn. I just came up with an alternative idea that would work just as well - Female Dragonborn grow prominent, beautiful rose scales, and Male Dragonborn prominent, beatiful blueish scales. That fits the avian theory great, since birds often use the color of their feathers to indicate their... "fitness for mating" (attractivenes)!


----------



## Nifft

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> What, the gods are crazy for liking boobs?



 Perhaps they are.

However: those are *my kind of gods*.

Gettin' me some religion, -- N


----------



## Lurks-no-More

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> They've basically got the "Minotaur" problem, I think. Drawing Male Minotaurs looks cool and is easy to do (leaving aside divisive issues like foot vs hoof)...female minotaurs present more of a challenge, and I've never seen a female minotaur pic everyone is happy with.



Have you checked out Frederik K. T. Andersson's stuff on Elfwood? (Warning: Many pics in his gallery are NSFW.)


----------



## Darkwolf71

That this is an issue either way brings me no end of amusment.

That they actually had someone go back and change the artwork is hi-fraking-larious.


I'm just sayin.


----------



## DandD

Actually, didn't one of the game designers (I think it's Scott Rouse) say that the art in the preview books weren't finalized, and would get changed anyway, because of the complaint of part of the community that they wouldn't pay one cent for the books if it contained artworks that would be repeated anyway 1-to-1 in the real rulebooks? Some even said that they wouldn't mind pirating the books if all they got was some developer journal with artwork that is going to be included once again in the core books.


----------



## Alzrius

I haven't watched the latest GRZ, so I'm not certain, but is there any possibility that the OP is trolling us all with a photoshopped pic (I mean, his name is "Trolls" for crying out loud)? Fallen Seraph's post seems to indicate that that's likely.

And if I'm wrong, my apologies to the OP!


----------



## Andor

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I haven't watched the latest GRZ, so I'm not certain, but is there any possibility that the OP is trolling us all with a photoshopped pic (I mean, his name is "Trolls" for crying out loud)? Fallen Seraph's post seems to indicate that that's likely.
> 
> And if I'm wrong, my apologies to the OP!




Who cares? Any thread that has us debating the viability of a platypuss in a chainmail bikini is a worthwhile thread.


----------



## Spatula

UndeadScottsman said:
			
		

> The problem with this is that you're applying scientific reasoning as it pertains to fauna on Earth, to a fantasy world with little to no ties to scientific logic.



Excellent.  I await the return of the 3' halfling, then.


----------



## DandD

You may have them, if you want. Some gaming groups don't even allow them to exist in their game session.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey

UndeadScottsman said:
			
		

> The problem with this is that you're applying scientific reasoning as it pertains to fauna on Earth, to a fantasy world with little to no ties to scientific logic.




Actually, I'd say the problem lies in the very idea of using biological categories - which in the wake of Darwin we know to be, for the most part, historical categories of convenience rather than ontological categories of substance - if you live in a world in which a creature evolved scales, lactation, and 'boobs' then that's the world you live in there's no logic to it except that somehow this combination of traits ended up together and proved not so horrible in its evolutionary context that everyone with those traits died.


So, in the end, the argument must be aesthetic.  And I, for one, think Dragonborn should have boobs.

And now I'm off to sew my nerd merit badge for debating dragon boobs onto my sash.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

arscott said:
			
		

> Monotremes = mammals.
> Dragonborn = not mammals.
> 
> It'n not the biological necessity of the Dragonborn's boobs that make them stupid.  It's the haphazard anthropomorphization that they imply.




It's not even the anthropomorphism.  It's the prurient application of same.  They could have done a lot of things to differentiate male and female dragonborn, but what do they do?  Slap some boobs on 'em so they'll sex up the art.  The boobs are only there to make the books more attractive to 13-year-olds.  Seriously, who would have thought that WotC would be attempting to court the furry (scaly) fetishists?  But here you have it.

Also, looking at the new art, it seems less like they've removed the boobs as that they've removed her armour and that she has no nipples.  There are still boobs there, they just made them look like they're covered with monochromatic tan scales.


----------



## pawsplay




----------



## Starbuck_II

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Exactly. Dragons do NOT bring all the boys to the yard.



That is because "dang right they are better than yours. They could teach you but they'd have to charge. "


----------



## Mad Mac

> Slap some boobs on 'em so they'll sex up the art. The boobs are only there to make the books more attractive to 13-year-olds.




  I'm like 358% certain this wasn't a deciding factor, honest. I'm also pretty darn sure that no one went with pawsplay's ninja boobie turtle pic above because they thought it was "hawt".

  It's just a style of anthromorphism that gets used a lot. Just looking at 3rd edition, I've seen Yuan-ti, Medusa, Half-Dragons, and _Dragonborn*_ with boobs, and I sure I'm missing some examples. 

Yes you can argue that all of the above creatures are part human, ect ect and that makes it ok, but the simple fact of the matter is, that isn't why they get drawn with boobs and Lizardfolk don't. The manager of art direction at wizards does not have an official boob and scales policy that stipulates the comparitive ratios of lizard and mammal blood were boobage is officially acceptable. 

  It's because Lizardfolk and Troglodytes are less anthromorphized then Half-Dragons and sundry. Lizardfolk bodies are more lizard shaped, whereas Half-Dragons and Dragonborn and Medusa and all their cousins have human shaped bodies. This is the deciding factor. Now, I'm not saying you have to like the design for Dragonborn or there is anything wrong with wishing they looked more reptile-ish. I just get tired of people ascribing silly motives to the designers without any evidence. 

  Heck, this kind of thing is done all the time, even to characters who aren't humanoid to start with. I don't even know how many 4 legged disney animals I've seen that have conveniently shaped puffs of fur to make them like more feminine to the audience. The existence of furries on the internet does not make all forms of anthromorphism sexually charged. 

  I can't believe I let myself get sucked back into this thread...

*Original version of Dragonborn, where they were basically transformed humans and demihumans.


----------



## DandD

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> I'm like 358% certain this wasn't a deciding factor, honest. I'm also pretty darn sure that no one went with pawsplay's ninja boobie turtle pic above because they thought it was "hawt".



You sure about this? This is the internet, Mac. Everything vile and disgusting happens on the internet. 



> It's just a style of anthromorphism that gets used a lot. Just looking at 3rd edition, I've seen Yuan-ti, Medusa, Half-Dragons, and _Dragonborn*_ with boobs, and I sure I'm missing some examples.



Artists are all perverts. Sexy snake-ladies are one thing to lure horny players into the erotic mysticism that appeals to the sword-and-sorcery trope, where naked women dance with curling snakes around. Yuan-Ti-Halfbloods are just the epitome of that. D&D-Medusas are even noted for having well-proportioned bodies, it's just their head that doesn't look nice. Heck, there's even one picture of some psion-class in the 3rd edition psion-handbook oogling at a naked medusa, because he has some psionic powers that protect his eyes or something like that. 



> Yes you can argue that all of the above creatures are part human, ect ect and that makes it ok, but the simple fact of the matter is, that isn't why they get drawn with boobs and Lizardfolk don't. The manager of art direction at wizards does not have an official boob and scales policy that stipulates the comparitive ratios of lizard and mammal blood were boobage is officially acceptable.



Are there even pictures of FEMALE lizardfolks? We always only get to see their male ones. Of course, drawing bewbies (in exquisite cleavage) is still meant to draw in horny people.  


> It's because Lizardfolk and Troglodytes are less anthromorphized then Half-Dragons and sundry. Lizardfolk bodies are more lizard shaped, whereas Half-Dragons and Dragonborn and Medusa and all their cousins have human shaped bodies. This is the deciding factor. Now, I'm not saying you have to like the design for Dragonborn or there is anything wrong with wishing they looked more reptile-ish. I just get tired of people ascribing silly motives to the designers without any evidence.



For all my contempt I have for the setting of The Dark Eye, I find their lizardmen, the Achaz, to be the best so far. 


> Heck, this kind of thing is done all the time, even to characters who aren't humanoid to start with. I don't even know how many 4 legged disney animals I've seen that have conveniently shaped puffs of fur to make them like more feminine to the audience. The existence of furries on the internet does not make all forms of anthromorphism sexually charged.



Some furry phantasies exactly began because of Disney Cartoon animals. Some others because of Warner Brothers. 

Yeah, the Internet is a weird and terrible place... 







> I can't believe I let myself get sucked back into this thread...



Hahahahahaha... That's because it's true.


----------



## Mad Mac

> Are there even pictures of FEMALE lizardfolks? We always only get to see their male ones.




  I was thinking this too, and I can't remember any. For good reason, I'm sure. 



> Some furry phantasies exactly began because of Disney Cartoon animals. Some others because of Warner Brothers.




  Arg...I think what it comes down to, is that we are all human beings here. The easiest way to make something look feminine to us is to make them look like female women, in some fashion (cleavage isn't mandatory) Naturally, anything that reminds us of women...well you know. And the internet is a truly filthy place. But that doesn't mean Bambi is porno just because of fetishists, anymore than bare feet are taboo just because some people really get off on that sort of thing. 

  Now, you can be all scientific and logical and stuff, and design your alien race so that the females of the species are distingushed by their rippling muscles and flat chests but that doesn't change the fact that the resulting picture will simply not look female to anyone. We're not lizards, and we'll never be able to visualize their ideal of female beauty. 

  But yes, all artists are pervs.


----------



## DandD

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> But that doesn't mean Bambi is porno just because of fetishists, anymore than bare feet are taboo just because some people really get off on that sort of thing.



Bambi is forever ruined for me since the day of porn stars who call themselves Bambi Whateversillyname... Truly, porn can make everything sickly disgusting. 

And the internet is for porn...


----------



## VannATLC

Spatula said:
			
		

> Excellent.  I await the return of the 3' halfling, then.




Grrr.

Did you ever take the carrying capacity changes underhand with Halflings (For being small?) 
That and they need a -4 to strength.. or they all look like pocket hercules.

If, anywhere, it was fluffed that they were magically super-halflingly strong for their size, I'd be better with it. But its not.


----------



## That One Guy

Skimming this has brought me the lawlz.

But would grandma approve of this thread? Tsk tsk.


----------



## Spatula

VannATLC said:
			
		

> Grrr.
> 
> Did you ever take the carrying capacity changes underhand with Halflings (For being small?)
> That and they need a -4 to strength.. or they all look like pocket hercules.
> 
> If, anywhere, it was fluffed that they were magically super-halflingly strong for their size, I'd be better with it. But its not.



Ah, but you're trying to apply real-world physics to a fantasy game... no different than complaining about breasts on a magical reptile person.


----------



## VannATLC

No, I'm applying consistency, or physics, at least.  Not neccessarily OUR real-world-physics.

A Str 16 halfling can apparently lift almost 6 times its own body weight, straight over its head.

This is where my inner consistency checker comes into play, and starts beeping madly.


----------



## Edwin_Su

*Well, the back story for Dragonborn in the world I'm creating for 4e is that they wer*

wel if, the back story for Dragonborn in the world I'm creating for 4e is that they were created by dragons to be their intermediaries with the humans.

Dragons might have studied human behavior for a long time and noticed that during necotiations humen females somtimes tended to show some cleavage that seem to have a possitive efect in their point in the negotiations. 
Even though the dragons diden't quite understand this obsesion of the human male with thise blobs of flesh used to feed the welps of the species.
In their wisdom they might have decided to give the female dragonborn simular features, as they seemed somting the human female used to her advantage in negotiations with human males.


----------



## AtomicPope

raven_dark64 said:
			
		

> To argue that dragonborn have true breasts is to argue that they are also mammals (since there is no such thing as a mammal that doesn't breast feed its young).



No it's not.  It simply points to Convergent Evolution 

Two different species (or races) sharing similar traits.  Happens all the time in nature.  Biology 101.

End of Pseudo-Science Discussion.


----------



## UndeadScottsman

Spatula said:
			
		

> Excellent.  I await the return of the 3' halfling, then.



Not to say the current status of Halflings is better or worse than the old, but there's a difference between what makes sense scientifically and what makes sense in general when constructing a fantasy world.  Scientific inaccuracies can only bother those who know the specific laws and theorem's that are being broken; general concepts like "guy the size of a small child having near the strength of someone nearly twice his size" is a lot easier for the average person to see as inconsistant as it's not scaling, even though it's actually scientifically possible (seriously, chimps, while smaller than humans, are crazy strong)

I mean, technically, dragons shouldn't be able to fly.  At all.  They're too big and way too heavy for wings to be able to keep them aloft without some sort of thrust.  But for someone who isn't that familiar with the how-to's of flight it's easy for them to imagine an ability that birds have scaling to a creature that dwarfs (halflings?) an elephant.  So long as the big creature has big wings, it doesn't set off any alarms.

I'd file Dragonborn breasts into the same category (You know, if you go ahead and ignore the "MADE BY DIETIES" origin.).  The vast majority of people aren't going to know enough about biology to really care about it.


----------



## D.Shaffer

Considering that 3rd Ed dragons can create Nonsterile hybrids with anything that strikes their fancy we're already well into the realm of fantasy land there.  I dont remember anyone complaining this much about half-dragons with boobs, and they're going to have similar issues with Dragonborn, WITHOUT 'They were created by the gods that way' to help things out.


----------



## DandD

I complain all the time about half-dragons. 
In fact, for me, 3rd edition dragons are simply horny animals without any awe and respect.


----------



## hong

DandD said:
			
		

> I complain all the time about half-dragons.
> In fact, for me, 3rd edition dragons are simply horny animals without any awe and respect.



 "Rawr, I'm a dragon!"


----------



## DandD

Seriously, I mean, the very first example of a Half-Dragon in the 3rd edition Monster Manual was that of an Half-Red Dragon/Half-Troll... If you're so horny that you would even bang a troll, it just proves that dragons would also do it with ants, non-sentient rocks, plants, goblins, humans, elves, dwarves, horses, fish and beholders. 
They're literally sex-obsessed geezers. 
I sure hope that 4th edition dragons tons down the horny procreation-aspect that all dragons in 3rd edition suffer. If anything at all, other dragons should show contempt for dragons who do it with non-dragons, the same as we humans look down upon people who do it with goats or dogs. 
Yuck, disgusting.


----------



## tresson

You, my friends, are forgetting the rules of the internet!







Rule 34: If you can think of it there's porn of it on the net.

Rule 35: If there, in fact, no porn of it then there soon will be.


----------



## DandD

I can never ever watch Star Wars again...


----------



## tresson

DandD said:
			
		

> I can never ever watch Star Wars again...




Then my job here is done


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

DandD said:
			
		

> Seriously, I mean, the very first example of a Half-Dragon in the 3rd edition Monster Manual was that of an Half-Red Dragon/Half-Troll... If you're so horny that you would even bang a troll, it just proves that dragons would also do it with ants, non-sentient rocks, plants, goblins, humans, elves, dwarves, horses, fish and beholders.
> They're literally sex-obsessed geezers.
> I sure hope that 4th edition dragons tons down the horny procreation-aspect that all dragons in 3rd edition suffer. If anything at all, other dragons should show contempt for dragons who do it with non-dragons, the same as we humans look down upon people who do it with goats or dogs.
> Yuck, disgusting.



Dragons are strange.. Maybe it is because they get so old and are still physically fit? Other Dragons get boring after a few centuries. 
Hey, some turtle species seem to have trouble procreating - rarely meet each other, and then they don't really know what to do with each other. Dragons just go the other way. 
The Dragon equivalent of the Kama-Sutra must be very... strange. Probably as large as the Dragon Prophecies of Eberron.



> Rule 34: If you can think of it there's porn of it on the net.
> 
> Rule 35: If there, in fact, no porn of it then there soon will be.



Who would have thought that AT-ATs could be so sexy disgusting.


----------



## Spatula

UndeadScottsman said:
			
		

> Not to say the current status of Halflings is better or worse than the old, but there's a difference between what makes sense scientifically and what makes sense in general when constructing a fantasy world.  Scientific inaccuracies can only bother those who know the specific laws and theorem's that are being broken; general concepts like "guy the size of a small child having near the strength of someone nearly twice his size" is a lot easier for the average person to see as inconsistant as it's not scaling, even though it's actually scientifically possible (seriously, chimps, while smaller than humans, are crazy strong)



So humans can't be as strong or stronger than giants, because that wouldn't make any sense to your average person, okay.  Since ogres (in 3e) have a STR of 18, within human norms before even taking level adjustments into account, humans should be, I dunno, 9 feet tall in D&D land?  Of course that puts the halflings back to being as strong as someone twice their size, so we'll have to bump them up further to 6 feet tall...


----------



## Nork

Fact:  If I ever DM a 4e game, the party will at some point be attacked by boobed female dragonborn stranglers.


----------



## Wolfspider

Nork said:
			
		

> Fact:  If I ever DM a 4e game, the party will at some point be attacked by boobed female dragonborn stranglers.




You should make them smotherers instead....


----------



## HeavenShallBurn

What I thought polls showed conclusively that boobs are very well thought of.  

WOTC return to drawing busty hominoid creatures THE POWER OF BOOBS COMMANDS IT


----------



## Andor

Sheesh guys. If you want to get hung up on science consider this. 

A species is commonly defined by the ability to breed and produce fertile offspring. By that token elves, orcs and humans are all a common species. For that matter _everything_ is apparently a species of dragon. Changelings are the same species as any humanoid they can shift into. 

Honestly stuff like this is all too possible in D&D.
[sblock=possibly not safe for work]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]


----------



## Nork

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> You should make them smotherers instead....




But that would kill half the joke!  Seeing how the smother part would be an action that would depend on their physique.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn

Andor said:
			
		

> A species is commonly defined by the ability to breed and produce fertile offspring. By that token elves, orcs and humans are all a common species. For that matter _everything_ is apparently a species of dragon. Changelings are the same species as any humanoid they can shift into.



While D&D takes things to extremes even D&D doesn't get as strange as mythology in that respect.  Also even in the realm of RL science there is significant debate as to just how the line should be drawn for species.  There are quite a few animals that are considered to be in different species that can produce fertile hybrid offspring.


----------



## DandD

Andor said:
			
		

> Honestly stuff like this is all too possible in D&D.
> [sblock=possibly not safe for work]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/sblock]



If it weren't for the cuteness of these kids, I would utterly despise that concept. 
But seeing these adorable abominations/abberations/mutants/freaks/accidents of nature, I think I will accept D&D for what it is and find peace with it. 

Aww....


----------



## Andor

DandD said:
			
		

> If it weren't for the cuteness of these kids, I would utterly despise that concept.
> But seeing these adorable abominations/abberations/mutants/freaks/accidents of nature, I think I will accept D&D for what it is and find peace with it.
> 
> Aww....




Behold the awesome power of cuteness!


----------



## Andor

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> There are quite a few animals that are considered to be in different species that can produce fertile hybrid offspring.




Yeah, I know. That's why I said commonly defined. It turns out there are a lot of problems with that definition. :\


----------



## HeavenShallBurn

Andor said:
			
		

> Yeah, I know. That's why I said commonly defined. It turns out there are a lot of problems with that definition. :\



Isn't it so much fun to learn you've been mis-informed by common cultural interpretations 

Back on topic, how can there be eyecandy without well-endowed humanoids?  OBEY THE BOOBS, THEY ARE ALL POWERFUL


----------



## pawsplay

Andor said:
			
		

> Yeah, I know. That's why I said commonly defined. It turns out there are a lot of problems with that definition. :\




For instance, tomatoes engineered with human genes.


----------



## Andor

pawsplay said:
			
		

> For instance, tomatoes engineered with human genes.




My favorite is the spider-goats.    Although the glow-in-the-dark mice are also cool.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn

Andor said:
			
		

> My favorite is the spider-goats.    Although the glow-in-the-dark mice are also cool.



I prefer glow in the dark fish, keeps the cats occupied for hours.


----------



## Saeviomagy

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

A mammal with scales.


----------



## pawsplay

Then there's the naked mole rat, a mammal that is for all practical purposes cold-blooded.


----------



## Saeviomagy

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Then there's the naked mole rat, a mammal that is for all practical purposes cold-blooded.




And didn't one of the various flying dinosaurs have fur, suggesting that it was, in fact, warm blooded?


----------



## pawsplay

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> And didn't one of the various flying dinosaurs have fur, suggesting that it was, in fact, warm blooded?




Some scientists believe many or most dinosaurs were warmblooded or semiwarmblooded, actually, based on their bones. And there is an argument that the dinosaurs never became extinct, they just got smaller, grew feathers, and took up flying.

EDIT: Anyway, to get back to the point. I can't imagine Dragonborn nursing their young, so therefore I find breasts to be a stupid anthropomorphism.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Isn't it so much fun to learn you've been mis-informed by common cultural interpretations
> 
> Back on topic, how can there be eyecandy without well-endowed humanoids?  OBEY THE BOOBS, THEY ARE ALL POWERFUL




If its good enough for the Greeks its good enough for the Geeks


----------



## Jhaelen

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I can't imagine Dragonborn nursing their young, so therefore I find breasts to be a stupid anthropomorphism.



Remember the Raptorans from 'Races of the Wild'?
They were basically owl-people but the females still had breasts... anthropomorphisms clearly are popular among us anthropoi


----------



## pawsplay

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> Remember the Raptorans from 'Races of the Wild'?
> They were basically owl-people but the females still had breasts... anthropomorphisms clearly are popular among us anthropoi




But hey... I hate absolutely everything about the raptorans, from their undefined relationship with air elements to their weird lifecycles to their level-based flight bonuses. You know what bugs me? To return as an adult, you are supposed to fly, yet to fly requires you to hit level 5, I believe. Therefore, either the entire adult population of a raptoran village are level 5+ or somebody didn't think things through.

Looking at the sample village, it's worse than that... someone apparently didn't notice that adults, particularly leaders, should be fliers. 

Okay, there is one thing I don't hate... the footbow is pretty cool. Everything else about them, I hate.


----------



## Saeviomagy

pawsplay said:
			
		

> EDIT: Anyway, to get back to the point. I can't imagine Dragonborn nursing their young, so therefore I find breasts to be a stupid anthropomorphism.



Well, my point was that mammals with scales are not unheard of, even before you have stuff like magic and gods throwing their oar in.


----------



## WalterKovacs

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The primary artistic goal for Dragonborn Breasts was to convey the difference between male and female Dragonborn. I just came up with an alternative idea that would work just as well - Female Dragonborn grow prominent, beautiful rose scales, and Male Dragonborn prominent, beatiful blueish scales. That fits the avian theory great, since birds often use the color of their feathers to indicate their... "fitness for mating" (attractivenes)!




The difference of course is that, while "dragonboobs" and other concepts that basically make a character look feminine for the same reasons a human looks feminine it doesn't require a fluff piece to tell people that "what you are looking at now is a female dragonborn".

They do the picture at the start of the race section showing each of the races ... however, in general, if you need to stop and explain what is defining a character as female, it is not as useful as a method that does so without words. Thus, the artistic goal is better met through a universal 'sign' people already accept. Other signs could be included of course.

Ultimately, there is a reason that every player race is humanoid, that all the main Star Trek races are humanoids, etc ... they are all basically humans just with emphasis on certain traits of a human and given some makeup to look a bit different. They had to make the dragon player race humanoid because all main PC races have to be humanoid. There is probably much more wrong with dragonborn having legs and arms and other features of a human than there is with the creature having breasts on top of everything else.


----------



## pawsplay

Dragonborn are humanoid so they can wear clothes, use weapons, perform kung fu, etc. Breasts, however, serve no purpose. You could make the same drawing with or without drabonboobs, and it would be about the same. Unless, of course, dragonborn really do nurse their young. Which seems implausible. I'm okay with any level of anthropomorphism that allows them to work as characters, up to and including speaking English for our benefit in the tie-in novels. But boobs seem so gratuitous.  

"Um, it's female," sounds exactly like the conversation PCs should be having about a dragonborn, IMO.


----------



## Evilhalfling

Keefe the Thief said:
			
		

> Of course they do - this is the internet. Yesterday i found a hate page for milk.




Sigged!


----------



## Mad Mac

> They do the picture at the start of the race section showing each of the races ... however, in general, if you need to stop and explain what is defining a character as female, it is not as useful as a method that does so without words. Thus, the artistic goal is better met through a universal 'sign' people already accept. Other signs could be included of course.




  This is what I've been saying. Although, other signs are tough to come up with. Dragon Dresses? Dragon long girly hair? Dragon eyelashes? Most of the usual techniques don't work, honestly.

  I guess you could give them Dragon junk in the trunk...


----------



## HeavenShallBurn

Mad Mac said:
			
		

> I guess you could give them Dragon junk in the trunk...



Dragon with ghetto booty, now there's a mental image not to get.


----------



## Andor

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Dragon with ghetto booty, now there's a mental image not to get.




Or this...
[sblock]

[/sblock]


----------



## Quenditar

Dragons (and dragonborn) aren't lizards.  They're archosaurs.  (Technically they aren't anything, but they look and act most like archosaurs, and that's where everyone trying to find a real-world parallel looks.)  However, archosaurs don't have boobs either.  Which is why dragons and dragonborn look wrong with them.  I understand the signal set "vertical torso, flat = human male/child" and "vertical torso, boobs = human adult female", but I feel the artist is insulting my intelligence by assuming I can't understand any other system.

Also, huge boobs on creatures that shouldn't have them are associated with yiff, and yiff is not something I want in my game.

As for the gods - there are ten thousand sorts of creatures in the world, of which how many like boobs?  Five?  Who's catering to the other 9,995?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Dragonborn are humanoid so they can wear clothes, use weapons, perform kung fu, etc. Breasts, however, serve no purpose. You could make the same drawing with or without drabonboobs, and it would be about the same. Unless, of course, dragonborn really do nurse their young. Which seems implausible. I'm okay with any level of anthropomorphism that allows them to work as characters, up to and including speaking English for our benefit in the tie-in novels. But boobs seem so gratuitous.
> 
> "Um, it's female," sounds exactly like the conversation PCs should be having about a dragonborn, IMO.



Why do we need clothes, weapons and kung fu, but not the ability to distinguish between male and female? I think all these aspects are important for people to be able to identify with a race.



> I understand the signal set "vertical torso, flat = human male/child" and "vertical torso, boobs = human adult female", but I feel the artist is insulting my intelligence by assuming I can't understand any other system.



It's not about insulting intelligence, it's about identification.


----------



## 0bsolete

Well, if we are going to decide that the dragonborn are reptilian, then my worries aren't about the problems with boobs. What about artic campaigns? How does the cold blooded dragonborn handle that. Do they have to spend 14 hours sunbaking just to be able to function? What about usage of poisons. Does cold based damage cause stunning or loss of dexterity since it affects their blood temperature more so? How do dragonborn develop a self-identity, social skills, or even the most base aspects of interpersonal definition and relations if they are never actually taught by a parental figure? Can there be such thing a dragonborn town if there is no such thing as a dragonborn family?

To sum it up. In my campaigns, dragonborn will have boobs. Not because I am a perv but instead, simply because if I assume they are reptilian and thus unable to have boobs, I also have to make my dragonborn players socially inept characters with no effective understanding of interpersonal communications and a vital need to sit in the sun for a time period or potentially die because their blood is too cold while also blocking them off from various temperature ranges, not even taking into account inner-mountain dungeons, anything underground for long periods of time much less anything to do with the underdark. 

Yes, there are many ways to say something is female. But the most obvious IS indeed boobs. So that'll work for my fantasy. Game. I'm playing a game in which people create something out of nothing, defy gravity, fight creatures that fly, breath pure elements and where cold is a sentient lifeform. Boobs on a creature that looks to be a human with some scales and a bit of plastic surgery isn't my chief concern if I'm bringing in evolutionary patterns and physics.

Also, if there is no family for a dragonborn, there is no real learning for a dragonborn. Not in the way we think of it. So, this means we have a creature that lived at least a portion of its life fully on instincts. No language, no writing, no abstract concepts, pure instinct. This means that, even after mutliple years in civilization we have an entire race created towards "Thurg no like elf, thurg smash" because of a lack of even the most base concept of social interaction. Which would you prefer people? Clearly sexually defined dragonborn, or a race with more problems than they are worth?


----------



## DandD

Meh, in the end, it depends on the gaming group. Some don't want Dragonborn females to have breasts with nipples, because they feel like perverts who are all into that yffing stuff and whatever abominable thing the internet spawned, and others don't have a problem with that. 

As for the matter, I am curious what the picture of the female dragonborns will look like in the Players Handbook. 

Hahahahahaha...


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Why do we need clothes, weapons and kung fu, but not the ability to distinguish between male and female? I think all these aspects are important for people to be able to identify with a race.
> 
> It's not about insulting intelligence, it's about identification.




Suggesting that boobs are the only or best way to differentiate male and female is most certainly insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved.

If you want good gender differentiation in a fantasy reptilian species, just look at the Iksar from EQ/EQ2. No boobs, but different body-shapes, and importantly head/crest shapes make them very distinct from each other, and perfectly easy to identify with.

http://vnmedia.ign.com/eq2vault.ign.com/images/races/300x300_iksar_31may05.gif

That's a terrible picture, too, in-game they look much better. We don't need no boobs on our lizardfolk, stranger!


----------



## Piratecat

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> If you want good gender differentiation in a fantasy reptilian species, just look at the Iksar from EQ/EQ2.



Pff. 4e is SUCH a computer game!  

Hey RE, drop me a note with your email. I tried to email you ages ago, but your ENW account has an old address that now bounces. Thanks.


----------



## 0bsolete

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Suggesting that boobs are the only or best way to differentiate male and female is most certainly insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved.
> 
> If you want good gender differentiation in a fantasy reptilian species, just look at the Iksar from EQ/EQ2. No boobs, but different body-shapes, and importantly head/crest shapes make them very distinct from each other, and perfectly easy to identify with.
> 
> http://vnmedia.ign.com/eq2vault.ign.com/images/races/300x300_iksar_31may05.gif
> 
> That's a terrible picture, too, in-game they look much better. We don't need no boobs on our lizardfolk, stranger!




Of course, when we look at the picture, we note that these creatures look human. Do you also have problems with dragonborn being bipedal? Most lizards aren't bipedal. What about abstract thinking? Usage of weapons and armor. Having thumbs. In fact, even relying on vision instead of smell or other senses. These are humans with a dragon touch, not lizards made bipedal.


----------



## DandD

Yo, any Wizardy 7/8-players here? How big-breasted were your female Dracons? 

D&D is so Wizardry... And Wizardry started as a computer-clone of D&D.


----------



## Mad Mac

> Yo, any Wizardy 7/8-players here? How big-breasted were your female Dracons?




  *Shakes Fist* I've restarted Wizardry 8 too many times in my life already. Don't go tempting me to reinstall it, darn you!



> Suggesting that boobs are the only or best way to differentiate male and female is most certainly insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved.
> 
> If you want good gender differentiation in a fantasy reptilian species, just look at the Iksar from EQ/EQ2. No boobs, but different body-shapes, and importantly head/crest shapes make them very distinct from each other, and perfectly easy to identify with.




Honestly...she'd look better with Boobs. (I'm assuming the skinny one with bat ears is female and that fat toad is male...but I guess I could be wrong) If nothing else, it would offset her head and make her look less off balance.


----------



## Andor

0bsolete said:
			
		

> Well, if we are going to decide that the dragonborn are reptilian, then my worries aren't about the problems with boobs. What about artic campaigns? How does the cold blooded dragonborn handle that. Do they have to spend 14 hours sunbaking just to be able to function? What about usage of poisons. Does cold based damage cause stunning or loss of dexterity since it affects their blood temperature more so? How do dragonborn develop a self-identity, social skills, or even the most base aspects of interpersonal definition and relations if they are never actually taught by a parental figure? Can there be such thing a dragonborn town if there is no such thing as a dragonborn family?
> 
> To sum it up. In my campaigns, dragonborn will have boobs. Not because I am a perv but instead, simply because if I assume they are reptilian and thus unable to have boobs, I also have to make my dragonborn players socially inept characters with no effective understanding of interpersonal communications and a vital need to sit in the sun for a time period or potentially die because their blood is too cold while also blocking them off from various temperature ranges, not even taking into account inner-mountain dungeons, anything underground for long periods of time much less anything to do with the underdark.
> 
> Yes, there are many ways to say something is female. But the most obvious IS indeed boobs. So that'll work for my fantasy. Game. I'm playing a game in which people create something out of nothing, defy gravity, fight creatures that fly, breath pure elements and where cold is a sentient lifeform. Boobs on a creature that looks to be a human with some scales and a bit of plastic surgery isn't my chief concern if I'm bringing in evolutionary patterns and physics.
> 
> Also, if there is no family for a dragonborn, there is no real learning for a dragonborn. Not in the way we think of it. So, this means we have a creature that lived at least a portion of its life fully on instincts. No language, no writing, no abstract concepts, pure instinct. This means that, even after mutliple years in civilization we have an entire race created towards "Thurg no like elf, thurg smash" because of a lack of even the most base concept of social interaction. Which would you prefer people? Clearly sexually defined dragonborn, or a race with more problems than they are worth?




*shrug* I think you overstate the problems. Heck both the Skarn and Rilkans are reptilian +0 LA PC races. And the MM or DMG make no mention of how cold affects creatures with the reptillian sub-type. (Which I find annoying but hey.)


In any event a reptillian adventurer will to well to secure an endure elements spell or ring or warmth before going into the arctic, but there are plenty of cold blooded creatures that operate just fine at the 50-60 degree tempurature range common to most dungeon settings. Heck giant squid are cold-blooded and they seem to die if they get much above 50 deg.

As for socialization I'm not sure why you think that's impossible. Crocodilians care for there young to an extent. Heck even King Cobras  guard their nests. I would be inclined to imagine a clutch laying reptilian species having a communal clutching area and a creche style method for raising their young, very egalitarian. Reminds me of a quote I once heard attributed to a native american. "You white people are strange. You only love your own children. We love all children."


----------



## pawsplay

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Why do we need clothes, weapons and kung fu, but not the ability to distinguish between male and female? I think all these aspects are important for people to be able to identify with a race.




I did not say we did not need the ability to identify a race. But their humanoid features follow from humanoid characteristics. Human breasts on a dragon follow from... an inordinate belief in the importance of breasts in the grand scheme of the universe. Shoot, many humans are not busty at all. Does anyone really have trouble identifying the gender of Mary Lou Retton? So the dragonborn is busty, and doesn't even have mammaries? Please. Why not stick an udder on it? Why not give her long, blond hair? Corset, high heels, chainmail bikini with plunging neckline. Make sure to give her a staff. Chicks dig staves.

I just think it's ridiculous to think we can't identify with a race if their females don't look like Warrior Reptile Barbie. There should be more to a fantasy race than cosplay.


----------



## 0bsolete

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I did not say we did not need the ability to identify a race. But their humanoid features follow from humanoid characteristics. Human breasts on a dragon follow from... an inordinate belief in the importance of breasts in the grand scheme of the universe. Shoot, many humans are not busty at all. Does anyone really have trouble identifying the gender of Mary Lou Retton? So the dragonborn is busty, and doesn't even have mammaries? Please. Why not stick an udder on it? Why not give her long, blond hair? Corset, high heels, chainmail bikini with plunging neckline. Make sure to give her a staff. Chicks dig staves.
> 
> I just think it's ridiculous to think we can't identify with a race if their females don't look like Warrior Reptile Barbie. There should be more to a fantasy race than cosplay.




Your forgetting, this isn't a dragon. Its a humanoid. Look at the picture. Human form with some dragonesque details. Breasts ARE an udder, just one for a bipedal craeture. Long hair? Males in fantasy games have hair as well so thats not a defining feature. And the only way to differentiate between genders shouldn't be clothing choices. A plunging neckline only exists to highlight the breasts. A staff? Guys use staves as well. You can do curves, but even that is a limited method because that could simply be a femenin or underfed male. its easier to simply give them a bit extra chest and boom, you have an easily identifiable female. You see, logically, they shouldn't have many features. Not just breasts. The reason why everybody is making such a big deal about it is because they can't get their mind out of the gutter. What damage does it do? Really? I mean, if people run erotic campaigns, it works for them and makes their game better even if you or I don't agree with the decision. For you? It does no harm. If you don't want boobs, take them out of your game. No harm, no foul.


----------



## pawsplay

Aside from the fact that you missed a lot of sarcasm, in response to your post: I can still exclude them from my game _because they are offensive to logic and good taste_. Other people can like them, but despite my best efforts, I will probably think less of them for doing so. Sorry, that's just how it is. They have no rationale, they serve no purpose, they only distract from the setting.

If Cotton Candy Gnomes and Undead Acne Cysts appear in the MM, I can exclude those, too, that does not mean I approve of the design, or that I am happy having to do so.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

The problem here is that they removed the boobs instead of adding them to full dragons.


----------



## Quenditar

0bsolete said:
			
		

> Well, if we are going to decide that the dragonborn are reptilian, then my worries aren't about the problems with boobs. What about artic campaigns? How does the cold blooded dragonborn handle that. Do they have to spend 14 hours sunbaking just to be able to function? What about usage of poisons. Does cold based damage cause stunning or loss of dexterity since it affects their blood temperature more so? How do dragonborn develop a self-identity, social skills, or even the most base aspects of interpersonal definition and relations if they are never actually taught by a parental figure? Can there be such thing a dragonborn town if there is no such thing as a dragonborn family?
> 
> To sum it up. In my campaigns, dragonborn will have boobs. Not because I am a perv but instead, simply because if I assume they are reptilian and thus unable to have boobs, I also have to make my dragonborn players socially inept characters with no effective understanding of interpersonal communications and a vital need to sit in the sun for a time period or potentially die because their blood is too cold while also blocking them off from various temperature ranges, not even taking into account inner-mountain dungeons, anything underground for long periods of time much less anything to do with the underdark.
> 
> Yes, there are many ways to say something is female. But the most obvious IS indeed boobs. So that'll work for my fantasy. Game. I'm playing a game in which people create something out of nothing, defy gravity, fight creatures that fly, breath pure elements and where cold is a sentient lifeform. Boobs on a creature that looks to be a human with some scales and a bit of plastic surgery isn't my chief concern if I'm bringing in evolutionary patterns and physics.
> 
> Also, if there is no family for a dragonborn, there is no real learning for a dragonborn. Not in the way we think of it. So, this means we have a creature that lived at least a portion of its life fully on instincts. No language, no writing, no abstract concepts, pure instinct. This means that, even after mutliple years in civilization we have an entire race created towards "Thurg no like elf, thurg smash" because of a lack of even the most base concept of social interaction. Which would you prefer people? Clearly sexually defined dragonborn, or a race with more problems than they are worth?



Archosaurs. Not lizards. Archosaurs - crocodiles, dinosaurs, and birds.  Archosaurs are mostly warm-blooded in every sense of the word (and run hotter than mammals), have families with both parents involved in care for the babies (unlike mammals), and some are as intelligent as apes.  A creature doesn't need to be a mammal to be warmblooded, intelligent, and social.  Parrots do it.  And they do all that without any hint of a boob.  Some have no visible (to humans) differences between males and females at all!

And no, I'm not advocating that dragonborn go that far.  I'm okay with dragonborn males being larger and stronger than females, although it is disappointingly uncreative.  I can even live with them walking on their feet instead of their toes.  Just...get rid of the human (not mammal, human) genitals, please.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Not to intrude on the precise science of dragon breasts (much less with my first post of all things), but why should anyone but dragonborn CARE who the males and females are?  Dungeons and Dragons isn't Star Trek, where all the female aliens are just waiting to be sexed up by the Kirk machine.  Maybe it's just me, but I don't want all the races to be "Humans...WITH SCALES!" or "Humans...WITH A TAIL!"  Let's make the non-human races actually _non-human_, and dragonborn is perfect to do that with.

Quite frankly, I think if you really want to differentiate between the two, let's make it a legit difference that harkens back to the whole scale bit.  Females are dull and brown looking, while male dragonborn have a large array of colors across their scales to impress the females.  God knows that'll bring in some interesting character concepts.  And a few blinding ones, but hey, nothing worse then the inevitable dragonborn harem girls we'd have otherwise.

As a side note - dragonborn with breasts are anthro.  Like, that's the very *definition*  of the word.  If you're into that, then by all means, don't let me stop you; but don't say it's not.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Not to intrude on the precise science of dragon breasts (much less with my first post of all things), but why should anyone but dragonborn CARE who the males and females are?  Dungeons and Dragons isn't Star Trek, where all the female aliens are just waiting to be sexed up by the Kirk machine.  Maybe it's just me, but I don't want all the races to be "Humans...WITH SCALES!" or "Humans...WITH A TAIL!"  Let's make the non-human races actually _non-human_, and dragonborn is perfect to do that with.



Making races decidedly non-human and allow people to roleplay them is generally at odds. Yes, boobs might not be required, but all races that are playable need strong ties to human psychology and physiology. You can have dog-warrior races, you can have cat-rogue races, you can even have dragon-mage races, but in the end, they all need to be human enough for us to relate to. 

Really, consider D&D trying to resolve around playing humans alongside with Oozes, Blink Dogs and (real) Dragons. Aside from the balancing nightmare, you will have trouble creating meaningful social interaction and player identification. 
(I mean, I loved the idea of playing an Oozemaster, but even he is still somewhat human...  )



> Quite frankly, I think if you really want to differentiate between the two, let's make it a legit difference that harkens back to the whole scale bit.  Females are dull and brown looking, while male dragonborn have a large array of colors across their scales to impress the females.  God knows that'll bring in some interesting character concepts.  And a few blinding ones, but hey, nothing worse then the inevitable dragonborn harem girls we'd have otherwise.



I like that idea a lot. I guess they didn't go for that, since the D&D Dragons are traditionally monochromatic. That might be a sacred cow that needs slaying (Dragons - color coded for your convenience!), but I suppose we might have to wait for another edition before this happens. (Or an awesome 3rd-party supplement.)



> As a side note - dragonborn with breasts are anthro.  Like, that's the very *definition*  of the word.  If you're into that, then by all means, don't let me stop you; but don't say it's not.



Anthro meaning anthropomorphed? Absolutely.


----------



## pawsplay

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Making races decidedly non-human and allow people to roleplay them is generally at odds.




But making a non-human race human is fundamentally at odds. If they aren't human, you want to maximize their interest value by combining ways in which they relate to humans with ways in which they are quite different.


----------



## Zeborah

MinionOfCthulhu said:
			
		

> No one should think of the scalies, as they can yiff in hell.




Better to yiff in hell than perv in heaven.


----------



## DandD

Easy there, we don't want to have serious insults thrown around here at each another.


----------



## Andor

Quenditar said:
			
		

> Just...get rid of the human (not mammal, human) genitals, please.




Just a quibble, but boobs are not genitals. They are a secondary sexual characteristic unrelated to reproduction, like an anole's dewlap or a peacock's tail.

And, as I've mentioned before, all you need for boobs to evolve is for Dragonborn men to prefer their females with boobs. Maybe they got the idea from hanging out with hummies, who knows? Or maybe they were made by some pervy wizard who thought scalie hot chicks would top his brother Ruprickt's owlbears. 

Secondary sexual characteristics don't have to make sense. Right now there are birds in my yard where the females look like this: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





And the males look like this:


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Andor said:
			
		

> Just a quibble, but boobs are not genitals. They are a secondary sexual characteristic unrelated to reproduction, like an anole's dewlap or a peacock's tail.
> 
> And, as I've mentioned before, all you need for boobs to evolve is for Dragonborn men to prefer their females with boobs. Maybe they got the idea from hanging out with hummies, who knows? Or maybe they were made by some pervy wizard who thought scalie hot chicks would top his brother Ruprickt's owlbears.




While the "unrealism" bit is part of the big complaint against dragonborn breasts, I think the crux of the argument is "It's unimaginative, sloppy, lazy, and panders to the lowest common denominator, and if we wanted that, we'd play FATAL."


----------



## Andor

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> While the "unrealism" bit is part of the big complaint against dragonborn breasts, I think the crux of the argument is "It's unimaginative, sloppy, lazy, and panders to the lowest common denominator, and if we wanted that, we'd play FATAL."




FATAL doesn't pander to the lowest common denominator. It panders to things that live in the damp places under rocks and in rotten logs. Slime mold has more character than a creature that would find that game appealing.

By comparison dragonborn boobs are merely amusingly juvenile.


----------



## DandD

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> While the "unrealism" bit is part of the big complaint against dragonborn breasts, I think the crux of the argument is "It's unimaginative, sloppy, lazy, and panders to the lowest common denominator, and if we wanted that, we'd play FATAL."



 Yeah, I think that's it. Those birds that Andor posted would be a significantly better inspiration for the Dragonborn to be distinguished in male and female, for example. Just give them different colours or something like that. 
In "The Dark Eye", the way to tell what a gender the (warmblooded) Lizardman would have was to look at the colour of its crest. If it was red, it was male, if not, it was a female. 
Of course, Dragonborn aren't Lizardmen, but something similar could very well be applied, like pigmentations on their scales, or perhaps they do also have a back crest.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Andor said:
			
		

> FATAL doesn't pander to the lowest common denominator. It panders to things that live in the damp places under rocks and in rotten logs. Slime mold has more character than a creature that would find that game appealing.
> 
> By comparison dragonborn boobs are merely amusingly juvenile.




Well, ok.

But aside from the FATAL bit, I'd like to think I'm mostly correct


----------



## am181d

Everybody's going to approach the game differently, but the idea that we would use modern day biology and zoology to define fantasy races seems a bit daft to me. (Well, the rigid adherence there to, at any rate. I suppose it's as fine an organizing principle as any as long as you're not taking yourself too seriously.)

As I mentioned upthread, there's a perfectly good justification for Dragonborn with breasts (and other mammalian characteristics): they were created to interact with other humanoids. Done.

Beyond that, there's the mythological/fantasy tradition. I mean, if 4e were a Conan story, would the army of Dragonborn women have breasts? Of course!

Personally, as a CS Lewis fan, I'm all for anthropomorphic animals in my fantasy, but when you spend too much time thinking about "well, if she was really lizardy/catty/doggy, then she'd be like this..." you've taken the right turn to furry town.


----------



## Incenjucar

am181d said:
			
		

> As I mentioned upthread, there's a perfectly good justification for Dragonborn with breasts (and other mammalian characteristics): they were created to interact with other humanoids. Done.




I use this with my own set of serpent- and dragon-derived humanoids, though they're even more humanoid than dragonborn, with their creation being specifically to influence humans (no demi-humans in the setting).

It makes their boobs wonderfully sinister things.

Especially since the males have no analogous tissue like male humans do.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Quite frankly, I think if you really want to differentiate between the two, let's make it a legit difference that harkens back to the whole scale bit.  Females are dull and brown looking, while male dragonborn have a large array of colors across their scales to impress the females.  God knows that'll bring in some interesting character concepts.  And a few blinding ones, but hey, nothing worse then the inevitable dragonborn harem girls we'd have otherwise.




The more I think about the idea I admittingly just tossed out at random, the more I'm sure it's got some serious potential.  In Races and Classes, dragonborn are described as being very tribal, very militant, and very confident in other dragonborn.  I think the idea of garish males would actually help that - colors would show tribal loyalties, and they'd look down on the drab and plain humans and dwarves and the like.  You could even - and I know this is CRAZY talk here - make them a matriarchal society that _isn't_ horribly twisted and evil.


----------



## Andor

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> The more I think about the idea I admittingly just tossed out at random, the more I'm sure it's got some serious potential.  In Races and Classes, dragonborn are described as being very tribal, very militant, and very confident in other dragonborn.  I think the idea of garish males would actually help that - colors would show tribal loyalties, and they'd look down on the drab and plain humans and dwarves and the like.




I'm currently dammed to the humid deeps of Florida. It's a reptile paradise downhere. I'm constantly watching the little anoles battle over turf, food and females. The males do pushups and show off their dewlaps. 

I could totally see Dragonborn with dewlaps and head crests struting about like scaly peacocks. Or worse. I mean have you _seen_ what female turkeys think is sexy?









			
				ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> You could even - and I know this is CRAZY talk here - make them a matriarchal society that _isn't_ horribly twisted and evil.




You've already got Drow and Beholders. What more could you need?


----------



## DandD

Wait. Are Boobholders really female?


----------



## Quenditar

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> While the "unrealism" bit is part of the big complaint against dragonborn breasts, I think the crux of the argument is "It's unimaginative, sloppy, lazy, and panders to the lowest common denominator, and if we wanted that, we'd play FATAL."




Quoted for truth.  Furthermore, reptilian things looking somewhat reptilian instead of exactly like humans with scales and a tail grafted on strains my sense of disbelief less.  But the real issue is that they're pandering to the lowest common denominator rather than showing imagination or logic.



			
				ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> You could even - and I know this is CRAZY talk here - make them a matriarchal society that isn't horribly twisted and evil.




Did you read _Raptor Red_ last week too?  And I like the idea of splendidly-colored males, although it doesn't entirely click with a matriarchal society.  One out of two would still be better than what Wizards has come up with, though!

And yes, all beholders are female by definition, as they produce young.  Why do you think their deity is called the Great Mother?


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Quenditar said:
			
		

> Did you read _Raptor Red_ last week too?  And I like the idea of splendidly-colored males, although it doesn't entirely click with a matriarchal society.  One out of two would still be better than what Wizards has come up with, though!
> 
> And yes, all beholders are female by definition, as they produce young.  Why do you think their deity is called the Great Mother?




Heh, never even heard of Raptor Red.  I just have far more semi-useless knowledge then is good for me, and my mind tends to make some very abstract and odd connections.  It's what happens when you spend too much time under a lake doing nothing much.

A note on the splendidly-colored males, is I think it would work *wonderfully* in a matriarchal society.  The males are going to be trying to do everything they can to get that edge over the others - they want to prove to the females for both breeding and social reasons that they're bigger, stronger, and slightly more painful on the eyes then the others out there.  It's not that far of a cry from real life either; take many of the south eastern Native American tribes in the US, who were at least vaugely similar.


----------



## Incenjucar

Raptor Red is a nice little book, I recommend it for those who are aware that it is a compilation of educated guesses.
_
Watch out for those jerks in yellow, ladies, they just want you for your haunches._

--

The really fun part about the whole "colorful male" thing is if you adjust their behavior as well.

"Why sir dwarf, your dragonman friend is a flaming dandy."

"Aye lad, and he's got more hatchlings wandering around than I have hairs in me beard."


----------



## hong

Whenever I want to enlighten someone as to the perils of thinking too hard about fantasy, I'll just have to point them to threads like these.

However....



			
				DandD said:
			
		

> Wait. Are Boobholders really female?




Now I REALLY want a boobholder for my car. Why don't cars come with boobholders? Great multinational manufacturing corporations, hear my plea!


----------



## Kogan Vurdelak

I think Dragonborn are a great player race, stat- and ability-wise, but I can't look at them without shooting whatever I happen to be drinking out of my nose every single time because I think they're utterly ridiculous and hilarious.  I _had_ to change them visually for my Eberron campaign in order to be able to deal with them.  I went with more of a "dragon man" approach than the original WotC-style dragonborn, which I think of as being a big guy wearing a gigantic silly foam-rubber Godzilla/T-Rex mask that he's looking out of the mouth of (no bite attack?!).  I particularly enjoy imagining the top part of the Godzilla mask flopping and bouncing around, making the mouth open and close boingily as the guy tries to see out of the mouth while stumbling excitedly into battle.

Anyway, they simply needed to conform to more of a human template - like most of the other races - for me to feel like there was any verisimilitude at work.  Admittedly, my design (the green-hued one in color) is a little more Star Trekky than the original, but an artist going for a more dynamic presentation can get this style of dragonborn looking pretty sweet as you can see in my buddy Keith's blue line drawing.  His take on the actual body is a little more humanlike than I imagine them, but i think it looks really cool overall.  My players seem happy with this approach.

And they don't have sweaterpuppies.


----------



## twilsemail

After the rise in thread Necromancy, I hope that there is never again a Necromancer in any edition of D&D.  I mean, obviously they're a bad influence.


----------



## tuxgeo

twilsemail said:


> After the rise in thread Necromancy, I hope that there is never again a Necromancer in any edition of D&D.  I mean, obviously they're a bad influence.




As villain NPCs, necromancers are great. Let's keep those. 

As player characters, not so much. They're not only a bad influence, they're also an evil influence. Generally, the PCs aren't supposed to be evil, so leaving necromancy solely in the DM's purview should be enough, I think.


----------



## eriktheguy

Quenditar said:


> Did you read _Raptor Red_ last week too?  And I like the idea of splendidly-colored males, although it doesn't entirely click with a matriarchal society.  One out of two would still be better than what Wizards has come up with, though!




Male advertising isn't so much to do with who dominates the society, it's to do with the potential each sex has to produce young. The female potential to produce young is pretty much static, each individual can produce X young per period time. The male potential is unlimited, but depends entirely on finding mates. Males go to extremes to advertise, and bright coloration is an example of this. Successful advertising can dramatically increase the reproduction for a male, but not for a female.


----------



## Mithreinmaethor

After reading this thread its painfully obvious that a majority of you never read or have forgotten about the Ecology of the Dragonborn article.


----------



## Estlor

How quaint.  Apparently archeology has advanced significantly since 2008.  Now we know dragonborn were more closely related to birds than reptiles and were probably covered in feathers on their arms and legs.

Really, stand still, the dragonborn can't see you if you don't move.  Riiiiiight.


----------



## twilsemail

Mithreinmaethor said:


> After reading this thread its painfully obvious that a majority of you never read or have forgotten about the Ecology of the Dragonborn article.




You mean the article that was printed after the first 155 posts of this thread?  The thread that was dead for almost 3 years before being brought back as a zombie thread craving our brains?  

That article?


----------



## eamon

eriktheguy said:


> Male advertising isn't so much to do with who dominates the society, it's to do with the potential each sex has to produce young. The female potential to produce young is pretty much static, each individual can produce X young per period time. The male potential is unlimited, but depends entirely on finding mates. Males go to extremes to advertise, and bright coloration is an example of this. Successful advertising can dramatically increase the reproduction for a male, but not for a female.



In humans, perhaps.  Not so much if you're a fish laying thousands of eggs, nor if you need help rearing.  The extent to which this is true depends on the species.

And now back to whether zombies have lost their breasts...


----------



## Dice4Hire

Mithreinmaethor said:


> After reading this thread its painfully obvious that a majority of you never read or have forgotten about the Ecology of the Dragonborn article.




Which is one person's opinions and just as relevant as other people's opinions.


----------



## turnip

Quenditar said:


> Archosaurs. Not lizards. Archosaurs - crocodiles, dinosaurs, and birds.  Archosaurs are mostly warm-blooded in every sense of the word (and run hotter than mammals), have families with both parents involved in care for the babies (unlike mammals), and some are as intelligent as apes.  A creature doesn't need to be a mammal to be warmblooded, intelligent, and social.  Parrots do it.  And they do all that without any hint of a boob.  Some have no visible (to humans) differences between males and females at all!
> 
> And no, I'm not advocating that dragonborn go that far.  I'm okay with dragonborn males being larger and stronger than females, although it is disappointingly uncreative.  I can even live with them walking on their feet instead of their toes.  Just...get rid of the human (not mammal, human) genitals, please.




Amen. 
Archosaurs weren't worse than mammals. Mammals aren't better. 
Archosaurs just had a really, really bad day, and the mammals capitalized on that.


----------



## jimmifett

eamon said:


> And now back to whether zombies have lost their breasts...




depends how long they've been in the ground before animation, and whether animation "freezes" decay or if decay continues. If continues, possibly dependant on when said zombie chick last fed, and if feeding slows /  stops / or reverses decay.

The question is moot if the zombie is Chistina Ricci, in which case the answer is ALWAYS yes, she still has them, regardless of any circumstance.

Liam Neeson makes for an interesting necromancer...

back on topic...
As far as I'm concerned, if my players wants their PC to have boobs, it's up to them, I'm not going to draw any attention to the fact in my game unless it's essential to the story.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui

Never really had an issue with this in my campaign, although I (and the other players) thought it kind of strange that they would.

Female player makes up a female dragonborn two weapon ranger.  I ask her if female dragonborn have breasts.  She says "Hell yes".

So, in my campaign, female dragonborn do indeed have breasts.  And, after the fact and several years of plot development later, that really fits in well with the hidden backstory to my campaign.


----------



## eriktheguy

Dr_Ruminahui said:


> in my campaign, female dragonborn do indeed have breasts ... that really fits in well with the hidden backstory to my campaign.






And in general, regarding the comparison of mammals to reptiles, dragonborn didn't evolve, they were created.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui

In my campaign I don't use any of the official 4e background (its a home brew campaign).  Instead, dragonborn (and tieflings, and others) are created by the interaction of planes.  You get a plane dominated by dragons, and a plane dominated by humans, meld them at an edge, and the folks on that edge become half dragon, half human... in other words, dragonborn.  Which is why breasts make an odd kind of sense... in my campaign.

Certainly nothing waranting a frowny face, I would think.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

In a tangent to this whole thread...do "female" shardminds still have boobs?


----------



## Incenjucar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In a tangent to this whole thread...do "female" shardminds still have boobs?




They have pointy crystal chests and pointy crystal hips.

I seriously doubt it goes further than that in the minds of most. Even the shardmind cheesecake I've run across online is basically PG-13 at worst.


----------



## eriktheguy

Dr_Ruminahui said:


> Certainly nothing waranting a frowny face, I would think.




No, but that's not the first thing that comes to mind when you say dragonborn breasts fit into your background very well
but when you explain it like that it makes sense

is it planescape?


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui

I'm not really familiar with planescape, so any simulatities to it aren's intentional.

Rather, the premise is:

- the Gods lost the Dawn war.  They are all dead, though some have given part of their essence to mortals, so that they can be gods of individual shards,.

- in loosing, they shattered the world, to prevent the primordials from destroying everything.

- the various races ended up on various shards.

- when the shards are connected without the proper precautions, energy spills between them and mutates people on either side.

- many of the races are "hybrids" in this way: half elves = human + elf, tiefling = human/elf + demon, gnoll = goblin + demon, orc = goblin + human/elf, drow = elf + shadowfell, gnome = halfling + feywild, spriggan = halfling + demon... and the list continues.

- daemons are the primordials soldiers, tasked with destroying all the shards.

- devils are the soldiers of gods who died, abandonned to make there own way, but still tasked to unite the shards.

- the shards have been loosing to the demons, and as a result, a bunch of races are collected on one shard (the PC's starting place).  This shard was the home of the goblinoids, who aren't happy to have been displaced.


So, as I said, a home brew.  Though the PCs (about to hit paragon) don't really know most of this... this is all the deep background, which they will be discovering over the next tier.

That said, they have already experienced the mutational affects of shard interaction - the eladrin paladin is now a tiefling after blocking a portal to one of the demon shards.


----------

