# No More Reptiles with Boobs!



## Sylrae (Jan 13, 2012)

That always drives me crazy.

Dragons, Snake People, Birds...

If they're based on animals that aren't mammals, and aren't obviously "mammal from the waist up" like a drider or something, why are you giving the females boobs?

And why is it that cat people and dog people and such have ape boobs! 

When was the last time you saw a housecat with boobs, or another question, how many nipples does a housecat have? (Hint, "not 2")

This is a personal gripe I have with alot of cheesy fantasy art, I have to admit, but its kindof dumb.


----------



## Glade Riven (Jan 13, 2012)

Meh.


----------



## YRUSirius (Jan 13, 2012)

When was the last time you saw a housecat with human feet and hands?

-YRUSirius


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 13, 2012)

No! it makes LESS Sense!!!!!

Dragon Flight makes more sense than Dragon Boobs!

[edit] About Hands n Feet: Thats a concession to make them stand on 2 feet and use weapons and stuff. IE: to make them playable.

Boobs don't have mechanical implications.


----------



## enrious (Jan 13, 2012)

What is "sence"?


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 13, 2012)

Turn female monsters humanoid enough, and boobs help push past the uncanny valley. Or at least that's one excuse. It's like sriracha or truffles going well on any food, any remotely female creature that's intended to evoke a human form works better with them. Boobs, not sriracha or truffles.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 13, 2012)

Shemeska said:


> Turn female monsters humanoid enough, and ... push past the uncanny valley.






Shemeska said:


> It's like ... any remotely female creature that's intended to evoke a human form works better with ... sriracha or truffles.




lol. I think it's better this way.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 13, 2012)

You know I can't belive this is still going on, I thought it ended 2 or 3 years ago. If a female player wants to play a female ______________, then why must she not look like she wants?

I assume that all PC races are like actors and actresses in moveis and shows. You take a female actress and put her in dragon born makeup, and that is a dragon born...


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 13, 2012)

Since when are dragons reptiles?  I don't know of any reptile that has six limbs or can breathe fire.

Cognitive dissonance.  Dragonboobies exist because dragonborn are humanoid.  Anthropomorphic even.  So that players can identify with them.  This notion that "everything is fantasy and weird and makes no sense anyway, but I'm going to focus on _this one thing_ and demand that it be scientifically plausible" makes very little sense.

Or sence either, for that matter.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 13, 2012)

Hobo said:


> Since when are dragons reptiles?  I don't know of any reptile that has six limbs or can breathe fire.



They lay eggs, and they're covered in scales. They also don't nurse their young, or have hair.



Hobo said:


> Cognitive dissonance.  Dragonboobies exist because dragonborn are humanoid.  Anthropomorphic even.  So that players can identify with them.



If we're going that far, than I want a justification.

"They're not really related to dragons, they're reptilian apes", "They're aberrations", "They're undead made from ape parts and dragonkin parts", "They're descendents of half dragons" etc. Justify it to me.



Hobo said:


> This notion that "everything is fantasy and weird and makes no sense anyway, but I'm going to focus on _this one thing_ and demand that it be scientifically plausible" makes very little sense.
> 
> Or sence either, for that matter.



Ah, see I dont see it as focusing on _one thing_ and accepting that nothing else is scientifically plausible. Most of the other verisimilitude-breaking things bother me too.

There's an unusual cosmology, There's magic, There are beholders, and creatures with weird traits, I'm okay with that. Thats the premise of the game.

I just think anthropomorphising everything to have primate boobs is a little too ridiculous.


----------



## YRUSirius (Jan 13, 2012)

If I'd play an anthropomorphic male dragon humanoid I sure as hell would like to have something else between my legs and not just a cloaca.



Sylrae said:


> If we're going that far, than I want a justification.



Okay, how about this one: It's because of the same evolutionary process  that moved that same kind of second posterior to the chest of the human  women, because men like the look of a posterior to initiate the  procedure of reproduction. 

-YRUSirius


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 13, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> They lay eggs, and they're covered in scales. They also don't nurse their young, or have hair.



So do a lot of other critters, especially if you look at synapsid paleontology.  And some reptiles did develop hair, or at least pycnofibers, which would have been mostly indistinguishable.  And lots of mammals have lain eggs, including monotremes which survive today.


			
				Sylrae said:
			
		

> Ah, see I dont see it as focusing on _one thing_ and accepting that nothing else is scientifically plausible. Most of the other verisimilitude-breaking things bother me too.



I do.  From a biological perspective, having scales and laying eggs and having "boobies" is much less of a verisimilitude breaking thing than sprouting an extra pair of limbs or breathing fire.  Therefore, to me, dragons are obviously not reptiles.  And as a consequence, dragonborn having boobies isn't necessarily all that weird.

Although I'll allow for the fact that a lot of fantasy fans may not really understand biology well enough to realize that.  But in that case, they probably shouldn't complain about dragonboobies on the grounds that it's not realistic for reptiles to have boobs, either.


			
				Sylrae said:
			
		

> I just think anthropomorphising everything to have primate boobs is a little too ridiculous.



Whereas I think that, on the other hand, is a perfectly reasonable reason to not like dragonboobies.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 13, 2012)

Sylrae said:
			
		

> I just think anthropomorphising everything to have primate boobs is a little too ridiculous.





Hobo said:


> Whereas I think that, on the other hand, is a perfectly reasonable reason to not like dragonboobies.




Well then; lets be honest here: thats the first reason they bug me. All of the parts of it that don't make sense being pointed out are minor gripes or serve to more 'legitimize' the fact that it bugs me so much.


----------



## enrious (Jan 13, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Okay, how about this one: It's because of the same evolutionary process  that moved that same kind of second posterior to the chest of the human  women, because men like the look of a posterior to initiate the  procedure of reproduction.




Heh, I don't think that was very convincing when Desmond Morris tried that argument either.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 13, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Okay, how about this one: It's because of the same evolutionary process   that moved that same kind of second posterior to the chest of the human   women, because men like the look of a posterior to initiate the   procedure of reproduction.



That one doesn't hold up for me.



YRUSirius said:


> If I'd play an anthropomorphic male dragon  humanoid I sure as hell would like to have something else between my  legs and not just a cloaca.



If I'm an anthropomorphic male dragon humanoid; I have a cloica. I chose to play a lizard; so I'm a lizard. lol


----------



## YRUSirius (Jan 13, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> That one doesn't hold up for me.




Why not? It does for mother nature.



Sylrae said:


> If I'm an anthropomorphic male dragon humanoid; I have a cloica. I chose to play a lizard; so I'm a lizard. lol




You forgetting the anthropomorphic part?

An anthropomorphic cat woman isn't a cat, so an anthropomorphic male dragon isn't a dragon or even a lizard, it's something inbetween. Are you a doctor in fantasy biology that you can say for sure that an anthropomorphic male dragon does have a cloaca instead of an human peewee?  See? This kind of discussion is absurd. Absolutely Comic Book Guy absurd, sorry. 

-YRUSirius


----------



## Glade Riven (Jan 13, 2012)

Personally, I find dragonborn to be closer to monotremes than lizards. Dragons in D&D for the last decade have been depicted more akin to mammal-like reptiles than true reptiles. They aren't theropods, although some traditional heraldry depicts them with feathers instead of leathery wings.

As for why...I just blame a wizard and move on. Dragonboobs make more sense than a floating cyclops/medusa head capable of firing 7 different types of deathrays from eyestalks.


----------



## foolish_mortals (Jan 13, 2012)

it would have been better to have he pooping an egg(s) or something to show she's female.

foolish_mortals


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 13, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> I just think anthropomorphising everything to have primate boobs is a little too ridiculous.




Yeah, this is my feeling. Not that I expect to see dragonborn in the core 5E rulebooks anyway--I'm betting on human, elf, dwarf, and halfling.

But they'll show up eventually, and when they do I would like the females of the species to not have breasts. Not out of any verisimilitude concerns, but just because... eh. It seems lame. You've got a race of humanoid dragons, they have scales and breath weapons and hatch out of eggs, but the females have to have breasts like people because why? They're scared those weird incomprehensible "women gamers" won't identify with them (by which logic, male dragonborn ought to have beards)? Or are they just trying to cater to lizard cheesecake fans?

If we need the ability to visually distinguish male dragonborn from female, just give one sex a frill or a crest or horns or something. Or have one sex bigger and sturdier than the other. Or both.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 13, 2012)

It's going to be a long, dumb couple of years, isn't it?


----------



## Umbran (Jan 13, 2012)

Hobo said:


> I do.  From a biological perspective, having scales and laying eggs and having "boobies" is much less of a verisimilitude breaking thing than sprouting an extra pair of limbs or breathing fire.  Therefore, to me, dragons are obviously not reptiles.  And as a consequence, dragonborn having boobies isn't necessarily all that weird.




We could say:

Neither dragonborn nor dragons are "reptiles" in the standard biological sense.

Both dragonborn and dragons are "reptilian", meaning that they have characteristics similar to reptiles.


----------



## YRUSirius (Jan 13, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> You've got a race of humanoid dragons, they have scales and breath weapons and hatch out of eggs, but the females have to have breasts like people because why?



Cause male dragonborn people have two hands and because of some magic evolution the female dragonborn with bigger boobies got mated more often than the ones with smaller boobies. 

-YRUSirius


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 13, 2012)

Well do not complain to the designers, I do not htink they care, go tot he artist's webpages and bitch.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 13, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> You forgetting the anthropomorphic  part?



I prefer the artists who take "anthropomorphic" and apply  it in a conservative sense, making the creature bipedal and giving them  hands, and thats about it.



Dausuul said:


> Yeah, this is my feeling. Not that I expect to see dragonborn in the core 5E rulebooks anyway--I'm betting on human, elf, dwarf, and halfling.
> 
> But they'll show up eventually...



I'd like to see them support the dragonpeople they already had. Yaknow: Dragonkin and Halfdragons, and Draconians I guess too, but they never seemed that interesting. But thats just me.

Of. And please dont give the dragonkin boobs.



Transbot9 said:


> Personally, I find dragonborn to be closer to monotremes than  lizards. Dragons in D&D for the last decade have been depicted more  akin to mammal-like reptiles than true reptiles. They aren't theropods,  although some traditional heraldry depicts them with feathers instead  of leathery wings.



 I always saw them as theropods..Thats how  they usually draw the feet, is it not?




Dice4Hire said:


> Well do not complain to the designers, I do not  htink they care, go tot he artist's webpages and bitch.



The designers tell the artists what to draw and what not to draw.


----------



## Nivenus (Jan 13, 2012)

I'd personally be cool with "no boobs" on dragonborn ladies but to be honest I don't think it's going to happen. And as much as we may say it's because of fan service, my impressions from other forums suggests otherwise: that it's mostly _female_ players who like "dragonboobs."

To a certain extent, it makes sense. While I'm sure there's a few dracophiliacs out there they don't comprise most of the male population, so a dragon with boobs isn't going to make most guy players go "I'd hit that," particularly when one realizes they still lay _eggs_. But for female players a well-breasted heroine represents the same kind of body self-inflation that male players get from playing a barbarian with an eight-pack and bulging triceps.

It's probably also worth noting that, according to 3e lore at least, dragons aren't _actually_ reptiles despite their mechanical classification as such (actually, that's true for many real-life "reptiles" as well). It's also worth noting that mammals did in fact evolve from reptiles, so at one point, there were "reptiles" which lactated milk (or at least they were very reptile-like mammals). So the idea isn't biologically implausible - it's just very _weird_.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jan 13, 2012)

Hobo said:


> I do.  From a biological perspective, having scales and laying eggs and having "boobies" is much less of a verisimilitude breaking thing than sprouting an extra pair of limbs or breathing fire.  Therefore, to me, dragons are obviously not reptiles.  And as a consequence, dragonborn having boobies isn't necessarily all that weird.




The difference is that extra limbs and breathing fire are functional to the game, boobies are not. At best they are functional to gross humour by lesser educated gamers.

How about if all male depictions of dragons and every other monster in the books had a beard, or a pint of beer in hand so that male gamers can better identify themselves in their characters?


----------



## nightwind1 (Jan 13, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> They also don't nurse their young...



They obviously do, or they wouldn't have boobs.  

Plus, Deja Thoris laid eggs, and she had boobs.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 13, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> How about if all male depictions of dragons and every other monster in the books had a beard, or a pint of beer in hand so that male gamers can better identify themselves in their characters?



 I think a more direct comparison is if all male characters had a prominent bulge in their pants, seeing as not all men have beards. Though adding a beard to that wouldn't hurt, just to be sure and get the "lumberjack" look going.



nightwind1 said:


> They obviously do, or they wouldn't have  boobs.



Sorry for the mixup there, in that post I was referring to  dragons proper, not dragonborn.



nightwind1 said:


> Plus, Deja Thoris laid eggs, and she had boobs.



Who? lol


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 13, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> They're scared those weird incomprehensible "women gamers" won't identify with them (by which logic, male dragonborn ought to have beards)? Or are they just trying to cater to lizard cheesecake fans?




Why would you assume it's an issue of having to play a race that you can identify your own gender identity with theirs? It's an odd notion that only female gamers are going to want to play female characters (or male gamers male characters). It just tends to be natural to want to play a humanoid character that in many ways we can more closely associate with our own features (thri-kreen really being one of the only exceptions).

That said, as for your second statement about catering... it's probably a good bit of that too. I actually wonder if the art order for dragonborn artwork included that, ahem, "feature", or if the artists added it on their own because it seemed natural and/or they liked the look of it if that was their thing.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Jan 13, 2012)

I like boobs. I was raised on boobs. D&D has a lot of boobs. Boobs of all sizes. Humans boobs. Elven and dwarven boobs. Orcish and halfling boobs.

I can live without dragon/reptile-anything races having boobs.

Yes, I'm also looking at you kobolds. No boobs.


----------



## Ichneumon (Jan 13, 2012)

Poor old reptilian dragonborn - the moment their party tries to go on an arctic adventure, they're left behind in the snow, frozen stiff!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 13, 2012)

I disagree. More boobs. 
It's okay if they don't actually have any mammary glans. The shape is what's important, not whether it produces milk.


----------



## delericho (Jan 13, 2012)

The female Narn in Babylon 5 had boobs. Oddly, I don't recall that attracting any discussion...

There will almost certainly be far less representation of Dragonborn in the art of 5e than in 4e. And there will be even less art depicting female Dragonborn (especially if the 'iconic Dragonborn' is male). So, we may only be talking about a couple of pieces of art in the entire edition. I'm just not sure it's worth caring about.


----------



## Nivenus (Jan 13, 2012)

delericho said:


> The female Narn in Babylon 5 had boobs. Oddly, I don't recall that attracting any discussion...




Narn are actually marsupials, IIRC, despite the pseudo-reptilian appearance. They were also played by human actors on a 1990s TV budget, which puts certain restrictions on their biology.


----------



## delericho (Jan 13, 2012)

Nivenus said:


> Narn are actually marsupials, IIRC, despite the pseudo-reptilian appearance.




Which begs the question: how can we be sure Dragonborn _aren't_?

After all, they're a fantastical species living in a magical realm. Are we sure they've been declared 'reptiles' because the scientists have done the proper analysis, and not because Bob the Fighter declared that one "looked a bit like a snake"?


----------



## Nivenus (Jan 13, 2012)

delericho said:


> Which begs the question: how can we be sure Dragonborn _aren't_?
> 
> After all, they're a fantastical species living in a magical realm. Are we sure they've been declared 'reptiles' because the scientists have done the proper analysis, and not because Bob the Fighter declared that one "looked a bit like a snake"?




I figure this is a joke question, but as some have pointed out it's more than slightly possible they aren't reptiles. After all, 3e claimed dragons weren't.


----------



## delericho (Jan 13, 2012)

Nivenus said:


> I figure this is a joke question, but as some have pointed out it's more than slightly possible they aren't reptiles. After all, 3e claimed dragons weren't.




A joke, yes, but not entirely. The thing is, if Dragonborn, like Narn, aren't actually reptiles, then all bets are off. They can have boobs or not, at the whim of the designer.

(And, actually, it apparently is purely an art thing - originally, female Dragonborn were intended to just be smaller and slimmer than the males. But in the delivered art they couldn't really tell them apart. Hence the 'dragonboobies'. Of course, there are alternative fixes possible - a nice crest for male Dragonborn, perhaps?)


----------



## beej (Jan 13, 2012)

While I personally did not like them at first, I have grown to accept dragonboobs. We're referring to dragonborn here, right? Once I see that on a non-polymorphed chromatic dragon, I'll probably flip. 

You know what? I'd rather just get rid of the dragonborn and get back to the half-dragon. I liked them better, and the boobs can always be explained as "the human part." It wasn't as much of an issue when we had half-dragons flying around in what is _my_ personal pet peeve: The chainmail bikini.

In the end though, meh. I wouldn't mind it either way. As long as they don't put them on thri-kreen. Or shardmind boobs, now that never made sense. Or better yet, get rid of the shardminds altogether. Silly 4th ed and their, "kobolds are a monstrous race but crystal people with boobs are fine!" antics.


----------



## vagabundo (Jan 13, 2012)

I'm cool with dragons not being classed as reptiles.

Ecology of a Dragonborn:


> Despite a passing resemblance to reptilian crea-
> tures, dragonborn are warm-blooded beings rather
> than cold-blooded reptiles. Their bodies are hot
> enough to seem feverish to human sensibilities. This
> ...


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (Jan 13, 2012)

[MENTION=48520]Sylrae[/MENTION] - "They lay eggs, and they're covered in scales. They also don't nurse their young, or have hair."

If you believe that then you have never read anything about the Dragonborn and how they raise their young.



			
				Dragon Magazine #365 said:
			
		

> Despite a passing resemblance to reptilian creatures, dragonborn are warm-blooded beings rather than cold-blooded reptiles. Their bodies are hot enough to seem feverish to human sensibilities. This keeps a dragonborn more comfortable in cold temperatures. A lack of body hair coupled with a large mouth that can be opened to release body heat means that a dragonborn is no more vulnerable to hot temperatures than a human.
> 
> The scales that cover a dragonborn are tougher than human skin. Although these scales make a dragonborn less susceptible to small, incidental wounds, they don’t protect against damage dealt by weapons and similar purposeful attack. Dragonborn also typically lack the inborn elemental resistances true dragons might possess.
> 
> Like true dragons, however, dragonborn hatch from eggs, usually laid singly or, more rarely, in a pair. Hatchlings are quickly capable of standing and walking, but their teeth take a few months to come in. During this time, the mother nurses her offspring. She slowly weans the child to soft and then normal food, which for dragonborn is usually more meat than other edibles.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 13, 2012)

Mithreinmaethor said:


> @Sylrae  - "They lay eggs, and they're covered in scales. They also don't nurse their young, or have hair."



How do people keep missing that it was a response to "Since When Are Dragons Reptiles". So I pointed out several things showing how dragons look, and behave like reptiles.

But yes. I like Half Dragons. I also like the FR Dragonkin of pre4e (Remarkably similar, but they're large creatures, they have wings and tails, and I've never seen a picture of one with boobs. Additionally, they have ties with a criminal syndicate of religious zealots who worship dragons, and want to help the world become ruled by Dracoliches. IIRC They also act like the dragon race they look like, and have similar but lesser racial abilities. How is that not cooler!)

I'd like to see less of this "Give it Primate Boobs!" phenomenon overall, but if Dragonborn women have boobs, and are simply a monster manual entry, or are only in the "4e splat" then I can just ignore them and/or not use that book. In the actual 4e books they were everywhere, and I felt like I was constantly getting slapped in the face with dragonboobs in fullplate! (okay, not quite, but they were everywhere, and it was annoying.)

And if they bring back the "Discontinued Races" from 3e and earlier, we can fill our "Dragon Race" niche with the one(s) we actually like.

I'm hoping 5e brings back (at least as an option) the monsters that got dropped or retconned in 4e. Eladrin, Tieflings, Aasimar, Half-Dragons, Dragonkin, etc, and the FR Specific: "Sun/Moon Elves, Wood/Wild Elves" (Not all 4 need to have separate stats, just don't combine them with the CG Outsiders - Eladrin anymore.) I remember having a couple varieties of Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, and Orc to choose from as well, and that was appreciated. (We don't need more than like 3 of each type, if that, but a couple subraces is always nice.) I'd be cool with human subraces actually having a mechanical difference now, too. No stat differences necessarily, but maybe each gets a different (Fixed) bonus feat or something.


----------



## lutecius (Jan 13, 2012)

fantasy reptilian humanoids having boobs isn't such a stretch. I don't find it visually interesting (or even remotely appealing) but it never bothered me a much as the goofy Predator dreadlocks or the lack of a tail (tail sweep attacks would have been cool).
It's not like I'm ever going to play a one anyway (or any kind of furry/scaly) but seeing them all over the books didn't improve my feelings towards 4e.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It's okay if they don't actually have any mammary glans. The shape is what's important, not whether it produces milk.



 mammary *glans*? now that would be creepy. milk or not.


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 13, 2012)

I just want more boobs. How about more art  like the original succubus?

How about a draconian succubus?


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 13, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> I just want more boobs. How about more art  like the original succubus?
> 
> How about a draconian succubus?



lol. I don't know if there *ARE* female draconians. The art would indicate not.

You know what would be cool? non-bipedal races. Just Monsters repurposed/reworked as player races - the same size, with the same bodyparts as the originals.

Some of the best characters I've played used /monsters/ converted to run as players. My favorite was a Pseudodragon Wizard. I rode around on the party rogue and made him carry the spellbook. Everyone thought I was his familiar. lol.

I played as an awakened squirrel druid once too. That was pretty entertaining. Not a very serious campaign, but entertaining.

And once, as an awakened bardic? monkey (I remember I had a spell to summon a large number of monkeys who stole stuff and caused mischief, but I dont remember what class had that), in a horror game. I went crazy, and after one of the players died, I carried around his severed head in my left hand and talked to it, and the dead player played as my hallucination of himself.

If I want to play as a minotaur, that means being large, and having horns, hooves, and a tail. (and being immune to the spell Maze). If you make them medium, its now a Minitaur. and that's not what I wanted to play at all. lol.
It's like allowing a frost giant as a player race, but making frost giants as small creatures without cold resistance. Thats not a frost giant at all.

I'd like to be allowed to play as unusual things without houseruling it, and either starting with its iconic abilities or growing into them.


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 13, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> You know what would be cool? non-bipedal races. Just Monsters repurposed/reworked as player races - the same size, with the same bodyparts as the originals...
> I played as an awakened squirrel druid once too. That was pretty entertaining. Not a very serious campaign, but entertaining...




Centaur boobies. And talking beasts like in Narnia.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 13, 2012)

Let me just weigh in on the matter by saying that almost everything is better with boobs.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 13, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> If I'd play an anthropomorphic male dragon humanoid I sure as hell would like to have something else between my legs and not just a cloaca.



It's a +1 cloaca of protection. 

- Pirate"dragonboobies"cat


----------



## Glade Riven (Jan 13, 2012)

Yeah, but it makes conversations awkward when someone checks to see what gender you are like they do to alligators on the alligator farm.


----------



## Glade Riven (Jan 13, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> I always saw them as theropods..Thats how they usually draw the feet, is it not?




But then they are missing feathers! Or at least feather-like structures.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 13, 2012)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I disagree. More boobs.
> It's okay if they don't actually have any mammary glans. The shape is what's important, not whether it produces milk.



I totally agree.

The only way to be completely fair is for *all *creatures depicted in 5E to have boobs: females, males, monsters, etc....


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 13, 2012)

I'm very surprised that the tenor of this thread is so opposite the recent one on female nudity in D&D art.

That thread had most of the commenters siding against the idea of exposed boobs in the artwork; whereas here, most of the posters seem to be for female creatures (dragonborn in particular, but others in general) having breasts (presumably so long as they're covered up).

From what I've read, it seems like there's a general sense that illustrations of breasts are acceptable so long as there's an in-game rationale for them, but the idea that they're there for the titillation of some of the audience is not. In other words, people feel a need to justify boob-imagery as not being a personal matter (presumably to avoid accusations of sexism).

Personally, I think that's something of a waste of time simply because most personal tastes can be dressed up as having some sort of objective rationale, and vice versa, especially in the context of fiction. You can make an argument for the appropriateness or inappropriateness of dragonborn having boobs whether due to your personal preference or their made-up biology.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 13, 2012)

Transbot9 said:


> Yeah, but it makes conversations awkward when someone checks to see what gender you are like they do to alligators on the alligator farm.




Dude, if the alligator could hold a conversation, they'd just ask it.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 13, 2012)

Transbot9 said:


> But then they are missing feathers! Or at least feather-like structures.



*shrug*

I just figured that was a product of how long theyve been drawing dragons, and how recently we discovered dinosaurs had feathers/down.

Most production companies still call for their dinosaurs to have lizard skin.

I've heard of artists getting in crap for giving feathers to velociraptors, and having to redo the image.

Plus, dragons being fictional, I dont see them changing how they do dragons any time soon.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Jan 13, 2012)

Hobo said:


> Since when are dragons reptiles? I don't know of any reptile that has six limbs or can breathe fire.




I'd like to see a picture of a dragon with boobs.

Not a dragonborn...a dragon...majestically flying through the sky, boobs flapping in the wind.


----------



## Glade Riven (Jan 13, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> Plus, dragons being fictional, I dont see them changing how they do dragons any time soon.




And yet dragonboobs bother you.



Alzrius said:


> I'm very surprised that the tenor of this thread is so opposite the recent one on female nudity in D&D art.




PG-13 vs. R rating. Plus, with so many parts being non-human (hands, head, feet) it is a quick identifier of gender that the common person can identify at a glance.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 13, 2012)

Transbot9 said:


> And yet dragonboobs bother you.



Dragonboobs doesn't have the defense of "We've been doing it this way for 30 years, back when we thought dinosaurs were more lizard and less bird."

And as mentioned upthread, dragons looking like lizards isn't excessively sexualizing animals as primates, which is the biggest gripe I have with it.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 13, 2012)

With all of the important fundamental decisions about the game still in the balance, dragonboobs somehow seem far out on the radar.

I don't know if I should laugh or cry.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 13, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> With all of the important fundamental decisions about the game still in the balance, dragonboobs somehow seem far out on the radar.
> 
> I don't know if I should laugh or cry.




I have a more important thread going at the same time. I'm surprised this got more than a page.

they do have more important stuff to do than art direction though. for sure.


----------



## Simplicity (Jan 13, 2012)

It's clear to me that we need an optional module for boobs.  That way we can bring everybody back to the fold.


----------



## blalien (Jan 13, 2012)

While we're at it, stop putting over-sexualized women on the cover.  It alienates half the potential market, makes the rest of us look like sex starved 14-year-olds, and raises the question of why a woman would wear makeup and a dress for an eight hour slog through an orc infested forest.  Or at least put David Bowie on the cover in the interest of equality.


----------



## Felon (Jan 13, 2012)

blalien said:


> While we're at it, stop putting over-sexualized women on the cover.  It alienates half the potential market, makes the rest of us look like sex starved 14-year-olds, and raises the question of why a woman would wear makeup and a dress for an eight hour slog through an orc infested forest.  Or at least put David Bowie on the cover in the interest of equality.



First off, what the heck does the word "over-sexualized" mean? Feel free to show me a cover of a recent D&D product with one such over-sexualized woman. Is Xena over-sexualized? For that matter, is Hercules?

Does it just mean "sexy"? We shouldn't have female adventurers with sex appeal? They should be more butch or something? And then all the ladies out there will be like "Oh, look at that homely, disheveled, flat-chested woman on that cover. You know, I've always secretly fantasized about being a powerful-but-unattractive woman just like her! You guys are more mature than I thought. Sign me up!!"

I find that most women feel less offended about seeing sexy women on the cover of books than certain guys do. You look at the cover of Vogue or Cosmo, you'll see a long-legged woman with lots of makeup. 

Indulging in the appeal of an attractive woman does not make one a sex-starved 14-year-old. Beer-guzzling, NFL-loving, YY-chromosome truck drivers love the sight of beautiful women. Sideways-gun-holding, ex-drug-dealing, gangsta rappers like the sight of beautifual women. Never is a nerd more in sync with the most macho of men as when he is ogling a beautiful woman. 

And finally, there are few greater mistakes in marketing than thinking your job is appealing to everybody. Know your audience and target it. If the market for D&D is the same as Spike TV, then that's what they ought to appeal to.


----------



## OpsKT (Jan 13, 2012)

*Huh whaaat?*

It's a whole new edition and there are rules issues and class issues and other far more important things, and THIS is what ends with five pages of replies? *Really?*


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 13, 2012)

Felon said:


> Indulging in the appeal of an attractive woman does not make one a sex-starved 14-year-old.




Fixed it for you. (Seriously. I'm pretty sure the above is what you meant.)


----------



## Felon (Jan 13, 2012)

OpsKT said:


> It's a whole new edition and there are rules issues and class issues and other far more important things, and THIS is what ends with five pages of replies? *Really?*




YEAH! Let's put aside this nonsense talk about what's really on everyone's mind.

CENTAURS. 

I mean, they got the torso of a human attached to the torso of a horse. That is TWO TORSOS. Now, if they have a full compliment of organs in one torso, what's in the other? Is there a human digestive tract connected to their horse digestive tract via a rectal/esophagal bond a la The Human Centipede? Do they have these gigantic horse lungs that aren't connected to anything? 

Let's all get together as a community and make sure there are no centaurs or other creatures with unrealistic anatomy in 5e.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 13, 2012)

Hmmm, I have always liked the way Reaper Miniatures handles the females in the Reptus line - you can tell them apart from the males, but their secondary sexual characteristics are different from humans - among other things, no mammaries.






Female Reptus





Male Reptus

The females look larger and stronger, and are more ornately crested.

The Auld Grump


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl (Jan 14, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Hmmm, I have always liked the way Reaper Miniatures handles the females in the Reptus line - you can tell them apart from the males, but their secondary sexual characteristics are different from humans - among other things, no mammaries.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




See I look at that, and see two males. I am a woman, not a girl, not a female, not a little home maker, a woman. I have woman parts. Most men I have met like my women parts, boobs and all. I also know I buy minis and paint and mod them all the time. I find it very upsetting that it is so hard to get a woman X mini sometimes. I want my character to look like a woman (Inless it is a guy I am playing, in less the guy I am playing is an elf, then I still might want it to look like a woman  ).
I dare you to find 100 women who do not feel that breasts are a major part of them. You don’t even need them to play D&D, just live in the modern world. If I am playing a dragonborn, or a warforged and I am playing a woman, I Damn sure want to have my character look like a woman, not a damn guy with a Mohawk.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 14, 2012)

I also find it sad this has gone on for 5 pages. 

Seriously, this is easily changeable fluff, not even close to the rules.

Now, if they were talking about having sex-based differences in 5E, then I would be totally against it.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 14, 2012)

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> See I look at that, and see two males. I am a woman, not a girl, not a female, not a little home maker, a woman. I have woman parts. Most men I have met like my women parts, boobs and all. I also know I buy minis and paint and mod them all the time. I find it very upsetting that it is so hard to get a woman X mini sometimes. I want my character to look like a woman (Inless it is a guy I am playing, in less the guy I am playing is an elf, then I still might want it to look like a woman  ).
> I dare you to find 100 women who do not feel that breasts are a major part of them. You don’t even need them to play D&D, just live in the modern world. If I am playing a dragonborn, or a warforged and I am playing a woman, I Damn sure want to have my character look like a woman, not a damn guy with a Mohawk.



Show me one hundred female lizards, point out all of them with breasts.

For that matter, show me one hundred male lizards, point out all of them with dangly bits.

Not all species have frontal rump displays, even among mammals. Not all animals have exposed genitalia. If it is a reptile then I want it to look like a reptile. 

Parallel evolution might give you a bipedal posture - there are lizards that do run on their hind legs, and the not-quite-reptiles we call dinosaurs had a fair number.

Mammaries, on the other hand, are so endemic to mammals that the class is named after them.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Nivenus (Jan 14, 2012)

While I'm not particularly in favor one way or another, it's worth pointing out (as I already have):


Dragonborn aren't canonically reptiles. Nor are dragons.
Mammals evolved from reptiles so it's hardly impossible mammaries would end up on reptilian creatures.

If I'd designed dragonborn I probably wouldn't have given them breasts. But it's honestly not that big of a deal or even biologically implausible. It's weird, yes, but that's about it.

Now breasts on _plants_, that's _weird_.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl (Jan 14, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Show me one hundred female lizards, point out all of them with breasts.
> 
> For that matter, show me one hundred male lizards, point out all of them with dangly bits.
> 
> ...




Great so you think that a dragon woman needs to look like a lizard because that is what you want. I think a dragon WOMAN needs to look like a woman.  Show me one lizard that plays this game, or whose feeling will even be hurt by it.
Can you tell me if I placed 10 players who never saw those minis in a room, and asked them to pick out the woman, howmany do you think would get it right?
I really feel this needs to be killed with fire.  Everyone says they want to grow the industry, everyone says equality. Then when it comes to what characters look like, well men look like men (the only differences never shown in art) and woman need to shut up when they expect the same.
Show me anything with a breath weapon in nature. It is a fantasy race it can work however you like, heck they could just be mammals. Will that make you happy, if dragon born became Draconic mammals would that end this just as well?


----------



## Truename (Jan 14, 2012)

Complaint: "If it's a reptile, I want it to look like a reptile!"

Response (half a dozen times): "It's not a reptile!!!"

Complaint: "If it looks like a reptile, it must be a reptile!" (Repeat.)

Sheesh. I like verisimilitude as much as the next guy, but this faux-fantasy-realism dressed up in pseudoscience is ridiculous.

Can you imagine a scientist in a D&D world? "I wonder why things fall to the ground." "Because Pelor decreed it so." "Oh. Guess I'll take up baking."


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 14, 2012)

If you want something female that looks like a woman then there are plenty of options.

If you want to play a reptile then play a reptile.

Getting huffy about it does not change the fact that reptiles are not mammals, that dragons are typically not considered mammals, and that mammals are the things that get (wait for it) mammaries.

Not even all primates get the version that human females are adorned with, why should a digitigrade reptile? Yelling 'I want boobies!' is not, in my opinion, a cogent argument for anything other than your own games.

The default... I would prefer reptiles, not human actresses with scaled latex appliances.

The Auld Grump


----------



## herrozerro (Jan 14, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> If you want something female that looks like a woman then there are plenty of options.
> 
> If you want to play a reptile then play a reptile.
> 
> ...




one wonders if you have read about 4e dragonborn, their fluff does state that they nurse their young.  Dragonborn are not reptiles.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 14, 2012)

herrozerro said:


> one wonders if you have read about 4e dragonborn, their fluff does state that they nurse their young.  Dragonborn are not reptiles.



In honesty - the dragonborn do not interest me at all, so I have not read anything on them.

If I had then I would be annoyed by that depiction, shrug, then go on ignoring them.

The Auld Grump, going back to ignoring the imitation draconians....


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 14, 2012)

TheAuldGrump said:


> If you want something female that looks like a woman then there are plenty of options.
> 
> If you want to play a reptile then play a reptile.




um DB are not reptile, they do not have that key word (look at kobolds and lizardfolk)



> Getting huffy about it does not change the fact that reptiles are not mammals, that dragons are typically not considered mammals, and that mammals are the things that get (wait for it) mammaries.



Um dragonborn are not dragons or reptiles...so um I am lost here.



> Not even all primates get the version that human females are adorned with, why should a digitigrade reptile? Yelling 'I want boobies!' is not, in my opinion, a cogent argument for anything other than your own games.




but aren't you just yelling "I don't want boobies"?



> The default... I would prefer reptiles, not human actresses with scaled latex appliances.



I disagree, I belive the lady does as well.

edit: For what it is worth if you put two minis down, one smaller and lighter frame the other bigger and with more flair (Tail, feathers, horns what ever) and asked me, I would guess the bigger showerer one was the guy. so I would never have guessed that mini was a chick.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 14, 2012)

I agree with a couple points there:

 @GMforPowergamers 
1. Apparently dragonborn aren't dragons, or even reptiles. I suppose that explains the potential for mammaries, but it doesn't explain why they look like dragons or lizards.

Either I'm taking issue with them being dragon or reptile creatures with breasts, or I'm taking issue with them being mammals that look like dragons and use the name.

2. I would also have assumed the female would have been the thinner of the lizard people, not the larger one.

Here's the "disagree"-points:

1. Yelling "I don't want boobies": We're saying we want our bipedal animal people to be more like the animals they resemble or emulate.

That means we want our lizardfolk like lizards, our miscellaneous dragonfolk like dragons, and our spotted hyena folk (gnolls) like spotted hyenas.

We dont want humans in latex appliances, but instead want animal-people.

I think I agree with AuldGrump about pretending the Dragonborn Don't exist. This thread has made me like them less than I did before. I thought it was just bad art. Apparently the whole premise bugs me.

Though Dragonkin are better than Draconians.

[Edit] And I found those offended lizards.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 14, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don;t care how much I disagree with you...that is funny




And its still obvious that the top one is female and the bottom is male. that is actually the case.

And yes, they are different kinds of lizards, and I did intentionally choose a bearded dragon for the male. Point is you can make the gender obvious without ape parts.

Also, I thought it would be funny. Glad the humor was appreciated.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl (Jan 14, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> And its still obvious that the top one is female and the bottom is male. that is actually the case.
> 
> And yes, they are different kinds of lizards, and I did intentionally choose a bearded dragon for the male. Point is you can make the gender obvious without ape parts.
> 
> Also, I thought it would be funny. Glad the humor was appreciated.






Yea it is so great that 2 men can laugh at the woman wanting equal treatment (the male dragon born look male to the untrained eye). By the way how am I supposed to tell who is male and who is female in those pics (not withstanding you telling me)
If non human males had curves like a woman, and breasts like a woman, and whore high heels how many players would be happy?
Once again the men look like men and the woman look like woman, but you want men to look like men (except for parts that you won’t see), and women to look like men.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 14, 2012)

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> If non human males had curves like a woman, and breasts like a woman, and whore high heels how many players would be happy?




Please tell me that's a typo.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 14, 2012)

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> Once again the men look like men and the woman look like woman, but you want men to look like men (except for parts that you won’t see), and women to look like men.



Not at all. I want the animal creatures to not mimic apes, but instead be /bipedal/ versions of the animal they're made to resemble.

As for the male dragonborn looking like men, you'll notice if you  reread it that i criticized the male dragonborn as well, for having  bulging chest muscles, and "external genitalia".

And "how can you tell, with the lizard photos?" True if you don't know the lizards it wouldnt be all that obvious, but the bearded dragon has the beardy spine things, and darker coloration, and the female gecko has lighter skin, bigger eyes, spines that look like eyelashes, and a more feminine looking face shape.

In a fantasy race, making the males look like the more masculine looking lizard and the females look like the more feminine looking lizard would be good enough, perhaps with a bit of a size difference if it wasnt obvious enough for you. That would be great. And they'd both have lizard-shaped bodies. Not rippling schwarzenegger chest muscles or pamela anderson boobs, and yet, it would still be obvious.

The men should look like (whatever the males of that animal look like) and the women should look like (whatever the females of that animal look like). In some cases that results in bigger, scarier females than males, like with Hyenas. and thats perfectly cool.

In many animals the difference is less noticeable than in humans. In some the differences are bigger.

Consider this image.






If there were Pheasant people in D&D, I'd expect the women to be smaller, and have the female coloration, and the men to be larger with the vibrant colors.

I would be irritated by it if either one had a human face, I'd be irritated by if they shaped the female Pheasant like a female human, just like I'd be irritated by if the male was shaped like schwarzenegger.

I want them to look like pheasants, but more upright, possibly a little thinner, with longer legs. Still shaped like birds.

Another:





If there were turtle people designed to look like this type of turtle, I'd want the women to be considerably larger, the men smaller and leaner, and both to have the fairly distinctive heads and faces; Additionally, the men would have those ridges on the shell, and the females wouldn't. In fact, the male would likely be a size-category smaller.

But have them stand on two legs, give them opposable thumbs, and maybe make them a bit thinner in the waist to explain how they balance standing upright.

I would want them to look like turtles. Not like men, not like women, turtles.

And yes, I picked particularly sexually dimorphic animals. If I were using less sexually dimorphic animals, I would have them stay looking similar, and maybe alter the face of whichever gender is less aggressive to look softer, with slightly bigger eyes, and less angular.

If it were crocodiles (Harder to tell apart) You're looking at a thinner body and snout, less convex airhole for breathing in the women. in other words, I'd expect the male croc to basically just look like the female croc, but bigger. And not like a dude with a croc head, but like a croc on two legs.

But lets say we for some reason *need* to give them much more human shapes than that (I'd rather not, but say thats not optional)

And say we need to make female turtle people and male turtle people look like humans.

Females
Awful
Yuck
Still Pretty Bad
Tolerable, but not great.

Males
Not Great
Least Ridiculous one I found
Okay, but maybe too cartoony a style

And this one just looks adorable


----------



## Nivenus (Jan 14, 2012)

Normally, I'd agree with the "no boobs" folks - it struck me as silly on first impression and I'm usually against over-anthropomorphizing exotic races. Still, I think it would be wrong to tell women who like to play dragons with boobs that they're doing it wrong. That's excluding options from players who clearly love them for no real reason other than stylistic preference.

As I (and other posters) have pointed out, there's no _real_ reason that dragonborn couldn't have mammaries. In fact, in all likelihood, there were mammals sufficiently similar to reptiles in our evolutionary history that one would have mistaken them for such. While no modern reptiles have mammaries and no modern mammals have scales, that doesn't mean they couldn't exist. It's weird, yes, but do we really need to make such a big deal out of it and when so many other people apparently like it?


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 14, 2012)

Well, I strongly disagreed with the assertion that I just wanted everyone to look like men, when that had nothing to do with it. So I had to set that straight.

As for the bestial races that just look like human women in latex suits, if there's such a demand for them, I can't really say that they shouldnt put them in the game. If other people want them in their games, good for them, I suppose. But not everyone wants them, so I will hope they at least don't retcon them over existing material.

I can always say: "No Dragonborn". Just like I can say no to Warforged and Shifters (not a big eberron fan), when I'm running the game. I can opt out of a game with players who are using them, like I opt out of Pathfinder games with a gunslinger characters, or 3.5 games with ToB classes. If I really dislike an option, I can just not play with it. This is particularly viable because often I get stuck running the game; so I have direct access to controlling which options are/are not allowed.

If I ever see big breasted kobold women though, thats the sort of thing that might stop me from buying the book. Because it would be going from adding something new that I dont like (which I can ignore/not use), to replacing something old that I did like with something new that I hate. And that means that the thing I did like will be supported in this in future products as something else that I wont ever want to use again. That that, would be rather frustrating.

Art direction matters. Otherwise they wouldnt put images in the books.

[Edit]And to be clear, I've never been a big fan of the dragonborn anyways, and I'm fine with not including them, but this "Give it Boobs!" habit has always bugged me. Admittedly I didnt think there would be any female players who considered it so important to keep them.

I dont think a male dragonborn, for example, needs to have a similar build to a burly orc, I'd actually have preferred something more like the poisondusk lizardfolk or an actual dragon.


----------



## Nivenus (Jan 14, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> If I ever see big breasted kobold women though, thats the sort of thing that might stop me from buying the book.




I agree, that would be silly. Especially since kobolds have always been depicted as much more lizard-like than dragonborn.


----------



## enrious (Jan 14, 2012)

Nivenus said:


> I agree, that would be silly. Especially since kobolds have always been depicted as much more lizard-like than dragonborn.




Random sidetrack - kobolds were originally going to be mammalian, until the first artist though the specified green skin (fur) was because they were like a lizard rather than a camouflage adaptation..


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 14, 2012)

enrious said:


> Random sidetrack - kobolds were originally going to be mammalian, until the first artist though the specified green skin (fur) was because they were like a lizard rather than a camouflage adaptation..



2e draws them as ranging from dog/rat people to lizards, but 3e made them completely lizards.

And after Meepo, there's no going back to the old type of kobold.


----------



## Nivenus (Jan 14, 2012)

enrious said:


> Random sidetrack - kobolds were originally going to be mammalian, until the first artist though the specified green skin (fur) was because they were like a lizard rather than a camouflage adaptation..




I actually knew that though since I never played prior to 3e I don't usually think of them that way. It _is_ closer to the mythological kobolds though, which are basically a kind of Germanic goblin.


----------



## enrious (Jan 14, 2012)

I have them as mammalian in my campaigns, only they will dye their fur to better camouflage with their surroundings.

And one of my favorite 3e moments was killing the dragon and breaking Meepo's heart.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 14, 2012)

lol. You're a monster.


----------



## Glade Riven (Jan 14, 2012)

But..but..think of the _furries_...

I don't really care, either way. I'm just not quite sure why dragonboobs are such a big deal. It always seemed like they were a race of half-dragon/half-humans that bred true.

From a design standpoint, there are other ways to draw animals to indicate gender. Giving them a bow, in heels, and/or a dress worked for Disney "back in the day" (both Minni and Daisy were originally drawn as Mickey and Donald in drag), but that probably won't work today. Larger eyes, smoother features, & long eyelashes are common methods employed, usually paired with a more slender frame. Hip are fine, because hips have to do with pelvic design in upright walking females for giving birth (or laying a sizable egg). In many cartoon avians, pectoral muscles for females are enlarged to give the illusion of breasts without actually being (mamalian) breasts (to be honest, that is what a lot of early dragonborn artwork looked like to me - bulked up muscle that gave the illusion of breasts because of what they were wearing).

Good design is about communication, and I've seen all of what I just listed above to work very well in conveying that something is female. Common sexual dimorphasisms in animals may or may not work (such as plumage, size, etc), because the bulk of humanity needs to be able to tell instantaniously at a glance what gender a dragonborn is. Boobs do help with that. Throwing in fins (which should show up on the males as a display mechanism) instead may just confuse the issue instead of clarifying it.

If you're just skimming what I wrote, basically dragonboobs pass the moron-in-a-hurry test to tell folks it is female.


----------



## MoxieFu (Jan 15, 2012)

I can't believe it took this long for someone to mention Furries. Or in this case would the be Scalies?


----------



## Zaukrie (Jan 15, 2012)

It boggles the mind that anyone cares about this.


----------



## avin (Jan 15, 2012)

Another vote against reptiles with boobs.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jan 15, 2012)

After reading the woman's perspective here, it boggles the mind even more that it bothers some people that FANTASY races have boobs or not. I just don't get how it negatively effects your play or not. OTOH, I can understand where it might effect a woman's enjoyment.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 15, 2012)

Zaukrie said:


> After reading the woman's perspective here, it boggles the mind even more that it bothers some people that FANTASY races have boobs or not.




This was certainly the thought I had when the discussion turned to questions of biology. In a world where the gods can create races whole-cloth, and even wizards can create new life forms, boobs on non-mammals is certainly plausible.



> _I just don't get how it negatively effects your play or not. OTOH, I can understand where it might effect a woman's enjoyment._




In my experience, the issue here is less that women are offended by breasts on female humanoids than it is that men think/are worried that they'll be offended by breasts on female humanoids. That isn't to say that there aren't women who are upset by them, but most of the gamer girls I know don't care about it very much.

Zak Sabbath makes this point quite well on this post on his blog.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 15, 2012)

Zaukrie said:


> It boggles the mind that anyone cares about this.




This almost destroyed the internet when the first 4e art was previewed lo these short years ago. I was there and I count myself scarred.

In retrospect, I believe those battles were merely proxies for the larger edition war---but one which allowed slams against 4e to sail under the overburdened radars of that eras weary mods.

The *moment* I saw the 5e announcement, I kick myself for not laying Vegas odds on the very subject being brought up anew.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 15, 2012)

Zaukrie said:


> After reading the woman's perspective here, it boggles the mind even more that it bothers some people that FANTASY races have boobs or not. I just don't get how it negatively effects your play or not. OTOH, I can understand where it might effect a woman's enjoyment.




ok I did a completly no scientfic poll, and here are the ressults"

My mom thinks I am crazy and doesn't understand the stupid game I and my brother in law play

My sister and her best friend think me and my brother in law are nuts, but they guess they would not play a game that made them not look like what they thought woman should look like.

of the 5 real gamers I know that are girls 4 of them said it would matter, 1 said she would not care as long as everyone at the table knew both in and out of game she was a girl (no dumb jokes not even in game).

of the 4 that said it would matter 1 said it mattered only a little and she could get over it if the rest of the system/story was good. 2 of them said it was a big deal but not by itself a deal breaker, but a strong reason not to play the game. Only 1 of them said she would never play in a game that told her she had to look non feminin.

alll in all the #1 most common responce was that it was a crazy quastion... even from people who thought it mattered...

so take that for what it is worth...


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 15, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> ok I did a completly no scientfic poll, and here are the ressults"




"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to GMforPowergamers again."

Dammit, stop sucking up all my xp!


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 15, 2012)

Wormwood said:


> "You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to GMforPowergamers again."
> 
> Dammit, stop sucking up all my xp!



Covered. You need to get out more often.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 15, 2012)

MoxieFu said:


> I can't believe it took this long for someone to mention Furries. Or in this case would the be Scalies?



'Z4rds' 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 16, 2012)

I dunno about everyone else but I was making a point /not/ to mention furries

[MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION]:
Did you mention to the women that not all the races would look "unfeminine", just the ones where the animals they started with look "unfeminine" themselves?

Ie: If you wand a-x cup boobs there are always the classic races and all of their subraces.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 16, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> Did you mention to the women that not all the races would look "unfeminine", just the ones where the animals they started with look "unfeminine" themselves?




I know this wasn't directed at me, but this sentence really makes my head hurt.

Sylrae, if you're going to posit that non-mammalian races can look "feminine" (as the people who play the game - e.g. humans - define the term), such as by having an hourglass figure, "softer" facial features, etc., then since you're giving them that degree of sexual dimorphism, why not let them have breasts too?

Secondly, saying that the only "unfeminine" animal-people races will be those that look unfeminine as the actual animals is just...odd, as it seems to posit that there are female animals that do look "feminine" from a human standpoint.


----------



## Richards (Jan 16, 2012)

How about a simple compromise?  In 5E, female dragonborn will have ONE BOOB.  Split the difference, and everybody will be happy, right?

Glad I solved that problem.

Johnathan


----------



## gloomhound (Jan 16, 2012)

I for one would like someone to show me any flavor of reptiles that have six appendages.

Oh and Therapsida.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 16, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> I dunno about everyone else but I was making a point /not/ to mention furries
> 
> [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION]:
> Did you mention to the women that not all the races would look "unfeminine", just the ones where the animals they started with look "unfeminine" themselves?
> ...




In the case of the roleplayers I did, and they understood, in the case of my sister she got it enough to understand we were not talking elves (although she brought up dwarf women with beards) in the case of my mom it was 10 mins of me expalining it followed by 30 or so mins of my brother in law useing the books and my DDI account to try to explain it...


----------



## Klaus (Jan 16, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> That always drives me crazy.
> 
> Dragons, Snake People, Birds...
> 
> ...



Huh.

I thought dragonborn were monotremes...


----------



## Rechan (Jan 16, 2012)

If dragonboobs are the most serious issue people have about 5e, then I think we'll be ok.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 16, 2012)

Alzrius said:


> Sylrae, if you're going to posit that non-mammalian races can look "feminine" (as the people who play the game - e.g. humans - define the term), such as by having an hourglass figure, "softer" facial features, etc., then since you're giving them that degree of sexual dimorphism, why not let them have breasts too?



Softening features that are already present or exaggerating them in a way to make them look more femine, to make it easier to distinguish, is alot different than tacking on new body parts. - At least to me it is. In one case you're only slightly altering proportions of whats already there.



Alzrius said:


> Secondly, saying that the only "unfeminine" animal-people races will be those that look unfeminine as the actual animals is just...odd, as it seems to posit that there are female animals that do look "feminine" from a human standpoint.



There are many that do. The female in a species is often a little smaller, with a thinner bone structure, and a softer appearance to them.

It applies to most species where the male is the one who does the more aggressive of the two.



GMforPowergamers said:


> In the case of the roleplayers I did,  and they understood, in the case of my sister she got it enough to  understand we were not talking elves (although she brought up dwarf  women with beards) in the case of my mom it was 10 mins of me expalining  it followed by 30 or so mins of my brother in law useing the books and  my DDI account to try to explain it...



Dwarf women totally have  beards. They keep them neater than dwarf men do though. Goatees and stuff. lol.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 16, 2012)

And lest we forget: in most (if not all) D&D settings, the mortal races were created by extraplanar entities. So if dragonborn have boobs and no tail, we know what Io preferred.


----------



## gyor (Jan 16, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> No! it makes LESS Sense!!!!!
> 
> Dragon Flight makes more sense than Dragon Boobs!
> 
> ...




Boobs are the concession you make when you want fanboys to play them.

As for being on cat people, cats are seen as symbolicly sexy. Clearly they've never seen mine chasing reflections of light. Love cats to death, but thier goofy critters.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 16, 2012)

Klaus said:


> And lest we forget: in most (if not all) D&D settings, the mortal races were created by extraplanar entities. So if dragonborn have boobs and no tail, we know what Io preferred.




I may be wrong, this might even have been something a DM pulled on me, but I think 4e has the origin of the species being not evoltion (take that darwin) but dumb luck (ha thought you were getting intellagint design didn't you)

When IO was cut in half and the 2 halves became behamut and tiamat, his blood fell to the earth and were the blood feel the dragonborn and kobolds rose up.

even if that isn't exactly right, it deffently means no evolution here.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 16, 2012)

From a biological standpoint, reptiles with breasts makes little sense, especially since dragonborn are hatched from eggs - they have no need for feeding young, therefore they would not be a good signal of fertility (and therefore serve no purpose.

From an art standpoint, I can see it purely to designate female from male dragonborn to the viewer. Visual cues of female features (long hair, slimmer build, softer features) let us know which is male and which is female. Since dragonborn don't really have many obvious markers, breasts make sense to be an easy visual identifier.

As a furry I am totally cool with reptile boobs, but the dragonborn design isn't exactly aesthetically attractive so it's moot.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 16, 2012)

Rechan said:


> As a furry I am totally cool with reptile boobs, but the dragonborn design isn't exactly aesthetically attractive so it's moot.




Oh THIS.

I love the concept of Dragonborn, and they will be available in every D&D game I run.

But _oh _the art design. Dreadlocks, really?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 16, 2012)

Richards said:


> How about a simple compromise?  In 5E, female dragonborn will have ONE BOOB.  Split the difference, and everybody will be happy, right?
> 
> Glad I solved that problem.
> 
> Johnathan



Worked for the Amazons....

The Auld Grump


----------



## Rechan (Jan 16, 2012)

Wormwood said:


> Dreadlocks, really?










Would like a word with you.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 16, 2012)

Rechan said:


> Would like a word with you.




I immediately looked for boobs.

aaaand that's enough internet for one day.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 16, 2012)

Wormwood said:


> I immediately looked for boobs.
> 
> aaaand that's enough internet for one day.




I think there is a rule for that...


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 16, 2012)

Rechan said:


> From a biological standpoint, reptiles with breasts makes little sense, especially since dragonborn are hatched from eggs - they have no need for feeding young, therefore they would not be a good signal of fertility (and therefore serve no purpose.




1) A branch of reptiles evolved into mammals.

2) Dragons aren't reptiles, they're _reptilian_; they are often depicted with hair.

3) Human breasts are not about milk - there are no D-cup chimps, but they still lactate. Last theory I heard is that it's basically a sexual display, and possibly mimics the posterior (baby got back up front). I don't see why a dragonborn can't appreciate a nice butt.

4) They were specifically made directly by a deity, and have no ancestors from which they evolved. They are meat robots.

5) Why in blazes are you bringing biology into a discussion of fantasy. It's an aesthetic issue, not a biological one.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 16, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Why in blazes are you bringing biology into a discussion of fantasy. It's an aesthetic issue, not a biological one.



Because geeks. 

I'm not all that bothered by it. I was saying from a _strictly_ biological POV. I.e. I was being tedious. Because geeks.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 16, 2012)

Rechan said:


> Because geeks.
> 
> I'm not all that bothered by it. I was saying from a _strictly_ biological POV. I.e. I was being tedious. Because geeks.




But your biological knowledge is grossly flawed!

Geeks shouldn't pretend to be nerds.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 16, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> 5) Why in blazes are you bringing biology into a discussion of fantasy. It's an aesthetic issue, not a biological one.



In this case they're kindof related. they were made from dragons, (Io), Dragons don't have boobs.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 16, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> In this case they're kindof related. they were made from dragons, (Io), Dragons don't have boobs.



Complaining about dragonboobs is like complaining that a woman with snakes for hair gave birth to a horse with feathered wings... through her NECK!


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 16, 2012)

... I had no idea that's where pegasus supposedly came from.

And yes. I wouldn't want that in my fantasy RPG either. That's kindof retarded.

At least the Minotaur myth made a hybrid beast with elements from both parents.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 16, 2012)

blalien said:


> While we're at it, stop putting over-sexualized women on the cover.  It alienates half the potential market, makes the rest of us look like sex starved 14-year-olds, and raises the question of why a woman would wear makeup and a dress for an eight hour slog through an orc infested forest.  Or at least put David Bowie on the cover in the interest of equality.



That is kinda a different topic, though.

Having a non-human with breasts to better describe his (or rather her) sex absent of other identifying marks is not the same as sexualizing an image.

I am all for "women in reasonable armor" instead of chainmail bikinis. But that doesn't mean we can't indicate they have female features. 
But we should probably focus more on making each sex described in a way that makes them attractive to identify with, instead of making only makes attractive to identify with, and females attractive sexual partners. 

Though we sometimes may still try to depict males or females as sexual attractive to the other sex - romantic interests for example.

But that doesn't impact on whether females of a fictional fantasy species have breasts or not.


----------



## Lwaxy (Jan 16, 2012)

Felon said:


> I find that most women feel less offended about seeing sexy women on the cover of books than certain guys do. You look at the cover of Vogue or Cosmo, you'll see a long-legged woman with lots of makeup.




Wrong. When reading such - in the end pointless - magazines, women know they could never be like any of those ultimately artificial females. They aren't real, they have health issues, often look terrible without make up and really, you don't wanna be them. You even pity them a lot. 


When reading more or less pointless books or playing more or less pointless RPGs, women know they could never be like those women either, but at least want to be able to pretend they could be like them. As the average woman doesn't want to be reduced to boobs and ass and a figure that would break apart when in the real world, you definitely want more realism, as in normal waisted women, normal sized boobs not making you fall down when picking up your weapon and maybe women who are not even their ideal weight. 

From all the women I played with, this was the worst complaint and I can join right in. When in a world where we want at least some escape from the real world, we do not want to be reminded of such things as sexualization, men enforced body ideals and artificial boobs. Men may want that, maybe because such women can never be had in real life. RPGs are largely marketed for men, that is just it. And from what I experienced, this is one reason why women who would normally be interested in the matter do not even look at RPGs (or some card games) twice.


----------



## Lwaxy (Jan 16, 2012)

Alzrius said:


> In my experience, the issue here is less that women are offended by breasts on female humanoids than it is that men think/are worried that they'll be offended by breasts on female humanoids.





It is rather logic being upside down with such things. Sure, gods may create a race that why but... why in the world would they?

I could imagine a cat/dog people with two breasts, because evolution made the other breasts obsolete. But anything that lays eggs does not need boobs. Gods wouldn't be so dumb either.


----------



## herrozerro (Jan 16, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> It is rather logic being upside down with such things. Sure, gods may create a race that why but... why in the world would they?
> 
> I could imagine a cat/dog people with two breasts, because evolution made the other breasts obsolete. But anything that lays eggs does not need boobs. Gods wouldn't be so dumb either.




Monotremes would like to have a word with you.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 16, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> ... I had no idea that's where pegasus supposedly came from.
> 
> And yes. I wouldn't want that in my fantasy RPG either. That's kindof retarded.
> 
> At least the Minotaur myth made a hybrid beast with elements from both parents.



Heh. Perseus' beheading of Medusa gave birth not only to Pegasus, but to Pegasus' brother, the fully-armored human warrior Crisaor.

There are no definite origins for the D&D races. Whatever is said in the books is only one *possible* explanation. So it is quite possible that dragonborn arose from primitive humans who got drenched in Io's blood, for instance.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 16, 2012)

Klaus said:


> Heh. Perseus' beheading of Medusa gave birth not only to Pegasus, but to Pegasus' brother, the fully-armored human warrior Crisaor.
> 
> There are no definite origins for the D&D races. Whatever is said in the books is only one *possible* explanation. So it is quite possible that dragonborn arose from primitive humans who got drenched in Io's blood, for instance.




Would everyone be happier if the creation myth was half dragons?


----------



## Lwaxy (Jan 16, 2012)

herrozerro said:


> Monotremes would like to have a word with you.





Haha yeah, forgot about them.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 16, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> ... I had no idea that's where pegasus supposedly came from.
> 
> And yes. I wouldn't want that in my fantasy RPG either. That's kindof retarded.
> 
> At least the Minotaur myth made a hybrid beast with elements from both parents.




So, you want a more sci-fi approach to magic than a mythological one?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 16, 2012)

I've got a solution: no dragonborn in 5E.  There, I fixed it.

You can have half-dragons instead.


----------



## Ratinyourwalls (Jan 16, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> I've got a solution: no dragonborn in 5E.  There, I fixed it.
> 
> You can have half-dragons instead.




Dragonborn are a pretty popular choice for newer players in 4E around here. A lot of people ask to play as one (even in my Pathfinder games!) I know a lot of them would be upset if they were told they couldn't play as one. I really hope they keep Dragonborn as a core race.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 16, 2012)

Ratinyourwalls said:


> Dragonborn are a pretty popular choice for newer players in 4E around here. A lot of people ask to play as one (even in my Pathfinder games!) I know a lot of them would be upset if they were told they couldn't play as one. I really hope they keep Dragonborn as a core race.




My cost:benefit analysis concludes it would be better to have the option available at launch instead of forcing dragonborn lovers to wait for a supplement. After all (and you *knew* this was coming) it's trivial to exclude them if they aren't to your liking.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 17, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Would everyone be happier if the creation myth was half dragons?



Hmm. Or perhaps some weird mutant halfdragons or something (since half-dragons are already a thing). But yes. If that was the "official" creation myth, it would not irritate me nearly as much. I suppose they could be "Halfdragons", and 3.x Half-Dragons could be like the dragon equivalent of genasi. That would work out okay.

Alternately, I can accept pretty much any ridiculous monster, via "A wizard did it" + making the creature an aberration. But aberration seems to mostly mean "magical experiment gone horribly wrong."



Incenjucar said:


> So, you want a more sci-fi approach to magic than a mythological one?



I guess so. But I still want "wiggle your fingers, say some words, and fire shoots out." I only really want the scifi approach when it comes to making new life.



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> I've got a solution: no dragonborn in 5E.  There, I fixed it.



That wouldn't bother me much.


Ratinyourwalls said:


> Dragonborn are a pretty popular choice for newer players in 4E around here. A lot of people ask to play as one (even in my Pathfinder games!) I know a lot of them would be upset if they were told they couldn't play as one. I really hope they keep Dragonborn as a core race.





Wormwood said:


> My cost:benefit analysis concludes it would be better to have the option available at launch instead of forcing dragonborn lovers to wait for a supplement. After all (and you *knew* this was coming) it's trivial to exclude them if they aren't to your liking.



I think my biggest gripe with the dragonborn isn't that I don't like them, because as you mentioned, you *Can* exclude them. My biggest gripe is that they /included/ a creature I think is kindof.. crap; and made it the only option, by not including any material on the three existing races of dragon people, which I thought were all pretty cool.

If they include all 4 (Dragonkin, Draconians, Half-Dragons, and Dragonborn), it becomes a hell of alot easier to just use the ones I like/will put up with.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 17, 2012)

It's a game played by humans. We use secondary sex characteristics to identify and understand things. 

Dragonborn are hideous wastes of space anyway. The all have massive underbites for some reason. They were, imho, a badddddd move.

I would actually love to see 5E have all unique new races. Won't happen but it would be ballsy and cool as hell.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 17, 2012)

Super Dragoniobros will probably be an option in 5e, and, yes, they will probably have dragonbewbs. 

Don't like 'em? Don't use 'em. 5e keeps going on and on about this "modularity" thing, and individual races are one of the most modular D&D elements in any edition, period. 5e probably won't assume that everyone wants dragonbonks in their games, so, unlike 4e, you I won't have to put up with reading their name in all the books anymore and thinking that it's a really, really, really _silly-sounding_ name. 

Dragonbark!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 17, 2012)

I am not 100 % sure I like the Dragonborn as they are envisioned in D&D 4.
The mechanics are fine, and I think their culture is fine, too.

The creation myth... I think I prefer the idea of the Dragonborn being somethink like Half-Dragons from an ancient time (The Arkhosian Empire perhaps). The 4E Half-Elves and Half-Orcs have become their own race after many years of intermingling as well. And maybe Half-Dragons are more like Tieflings, in that they were "corrupted" by using Dragon Magic, rather than the Dragons being like Zeus in their mating habits.



> If they include all 4 (Dragonkin, Draconians, Half-Dragons, and  Dragonborn), it becomes a hell of alot easier to just use the ones I  like/will put up with.



Maybe an approach is to provide alternative creation myths. Some say the first Dragonborns where offspring of humanoid and shapeshifting Dragons (Half-Dragon). Others say Io created them in his image (Dragonborn). Others may say they developed when the first humans mastered arcane magic from the Dragons and infused themselves with draconic power (Draconians?). Others may say they were created by Dragons, as a slave race perhaps (Dragonkin?).

That all doesn't change that I am okay with or without Dragonboobs.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 17, 2012)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Maybe an approach is to provide alternative creation myths. Some say the first Dragonborns where offspring of humanoid and shapeshifting Dragons (Half-Dragon). Others say Io created them in his image (Dragonborn). Others may say they developed when the first humans mastered arcane magic from the Dragons and infused themselves with draconic power (Draconians?). Others may say they were created by Dragons, as a slave race perhaps (Dragonkin?).



Hmm. I wouldnt be at all satisfied with this. The various dragon races are all quite different.

Draconians are lesser dragons that worship true dragons. They're medium, have wings and tails, and iirc can petrify you.

Half-Dragons are varied, and provide dragon-like abilities and the dragon type to all manner of different creatures. I like templates as a GM.

On a human, they basically still look human. Draconic facial features, and claws, and breath weapons, but they don't generally have a full dragons head, or a big bulky build, and they aren't usually covered in scales. They look like the dragon equivalent of a yuanti.

Dragonkin are distantly related to dragons. Essentially they're lesser dragons. They live tribally, and have a type, matching up with the types of dragons. Theyre large, and have wings, tails, and claws. They have breath weapons.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> That all doesn't change that I am okay with or without Dragonboobs.



 After this thread, I've realized I'm okay with other people having them so long as they give me the alternatives we used to have so I can just ignore dragonborn like I do warforged.


----------



## Felon (Jan 17, 2012)

All I wanna know is we can have cat-ladies with six boobs bustin' out of a triple-decker brassiere.


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 17, 2012)

The female dragonborn have fooled everyone. See, they don't actually have breasts. Decades ago, when dragonborn first came into contact with human civilization, many female dragonborn became annoyed that everyone was calling them "Mister". Other female dragonborn felt like outcasts and wanted to integrate better with human society. Thus it became fashionable for them to stuff their blouses with two mounds of cotton, or wear boob-molded armor. It's only when you travel to dragonborn-only settlements that you will see boobless dragonborn, but you don't ever hear about them because none of them have ever modelled for Wayne Reynolds.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 17, 2012)

To be honest: not every female dragonborn was shown with boobs. Steve Prescott's amazing cover to Player's Handbook Races: Dragonborn, has a male and a female. Can you tell which is which?


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 17, 2012)

Another theory: Female dragonboobs might be a trait that is analagous and not homologous to mammaries.

I remembered an interesting theory in university, confirmed on Wikipedia:


> In considering the human animal, zoologists proposed that the human female is the only primate that possesses permanent, full-form breasts when not pregnant. Other mammal females develop full breasts only when pregnant. The zoologist Desmond Morris proposed that the rounded shape of a woman's breasts evolved as frontal, secondary sex characteristic that is a sexual-attraction counterpart to the buttocks...
> <snip>
> As an ethologist, Morris further proposed that breasts, a secondary sex characteristic located on the woman's chest, encouraged face-to-face sexual intercourse that led to the establishment of an emotional bond between man and woman; social progress from an essentially procreational function of human biology.



So with female dragonborn, chest mounds may have evolved purely as sexual signals, like ridiculously large antlers on male deer that have no purpose other than for fighting and mating.

If it was up to me, though, I think anthropormorphy can be a bit dull when making dragonborn "the same" as humans. What if females tend to be smaller with vibrant colors and "feminine" frills, whereas males are larger and dull-brown in coloration.

So in a modular D&D, if you want dragonboobs, I think you can make a pseudo-biological case for that, and if you don't want dragonboobs, you don't need them.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 17, 2012)

SlyDoubt said:


> I would actually love to see 5E have all unique new races. Won't happen but it would be ballsy and cool as hell.




The last time WotC tried to be "ballsy and cool as hell" they added devil-people and dragon-people and a bunch of people bitched that "D&D looks like Mos Eisley, amirite?".

Considering _those exact same people _are the ones being courted for this new edition, I wouldn't expect such ballsy moves going forward.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jan 17, 2012)

What about female dwarf beards?


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 17, 2012)

Wormwood said:


> The last time WotC tried to be "ballsy and cool as hell" they added devil-people and dragon-people and a bunch of people bitched that "D&D looks like Mos Eisley, amirite?".
> 
> Considering _those exact same people _are the ones being courted for this new edition, I wouldn't expect such ballsy moves going forward.




100% not expecting it. I just think it would be interesting. 

Be honest though, the initial response is almost 100% based on an illustration. I don't even remember his name, but the guy who did most of the artwork in the 4E PHB is not really a good illustrator (sorry dude). At least not compared to the guys wotc uses frequently like rk post, wayne reynolds, steve prescott, mark zug, jesper ejsing, jim murray, etc.

Those guys could make anything seem authentic and interesting. Not cheesy and rehashed (like the tiefling and dragonborn currently look)

It's not just the thing itself, it's the way it is presented and marketed. I was ok with tiefling though I wondered where aasimar was. dragonborn just looked like crap. 

wotc lost me with 4e when i saw what character the entire thing lacked. even 3e was basically todd lockwood and sam wood for like 80% of the book. it gives a specific attitude and feeling to everything. when you just have a bunch of random illustrators thrown together with clashing styles it just feels crappy.

whoever is in charge of art direction currently, or more likely, whoever they answer to needs to be slapped around a bit.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 17, 2012)

SlyDoubt said:


> 1I don't even remember his name, but the guy who did most of the artwork in the 4E PHB is not really a good illustrator (sorry dude).




That was William O'Connor, and he's all kinds of awesome.

WOC STUDIOS


----------



## Mallus (Jan 17, 2012)

Felon said:


> All I wanna know is we can have cat-ladies with six boobs bustin' out of a triple-decker brassiere.



"Dude, was she stacked?"
"She was cat-stacked, bro!"


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 17, 2012)

Yes he's all kinds of awesome at refusing to draw (human) feet in every illustration I've seen.

He's cool and all, but not on the same level. 

There's a place for his illustrations, but it isn't doing the iconic images of each race. wotc has the money and the previous work relationship to have one of any number of extremely talented illustrators work on their books. 

instead with 4e to cut corners, save money and time they took work from way too large a pool of illustrators of varying skill levels. the end product simply looks bad. for a company with access to the talent I listed to go with the stuff they used is just sad. 

Compare this to the above posted illustration by steve prescott that you linked.






:/ If I saw the prescott image first when 4e was announced. I might have been interested. Instead I saw that.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Jan 17, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> They also don't nurse their young, or have hair.




According to the Ecology of the Dragonborn article in Dragon 365, they do nurse their young:



			
				Dragon Magazine 365 said:
			
		

> Dragonborn nurse their hatchlings for several months before teeth begin to come in. A dragonborn will then slowly introduce soft food and then move towards normal dragonborn eating habits, which contain more meat than is typical of most other races.


----------



## Sylrae (Jan 17, 2012)

Wednesday Boy said:


> According to the Ecology of the Dragonborn article in Dragon 365, they do nurse their young:




God Damnit people! for like the fifth time, the post you keep quoting is a poste that quotes a previous post and is clearly referring to dragons, because the topic was briefly derailed onto the semi related subject of how dragons do not have boobs, or hair, or nurse their young. (and the implication was that therefore dragon people who aren't like, part human or something, should follow suite)



Klaus said:


> To be honest: not every female dragonborn was shown  with boobs. Steve Prescott's amazing cover to Player's Handbook Races:  Dragonborn, has a male and a female. Can you tell which is which?



Easily. Its the fighter type with the hair. I think it looks much better than the William O'Connor dragonborn.



Wormwood said:


> The last time WotC tried to be "ballsy and cool  as hell" they added devil-people and dragon-people and a bunch of people  bitched that "D&D looks like Mos Eisley, amirite?".
> 
> Considering _those exact same people _are the ones being courted  for this new edition, I wouldn't expect such ballsy moves going  forward.



... 3e had Tieflings, and they were actually devil  people instead of cursed humans. It also had the 3 previously mentioned  dragon races.

It didnt come across as ballsy to me, it came across as moving two races  from the monster manual (and Monsters of Faerun) to the PHB, and  dumbing them down in an attempt to appeal more to 13 year olds.



Charwoman Gene said:


> What about female dwarf beards?



All for them, they're dwarves. Plus, I've seen human women that didnt groom themselves well who had mustaches and the beginnings of a beard, so its not at all implausible.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jan 18, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> Easily. Its the fighter type with the hair. I think it looks much better than the William O'Connor dragonborn.




FWIW, you can't see her boobies because of the angle.


----------



## Felon (Jan 18, 2012)

Mallus said:


> "Dude, was she stacked?"
> "She was cat-stacked, bro!"




Wasn't that an old Ted Nugent song? "Cat-Stacked Fever"?


----------



## nightwind1 (Feb 3, 2012)

Charwoman Gene said:


> What about female dwarf beards?



They are there so people don't think their dwarf husbands are gay.


----------



## Number48 (Feb 3, 2012)

I heard the designers talk about this one. They considered it, and to try to appease both sides of the debate, dragonborn females will now be a B cup.


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 3, 2012)

Sylrae said:


> ... 3e had Tieflings, and they were actually devil  people instead of cursed humans. It also had the 3 previously mentioned  dragon races.




Heck, tieflings have been around as a PC race since 2e. It's just that in 2e and 3e they had wildly varying appearances, and they were descended from any of the various groups of fiends. 4e restricted their appearance to a single style with little to no diversity and restricted them to a cursed group of devil-tainted humans rather than having the option of various other groups of fiends tainting their blood. 

It really took away a lot of their charm, and while making them a "core" race (for whatever that really means in the end) in 4e it made them something wholly different from what I even considered tieflings to be.


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 3, 2012)

I really do like 4E tieflings, over all.

But I do still prefer 2E tieflings.

Call the 4E ones something slightly more creative than "Devilborn" going forward, maybe, but don't toss them outright. But man, need more planetouched.


----------

