# Ecology of the Dragonborn up



## Rechan (Jul 10, 2008)

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080709


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jul 10, 2008)

After the first skimming: Nice to see more complete write-ups for racial powers - I guess a lot of stuff didn't make it into the PHB. But why is that utility power marked as "epic", if it only needs to replace a 12th level or higher power!? And it compares very good to the Battle Mages Arcane Rejuvenation, but since it's a racial power, that's ok in my book.

And no flying, even at epic levels... 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## The_Fan (Jul 10, 2008)

An explanation of dragonboobs too. They are in fact monotremes who both lay eggs and nurse their young.


----------



## Wormwood (Jul 10, 2008)

And the fluff specifically defends dragonboobs.

Win.

edit: ninja'd!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 10, 2008)

If DDI is the first draft of later books, does this mean we're going to get a PHB races fluff book at some point?

This makes me sad to have fluff segregated from the rules like this.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 10, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> After the first skimming: Nice to see more complete write-ups for racial powers - I guess a lot of stuff didn't make it into the PHB. But why is that utility power marked as "epic", if it only needs to replace a 12th level or higher power!? And it compares very good to the Battle Mages Arcane Rejuvenation, but since it's a racial power, that's ok in my book.
> 
> And no flying, even at epic levels...
> 
> Cheers, LT.



Yeah, the lack of flying sucks. I skimmed the entire article looking for something that would allow a dragonborn warlord in my game to develop wings like the dragonborn champion in the 4e MM.

I think an encounter power that mimicked the Fly spell, but granted a fly (clumsy) speed, wouldn't be out of place. I was certain there would be something in this article that were cut from the PHB for lack of space, but no such luck.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 10, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> This makes me sad to have fluff segregated from the rules like this.




What do you expect, after the "HOW DARE YOU INCLUDE FLUFF IN MY RULES TEXTBOOK" arguments that ran amok here?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 10, 2008)

Rechan said:


> What do you expect, after the "HOW DARE YOU INCLUDE FLUFF IN MY RULES TEXTBOOK" arguments that ran amok here?



Those made me sad, too.

Next person I see who champions that point of view is getting bonked on the head with the 4E MM, the product of their madness.


----------



## Sonny (Jul 10, 2008)

Good article, and may I say that the "young dragonborn training" picture, is excellent. It's so good, that it's the first piece of 4e art that has made me want to play a dragonborn.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 10, 2008)

It kind of meanders at first with dragonborn history, but once it hits its stride, this is a very nice article.


----------



## Shroomy (Jul 10, 2008)

I liked the article, but I wasn't blow away by it like I was by some of the other offerings.  Then again, I never really warmed up to the "Ecology of..." articles in any iteration of the magazine and/or edition.  I really liked the feats, though I was somewhat disappointed by the lack of a feat to give flight (I was thinking it would make the epic tier) and lack of dragonborn-specific paragon paths (the warforged article set the bar pretty high for 4e racial articles).  I did like the two new monsters, as I love monsters....


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 10, 2008)

Meh, I still think dragonboobs are stupid ;p


----------



## Aristotle (Jul 10, 2008)

I agree with Shroomy. It was a good article, but I expected the same level of coverage that we saw for Warforged. Flight has to be on the way given the dragonborn in the MM. I'm starting to think we might see a racial splat at some point too. I'd be less interested in that than the power source splats.


----------



## fba827 (Jul 10, 2008)

I feel stupid for asking this question as I am sure it is something simple that I am missing ...

P15 (as numbered on the pdf, or page 4 of the pdf file itself)
Dragonbrn Zeal.
The feat is paragon level.
The utility power that it replaces is paragon level
But the title line of the new power says Epic Dragonborn Racial ability.

Are all power-replacing racial feats listed as epic or something? Just, the terminology will annoy me (using epic in the description when it's on par with the paragon teir), otherwise I'll just treat it as a typeo.


----------



## garyh (Jul 10, 2008)

Did they fix the &authentic=true trick?  Because it isn't working for me anymore.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Jul 10, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Meh, I still think dragonboobs are stupid ;p



Opinions on their aesthetic meret or on whoever thought "hey, these Lizard chicks need boobs" are, and allways have been fine, but it's nice to have a good retort to annoying psuodo-biologists who what to complain that the biological details of a fantasy race are "not realistic".

Of course now I have to explain to my Dragonborn players what the "mono" in "monotreme" stands for.



garyh said:


> Did they fix the &authentic=true trick?  Because it isn't working for me anymore.



Yes, the authentication has been moved to cookies/sessions. Not unexpected.


----------



## Cat Moon (Jul 10, 2008)

Dragonborn are starting to remind me more and more of raptors.


----------



## Snoweel (Jul 10, 2008)

At-will flight is a gamebreaker.


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 10, 2008)

Klaus said:


> Yeah, the lack of flying sucks. I skimmed the entire article looking for something that would allow a dragonborn warlord in my game to develop wings like the dragonborn champion in the 4e MM.




Keep in mind that the Flying Champion is a level 26. That means Epic Level for a PC. To be honest, I fully expect to see this option show up as either a Racial Epic Destiny (awakening the dragon in the dragonborn) or an Epic Racial Feat. I would bet in either the Draconomicon or some later Racial Splat Book that expends the races like the "Races of..." series.


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 10, 2008)

Snoweel said:


> At-will flight is a gamebreaker.




I would argue that this is not true at Epic level, which is when a dragonborn should get it based on the Champion entry in the MM (level 26). Its also only a clumsy flight, and doesn't allow hovering - which means no shifting while flying, etc.


----------



## Snoweel (Jul 10, 2008)

Yeh I guess you're right.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 10, 2008)

It's good they separate fluff and rules - I dislike the 4E fluff and that weay, I can ignore it much easier.


----------



## Corjay (Jul 10, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:


> Of course now I have to explain to my Dragonborn players what the "mono" in "monotreme" stands for.



And don't forget the "treme" part. Very important.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 10, 2008)

The_Fan said:


> An explanation of dragonboobs too. They are in fact monotremes who both lay eggs and nurse their young.




Except neither of the two earth dwelling monotremes have teats (or boobs) and instead produce milk-patches

but it does confirm what I've always said - dragons comefrom a transitional Pelycosaur-Therapsid group and Dragonborn are clearly therapsids (as are Platypus)


----------



## Snoweel (Jul 10, 2008)

I've seen a platypus in the wild!


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jul 10, 2008)

I really liked that article - it's exactly the sort of fully fleshed-out detail that is incredibly useful for a player that really wants to get into playing their character.

I'm also happy that there wasn't the equivalent for each race in the PHB, as I think it would have pushed the page count much too high.

Hopefully we'll see one soon for the Eladrin, what with the tieflings getting some love recently they're the only 'new' race that hasn't had much coverage yet.


----------



## Ginnel (Jul 10, 2008)

I like the article, semi biased as I'm playing a dragonborn at the moment, question about the hurl breath though, does it provoke? Am I right in thinking every single ranged blast power provokes? also I'll assume its still a minor action


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 10, 2008)

Ginnel said:


> I like the article, semi biased as I'm playing a dragonborn at the moment, question about the hurl breath though, does it provoke? Am I right in thinking every single ranged blast power provokes? also I'll assume its still a minor action




It's turning into a ranged attack, right? Ranged attacks provoke.


----------



## Ginnel (Jul 10, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It's turning into a ranged attack, right? Ranged attacks provoke.



"When using your Dragonbreath attack you can hurl it as an area attack rather than using it as a close blast. You create an orb of energy that explodes in a burst 2 with a range of 10 squares."

I presume so the range of 10 squares seems to confirm it, but it would have been nice for them to state it out nice and plain though, which is something they should really make sure they do in all of these articles.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jul 10, 2008)

Agreed - it would have been great if they had just reprinted the Dragonbreath power taking that feat into account.

When a game is as precise about terms as 4e, it can be quite a glaring error when they don't make what they're doing with something crystal clear.


----------



## Blackrat (Jul 10, 2008)

I found the article itself a bit "meh". Some good stuff to reap from but mostly not. But boy do I like the image on the first page! It's truly awesome. The coloration of those two is exactly how I imagined the dragonborn to be and the pose is very thought- (and emotion) provoking.


----------



## greyscale1 (Jul 10, 2008)

I agree about the image, its fantastic.

As for the article, its pretty good, though I'm mostly psyched about it because a player of mine who is going to be playing a Dragonborn and I just had this conversation:

"Tell me about Dragonborn"

"Well, they are basically humanoid dragons, no tails, elemental breath weapons *blah blah obvious stuff*"

"Ha, I know all that! I mean can you give me more details on their physiology and history and culture and things like that?

"Buh.... yeah sure.... I'll write that up right away..."



YAY! SALVATION.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jul 10, 2008)

Good fluff, terrible feats.

The feats are nonsensical and boring, which is quite an achievement. Anything with "admixture" in it's name can piss right off. This isn't 3E. The complete lack of flying, wings, etc. whilst he MM Dragonborn continues to taunt me with it's wings is extremely irritating.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jul 10, 2008)

I wish I could see this article...for some reason the site is insisting that I don't exist now and therefore can't log in.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Jul 10, 2008)

This article just increases my desire to play a dragonborn when I finally actually get to play 4e.


----------



## Mindseye (Jul 10, 2008)

Vanuslux said:


> I wish I could see this article...for some reason the site is insisting that I don't exist now and therefore can't log in.




I'm having the same problem, as of yesterday. Never had trouble logging in before.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jul 10, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> After the first skimming: Nice to see more complete write-ups for racial powers - I guess a lot of stuff didn't make it into the PHB. But why is that utility power marked as "epic", if it only needs to replace a 12th level or higher power!? And it compares very good to the Battle Mages Arcane Rejuvenation, but since it's a racial power, that's ok in my book.
> 
> And no flying, even at epic levels...
> 
> Cheers, LT.




I would imagine that the 'epic' is a typo as it is clearly under the Paragon Tier powers.  This still leaves room for an epic tier power to grant flight!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 10, 2008)

The article is welcome to me, as I plan to play my first 4E character this week-end - a Dragonborn Warlord!

Though reading the fluff, I always thought "okay, does this fit a Klingon? Can my Dragonborn still be Kor or Worf?" 

Well, I think, mostly yes. 
And even better, it also provides some support for the John.M.Ford Klingons with their Klin Zha game, as it is mentioned that they like to play competitive, strategic games. 

I can have the best of two [/s]three[/s] four worlds:
- TNG/DS9 Klingons
- TOS/John M Ford Klingons
- D&D Dragons
- Starwars Chiss/Thrawn. (though less then the rest, I am playing an inspiring warlord, not a tactical)

Beware Krenn Rustazh, proud Dragonborn Warlod and Dar'ha master! 
(Okay, I'll probably rename the Dar'ha stuff.)

---

But count me among those that have hoped for a Dragonborn Epic Destiny that grants them wings.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 10, 2008)

One way to scale a dragonborn flight would be to base it on the Wizard spells.

Wizards can choose Fly at level 16, and once per day gain fly 8 (sustain: minor for up to 5 minutes). At level 22 they can get Mass Fly (same deal, multiple targets).

If you factor in that'd be a "clumsy" fly, I see no problem in having it be an encounter power for dragonborn of level 16+. Even out of combat, the dragonborn would have to rest 5 minutes for every 5 minutes of flight. That, coupled with the "clumsy" restrictions, really bring flight into line for the later paragon levels.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Jul 10, 2008)

I really don't understand why flying has become such a gamebreaker. 

I mean, really, why? If you have a fairly common race that has the ability to fly, would not every other race or culture familiar with them not have some way of countering that? And how advantageous is flying going to be in an enclosed "dungeon" setting?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 10, 2008)

Drkfathr1 said:


> I really don't understand why flying has become such a gamebreaker.
> 
> I mean, really, why? If you have a fairly common race that has the ability to fly, would not every other race or culture familiar with them not have some way of countering that? And how advantageous is flying going to be in an enclosed "dungeon" setting?




Fly is powerful because you can avoid most terrain, even inside a dungeon. 
Outside of dungeons, it allows you to avoid enemy attacks completely.

If you just introduce counter-measures to fly, why bother with it in the first place? Wouldn't it be nice that, around the time you actually can fly, you can also rely on its usefulness and not have it negated all the time? And wouldn't also be nice to not always have to provide for counter-measures?


----------



## Klaus (Jul 10, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Fly is powerful because you can avoid most terrain, even inside a dungeon.
> Outside of dungeons, it allows you to avoid enemy attacks completely.
> 
> If you just introduce counter-measures to fly, why bother with it in the first place? Wouldn't it be nice that, around the time you actually can fly, you can also rely on its usefulness and not have it negated all the time? And wouldn't also be nice to not always have to provide for counter-measures?



Bypass terrain: by the time you reach mid-Paragon and up, mundane terrain isn't much of a concern. And 4e added a mechanic for air currents, which slide you. For overland travel, a 5-minute flight followed by a 5-minute rest ammounts to a x1/2 multiplier to the distance travelled, which is worse than most terrains available.

Bypass encounters: unless you have an entire party of flyers, it's no good. One PC may bypass the encounter, but what about the rest of them?

Dungeon: Unless the creature has [fly (hover)], it must devote a move action to remain aloft, and can't take Opportunity or Immediate actions. If the creature has [flight (clumsy)], it suffers an additional -2 to attacks and defenses while flying. This is the case of the dragonborn champion in the MM.

Not only do wizards get Fly at level 16, githianky get Telekinetic Leap (encounter power, fly speed for 1 round, must end movement grounded) from the get-go.


----------



## greatamericanfolkher (Jul 10, 2008)

No wings, no paragon paths, no racial magic items. In my opinion, when compared to the warforged article, this article is sub par.


----------



## mudbunny (Jul 10, 2008)

Vanuslux said:


> I wish I could see this article...for some reason the site is insisting that I don't exist now and therefore can't log in.






Mindseye said:


> I'm having the same problem, as of yesterday. Never had trouble logging in before.




WotC staff is working on figuring out why. There is a thread on the WotC forums here where one of the staff members (GmrGrl) has been asking for some info via PMs.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 10, 2008)

Klaus said:


> Bypass terrain: by the time you reach mid-Paragon and up, mundane terrain isn't much of a concern.



I disagree. A Paragon or Epic level character might have a few more tricks up his sleeve to "handle" terrain (especially the wizard), but on a general basis, terrain remains relevant.



> And 4e added a mechanic for air currents, which slide you. For overland travel, a 5-minute flight followed by a 5-minute rest ammounts to a x1/2 multiplier to the distance travelled, which is worse than most terrains available.
> 
> Bypass encounters: unless you have an entire party of flyers, it's no good. One PC may bypass the encounter, but what about the rest of them?
> 
> ...



Well, I understood the original post more generally - why if flying bad (or rather: considered powerful).

If used as a limited resource, it is a tactical option and must be used with care. That's why it is okay to allow it at higher levels. I also wouldn't mind a Epic Dragonborn being flying at will (albeit clumsy). 

But it's important to understand why flight is a powerful ability - and why it always has been. (Even regardless of game system - Invisible flying mages exist outside of D&D, too.)


----------



## heirodule (Jul 10, 2008)

Corjay said:


> And don't forget the "treme" part. Very important.




Yay wikipedia.

So now, although giving them breasts makes them more poular with human players who can relate to them, we have to tell players that they defecate and urinate out the same opening they reproduce from.

Alien race FTW!


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Jul 10, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Fly is powerful because you can avoid most terrain, even inside a dungeon.
> Outside of dungeons, it allows you to avoid enemy attacks completely.
> 
> If you just introduce counter-measures to fly, why bother with it in the first place? Wouldn't it be nice that, around the time you actually can fly, you can also rely on its usefulness and not have it negated all the time? And wouldn't also be nice to not always have to provide for counter-measures?




As has been said by another poster, Avoiding terrain inside a dungeon is only for that one character. What about the Elf ability that allows them to move through difficult terrain? What about teleporting? 

A flyer can avoid enemy attacks outside only if said enemies have no ranged weapons. Or they can just fly away, but that's no different than just fleeing. And once again, that's one character, leaving the rest of the party to fend for themselves. 

I don't really consider crossbows, long bows, short bows, javelins, long spears, and nets to be such devestating counter-measures that a flyer would never be able to use the ability, but it would certainly BALANCE it. That has nothing to do with "negating" the ability. It's really not that complex.


----------



## fba827 (Jul 10, 2008)

Mindseye said:


> I'm having the same problem, as of yesterday. Never had trouble logging in before.




I had the exact same problem (I used to log in just fine until two days ago).  I went to the forgot password link (next to the login box) and that took me to a _new_ gleemax site that made me re-merge my old account to whatever new database they are using  (i forgot the term they used; but one optio nwas the plain simple reset password and the other option was one of those "enter your password and we'll 'fix' your account to work on our new system" things...


----------



## Wolfspider (Jul 10, 2008)

Hmm.  So does that mean by extension that dragons, which are related to the dragonborn, are also monotremes?


----------



## mlund (Jul 10, 2008)

Tonguez said:


> Except neither of the two earth dwelling monotremes have teats (or boobs) and instead produce milk-patches
> 
> but it does confirm what I've always said - dragons comefrom a transitional Pelycosaur-Therapsid group and Dragonborn are clearly therapsids (as are Platypus)




Yeah, there's nothing quite as sad as poorly cobbled rationalizations to try and justify what is nothing more than anthropomorphism and shoddy art work.

As noted, monotremes don't come with teats, and creatures whose young can walk within hours and thus don't need to be carried about for years at a time by nursing mothers don't have their mammary glands 4+ feet off the ground.

But furries with cow-udders on their stomachs don't sell as well as furries with human-style "boobs." They'd be even far less marketable-looking with the application of the very biology they try to use to excuse "putting jugs on them," than if they just gave up on trying to stick breasts on every female in the PHB. Would it have been so hard to just pay extra attention to the faces, eyes, and maybe attach some differentiating "plumage" type effects? I mean, they gave them a hair-substitute already.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 10, 2008)

Mindseye said:


> I'm having the same problem, as of yesterday. Never had trouble logging in before.



Way back in time, I logged in under Password A.  When they made us all change over, I altered my password to Password B.  Suddenly, with this article, I find myself unable to log in.  After a few tries, I put in Password A just to see what will happen.  It logs me in flawlessly.

I don't know what that means for you guys, but its what happened.


----------



## radferth (Jul 10, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:


> Opinions on their aesthetic meret or on whoever thought "hey, these Lizard chicks need boobs" are, and allways have been fine, but it's nice to have a good retort to annoying psuodo-biologists who what to complain that the biological details of a fantasy race are "not realistic".
> 
> Of course now I have to explain to my Dragonborn players what the "mono" in "monotreme" stands for.




I wish they would have just come right out as said "they have boobs because we are resolved that all female creatures that walk upright will have boobs and be otherwise sexually appealing."  I mean, once they gave Zuggtomy a makeover, you know they were going to leave no stone unturned.  Personally, I find them creepy in an Heironymus Bosch sorta way, but that's just me.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 10, 2008)

Drkfathr1 said:


> As has been said by another poster, Avoiding terrain inside a dungeon is only for that one character. What about the Elf ability that allows them to move through difficult terrain? What about teleporting?
> 
> A flyer can avoid enemy attacks outside only if said enemies have no ranged weapons. Or they can just fly away, but that's no different than just fleeing. And once again, that's one character, leaving the rest of the party to fend for themselves.
> 
> I don't really consider crossbows, long bows, short bows, javelins, long spears, and nets to be such devestating counter-measures that a flyer would never be able to use the ability, but it would certainly BALANCE it. That has nothing to do with "negating" the ability. It's really not that complex.



Before I say anything else, I say this: I am not saying that flight needs to be verboten. I am saying that it effects have to be carefully considered and that it needs restrictions, because it is very useful and powerful. 


How do you think about one character is forced to enter melee, and another can avoid most threats by simply hovering 15 ft above the ground - and still contributing with spells? 

In a way, a flying ranged Controller or Striker lessens the value of a Defender - the Defender is not needed to protect the Flyer any more. And a flying Defender can't benefit as much from flight as the Controller or Striker, since he is not supposed to run away and works best in melee.

And that why flight has to be restricted. It surely doesn't have to be removed, but it must be handed out with care. Clumsy flight, daily encounter abilities, or restrictions to high levels, and general (instead of class-specific) availability can all be useful for this.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 10, 2008)

radferth said:


> I wish they would have just come right out as said "they have boobs because we are resolved that all female creatures that walk upright will have boobs and be otherwise sexually appealing."



And this might actually be very true in the real world, too. 

On a related note,the first illustration of Dragonborn is really great. The scene evokes the feeling as if the two Dragonborn are teacher and pupil/child. Or is itteacher and lover? The hand on the shoulder indicates a stronger bond between the two. 
Since I can't see Dragonboobs, I tend to assume the former. The softer face of the Dragonborn could certainly go either way.

I definitely like this piece.


----------



## JustKim (Jul 10, 2008)

heirodule said:


> Yay wikipedia.
> 
> So now, although giving them breasts makes them more poular with human players who can relate to them, we have to tell players that they defecate and urinate out the same opening they reproduce from.
> 
> Alien race FTW!



This is true for basically all reptiles and birds. Fantasy creatures are heavily anthropomorphized, I think most players assume minotaurs and dragons and harpies work basically the same way as humans. I keep my biology background to myself because I don't think people really want to know about the cloacal tongue.

Go ahead and Google that.


----------



## zerotkatama (Jul 10, 2008)

As to the opening picture, Mustrum, I think that, given the article, it's supposed to be Parent/Child (with the whole one parent takes the child to train in the ways of the people).

That's interesting about them marrying only for procreation. I wonder how Dragonborn romance works?


----------



## Classic Villany (Jul 10, 2008)

Has anyone else had the problem of going to download the article and then getting a page full of numbers/codeing?

For some reason everytime I try going to download this article I keep getting a page full of numbers/codeing. This is the first time I've had this problem with an article on WotC's Website.


----------



## Tewligan (Jul 10, 2008)

zerotkatama said:


> I wonder how Dragonborn romance works?



I'm sure there's some creepy furry "art" out there to illustrate it in a most horrifying fashion.


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 10, 2008)

Ginnel said:


> "When using your Dragonbreath attack you can hurl it as an area attack rather than using it as a close blast. You create an orb of energy that explodes in a burst 2 with a range of 10 squares."
> 
> I presume so the range of 10 squares seems to confirm it, but it would have been nice for them to state it out nice and plain though, which is something they should really make sure they do in all of these articles.




Actually, it isn't a ranged attack at all - it is an area attack, as it says in the description. Area attacks, like Ranged attacks, provoke when used. There isn't really any need to add any extra text to state this in the ability itself. 

That said, I do think putting a 'power block' in with the altered information would not have been a bad idea.

I was sad to see no Dragonborn Paragon Paths, but given there are likely to be some in the Draconomicon, I can forgive the lack.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 10, 2008)

zerotkatama said:


> As to the opening picture, Mustrum, I think that, given the article, it's supposed to be Parent/Child (with the whole one parent takes the child to train in the ways of the people).



Makes the most sense to me, too.



> That's interesting about them marrying only for procreation. I wonder how Dragonborn romance works?



Short, but intensive. 

And actually maybe one of the most alien aspects. Short affairs we might know (okay, not personally, but on an academic level, I've heard from them  ) - but actually having a child in such an "affair". That's usually an accident among humans.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 10, 2008)

Summarizing Dragonborn:

Dragonborn are draconic humanoid samurai who marry long enough to have a child together, then split their ways as the other goes "Lone Wolf and Cub".


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 10, 2008)

mlund said:


> As noted, monotremes don't come with teats, and creatures whose young can walk within hours and thus don't need to be carried about for years at a time by nursing mothers don't have their mammary glands 4+ feet off the ground.



And real-world monotremes aren't 7-foot-tall or bipedal, and they can't talk, and they don't have opossable thumbs, and they aren't as intelligent as humans, and they certainly can't shoot fire from their mouths, and...

All the same things are true of real-world reptiles too, so I guess dragonborn can't be reptiles either.


----------



## Byronic (Jul 10, 2008)

Half of the fluff was nice, half was boring and unoriginal. Not too bad though.

Has anyone noticed though, that he contradicts the PHB? He says that Dragonborn aren't reserved, yet the PHB notes that as one of the dragonborn charateristics.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 11, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> And real-world monotremes aren't 7-foot-tall or bipedal, and they can't talk, and they don't have opossable thumbs, and they aren't as intelligent as humans, and they certainly can't shoot fire from their mouths, and...
> 
> All the same things are true of real-world reptiles too, so I guess dragonborn can't be reptiles either.




You missed the argument.  It was stated "Hey, they're monotremes, there's your half-assed biological reason why they have breasts."  So it was followed up with "Uh, no.  Still doesn't work."


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 11, 2008)

JustKim said:


> This is true for basically all reptiles and birds.
> Go ahead and Google that.




So Dragonborn porn is all about cloacal kissing?


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 11, 2008)

greatamericanfolkher said:


> No wings, no paragon paths, no racial magic items. In my opinion, when compared to the warforged article, this article is sub par.



I just don't think the articles are really comparable. The warforged article wasn't "Ecology of the Warforged", it was "Playing Warforged" - quite clearly a different kind of article, aimed at fleshing out the simple rules for PC "monsters" from the _Monster Manual_. I imagine there was more mechanical information in the warforged article simply because there won't be much support for that race until after Eberron is out.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 11, 2008)

Klaus said:


> Summarizing Dragonborn:
> 
> Dragonborn are draconic humanoid samurai who marry long enough to have a child together, then split their ways as the other goes "Lone Wolf and Cub".



For me, Dragonborn will not be humanoid samurai, but Klingons. Otherwise, everything looks fine.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 11, 2008)

I'll be using Paizo's take on lizardfolk.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Jul 11, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You missed the argument.  It was stated "Hey, they're monotremes, there's your half-assed biological reason why they have breasts."  So it was followed up with "Uh, no.  Still doesn't work."



And that's more half-assed pseudo-biological "reasoning" brought up by people who think too hard about fantasy, to quote Hong.

Honestly, I'm perfectly fine with DBs laying eggs and nursing their young, without having to cram them into some warped version of real-world taxonomy just because as a nerd I'm obliged to overthink everything. (Do you people get into screaming fits because of gryphons, too?)


----------



## Fenes (Jul 11, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:


> And that's more half-assed pseudo-biological "reasoning" brought up by people who think too hard about fantasy, to quote Hong.
> 
> Honestly, I'm perfectly fine with DBs laying eggs and nursing their young, without having to cram them into some warped version of real-world taxonomy just because as a nerd I'm obliged to overthink everything. (Do you people get into screaming fits because of gryphons, too?)




Gryphons are fun. Dragonborn are cheap. And any attempt to make them more "humans with scales, but sexy and kewl" makes them cheaper.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 11, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:


> And that's more half-assed pseudo-biological "reasoning" brought up by people who think too hard about fantasy, to quote Hong.
> 
> Honestly, I'm perfectly fine with DBs laying eggs and nursing their young, without having to cram them into some warped version of real-world taxonomy just because as a nerd I'm obliged to overthink everything. (Do you people get into screaming fits because of gryphons, too?)




As was just said, nobody tried to make gryphons "sexy and cool."

The complaints against dragonborn didn't start with the psuedo-biology.  That was a branch off from the original "Scalies with .  That's stupid." issue.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 11, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> As was just said, nobody tried to make gryphons "sexy and cool."
> 
> The complaints against dragonborn didn't start with the psuedo-biology.  That was a branch off from the original "Scalies with .  That's stupid." issue.




One day, aliens will arrive on Earth. And they will be scaly and their females will have large, beautiful breasts. And they will ask specifically for ProfessorCirno ...


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jul 11, 2008)

Considering that that half-dragon template was applied to almost everything in the MM, I think it's safe to assume traditional rules of biology dont necessarily apply.  The continued nerd rage over dragonborn boobage is just wierd.  No one complains about harpies having them, but they have tradition on their side, right?  The entire thing seems like some wierd version of badwrongfun applied to fluff. "MY version is more accurate to RL biology and thus superior!"

If I wanted to overthink it, I'd note that at SOME point monotremes developed nipples and I dont believe anyone's yet figured out when they showed up compared to when mammals went completely eggshell-less.  It's entirely possible that as some point we had mammals with nipples (And thus we can have boobs when we anthropomophise them) while still laying eggs.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 11, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> For me, Dragonborn will not be humanoid samurai, but Klingons. Otherwise, everything looks fine.



Well, klingons are rubber-forehead samurai anyway.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 11, 2008)

Klaus said:


> Well, klingons are rubber-forehead samurai anyway.



I bow to your superior artistic knowledge. You are certainly correct.


----------



## Dragonbait (Jul 11, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You missed the argument. It was stated "Hey, they're monotremes, there's your half-assed biological reason why they have breasts." So it was followed up with "Uh, no. Still doesn't work."




From a real-world standpoint, it's true. 

But by this hard-core biology there can be no humanoid race other than humans and anything that is clearly a primate. And it couldn't be over a certain height and keep a very human appearance (bone and muscle structure). So no lizardfolk, centaurs, kobolds, giants, etc..

And then the most agressive, prolific, and adaptable race would spread so fast and kill off most of the other erect primates.


----------



## Dragonbait (Jul 11, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:


> Considering that that half-dragon template was applied to almost everything in the MM, I think it's safe to assume traditional rules of biology dont necessarily apply.



Well, in 3ed dragons were really into sexual expirimentation but by the time 4E came out they caught a couple social diseases, learned their lessons and now keep it in their scaly pants.



D.Shaffer said:


> The continued nerd rage over dragonborn boobage is just wierd. No one complains about harpies having them, but they have tradition on their side, right? The entire thing seems like some wierd version of badwrongfun applied to fluff. "MY version is more accurate to RL biology and thus superior!"



QFT


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jul 11, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:


> Honestly, I'm perfectly fine with DBs laying eggs and nursing their young, without having to cram them into some warped version of real-world taxonomy just because as a nerd I'm obliged to overthink everything. (Do you people get into screaming fits because of gryphons, too?)




It doesn't bother me one bit, but then, wouldn't you also have been fine with dragonborn just... not having boobs? Seems silly to argue either way, but still.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 11, 2008)

I'm a little bored with the article. "Blah blah blah empire blah blah blah boobs blah blah blah nobility blah." 

I'll accept that's probably because the dragonborn are somehow inherently boring to me, though, rather than due to any flaw with the article. 

Where's the juicy conflict and delicious problems facing the dragonborn? Nowhere, really.


----------



## chaotix42 (Jul 11, 2008)

This topic has been beaten to death, but who gives a flying **** about it, really? They're not reptiles, or lizards, or monotremes, or whatever. They're anthropomorphic dragon guys who kick ass. Dragonborn are a created race. They were created with boobies, vajayjays, and peenees. They breath lightning, or poison, or fire, or etc. They are fantasy creatures with no real world analog. You can not defeat the dragonboobs by saying "Nope, still doesn't work with real-life biology." IT'S NOT REAL LIFE. AT ALL. Please please PLEASE stop caring. I'll stop caring that you care as well, if it sweetens the not-caring deal.

In closing, I refer you to the (abridged) lyrics of the Cornershop song, "Brimful of Asha" -

_Everybody needs a bosom for a pillow 
    Everybody needs a bosom 
    Everybody needs a bosom for a pillow 
    Everybody needs a bosom 
    Mine’s on the 45_


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm a little bored with the article. "Blah blah blah empire blah blah blah boobs blah blah blah nobility blah."
> 
> I'll accept that's probably because the dragonborn are somehow inherently boring to me, though, rather than due to any flaw with the article.
> 
> Where's the juicy conflict and delicious problems facing the dragonborn? Nowhere, really.




That's actually a far more interesting criticisimn. I think it was Jürgen Huberts blog on Urbis where I noticed that a lot of races seemed to have a trait that caused that could lead them in conflict with others. (I think Dragonborn was one of them.) I liked that. 

That's definitely something that is missing here. It might be intentional - the conflict is not to be assumed between races, but between evil and good. But that might still be a flawed goal.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 11, 2008)

MR said:
			
		

> That's definitely something that is missing here. It might be intentional - the conflict is not to be assumed between races, but between evil and good. But that might still be a flawed goal.




Dude, yes.

The essence of storytelling is drama, the essence of drama is conflict. These dragonborn lack conflict, and so don't have drama, and so don't make a good story (and so, for me, don't make a very good D&D game).

I wouldn't even mind if they were given some sort of conflict between themselves, or between them and certain dragons, or between them and some monster-race.

Think of how interesting it could be if the Githyanki, with their red dragon pact and their gaudy militarism and violence, were introduced as a counterpoint to the dragonborn's nobility and pride. 

Or of the awesomeness of dragonborn who were throwing off the shackles of slavery to the dragons themselves (though this gives you a bit of the "single schtick" problem, but meh). 

Or of a dragonborn cult of bane lurking at the heart of the fall of Arkhosia.

As written, it would seem like dragonborn and tieflings have a built-in reason to oppose each other, what with conflicting empires and one being noble warriors and the other being insidious warlocks and the like. 

I dunno, that's mostly ranting, I'm just BORED by the article. Maybe a fun read for someone who has a real passionate nerd love for the scalemonsters, but for someone who's basically apathetic like me, it just INCREASES my apathy. Before I was all "Shrug." Now I'm all "Meh. Hardcore Meh."


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I dunno, that's mostly ranting, I'm just BORED by the article. Maybe a fun read for someone who has a real passionate nerd love for the scalemonsters, but for someone who's basically apathetic like me, it just INCREASES my apathy. Before I was all "Shrug." Now I'm all "Meh. Hardcore Meh."



I had to laugh out reading this.  (To avoid just saying "LOL")


----------



## hamishspence (Jul 11, 2008)

*haven't seen it yet*

Couldn't get in (tried the other suggested ways). The only way I got to see the Ashardalon article was through the direct link provided.

Any chance of a direct link to the Dragonborn one?


----------



## Giskard1708 (Jul 12, 2008)

*Found a problem...*

Bunch of marginal to flat out inappropriate stuff deleted by Moderator.

The spirit of the game is to kill dragons, not be them.  I mean, seriously folks, is this really where we want our beloved geek pasttime to go? Dungeons and Dragons: The Movie, Directed by Micheal Bay?

/Not a troll.  I care a lot about this because I mainly play in the organized campaigns and have to swallow Wizards' system/fluff whole.


----------



## Andor (Jul 12, 2008)

Klaus said:


> Well, klingons are rubber-forehead samurai anyway.




I miss green communist Klingons with Martian flatcat issues.


----------



## chaotix42 (Jul 12, 2008)

> The spirit of the game is to kill dragons, not be them.




The spirit of the game is whatever we wish. The spirit of my game is FUN. If you're having fun, who is anyone else to tell you you're "doing it wrong?" You have that authority?



> I mean, seriously folks, is this really where we want our beloved geek pasttime to go?




I'm wholeheartedly enjoying it so far. 



> Dungeons and Dragons: The Movie, Directed by Micheal Bay?




Dragonborns being added to D&D somehow makes it more like a Micheal Bay movie? I guess, if you picture the dragonborn's fight scenes in jerky, out-of-focus snippets. When I picture dragonborn I get visions of Braveheart, Predator, Conan, The 13th Warrior... perhaps they're shallow to you but it seems you made your mind up long before trying to imagine a brave, heroic dragonborn paladin (for example). 



> /Not a troll.




Of course. You're just stating your opinion.



> I care a lot about this because I mainly play in the organized campaigns and have to swallow Wizards' system/fluff whole.




Dang, so you're sitting outside with some other players, the baby, and the bathwater? I figure your time would be better spent with a system you enjoy.


----------



## Wormwood (Jul 12, 2008)

Giskard1708 said:


> The preceeding quote deserves errata.



Please don't "fix" my post for me.

Thanks.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 12, 2008)

Giskard1708 said:


> The preceeding quote deserves errata.



Someone call the mother ing waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance.


----------



## Giskard1708 (Jul 12, 2008)

*Rebuttal*



Dragonbait said:


> From a real-world standpoint, it's true.
> 
> But by this hard-core biology there can be no humanoid race other than humans and anything that is clearly a primate. And it couldn't be over a certain height and keep a very human appearance (bone and muscle structure). So no lizardfolk, centaurs, kobolds, giants, etc..
> 
> And then the most agressive, prolific, and adaptable race would spread so fast and kill off most of the other erect primates.




I agree for the most part with your assesment—the threshold dividing the conditionally believable fluff from the outright cheesy can vary for each individual and subject, but it *does *exist, and Wizards has arguably crossed it with the Dragonborn.

Boobs are generally great on the mammalian humanoids.  (I Don't think many will argue with that.)  However, the placement of breasts on a creature that has no obvious evolutionary purpose for them taxes the suspension of disbelief, which in many cases can be critical to enjoying a fantasy/sci-fi experience. Now, I understand that an argument can be made to take the fluff at face value and say that the race sprung from the blood of the dying Dragon god Io,  but if you are going to take that stance, then you have to admit that Dragon's aren't mammalian and thus not monotremes,and they_ *darn well don't have boobs. *_Personally, I think it is unlikely that any dragon or (especially) dragon-god would have any use for or want to have anything to do with breasts.  If I were a dying dragon god, my last act as a celestial being wouldn't be to make my begotten-not-made descendents top-heavy with useless fleshbags.

Now, take as an example the 3e Half-Dragons.  This race had a logical explanation for the boobage.  As half-human (or half-whatever else,) the breasts were assumed to come from the non-draconic side of the character's ancestral tree.  This was a _much _easier pill to swallow. Likewise, the fluff explanation for the intermingling of dragon blood with the general population of DnD races was not only believeable, but _Awesome.  _It added more reasons for Dragons to become involved with the affairs of the other races and contributed to the Dragon's characterization as an NPC character archetype in the campaign.  It also hardly even stretched the suspension of disbelief—If I were cooped up in a lair for centuries without companionship, I'd be _horny as . _

The fact that Wizards felt it necessary to justify their pro-furry pandering with this ill-conceived monotreme retcon speaks to the fact that 
dragonboobs just dont wash with the geek community. Wizards' decision to can a rich and perfectly workable backstory for the Half-Dragon is emblematic of everything else that is wrong with 4e: they overreached and threw out much of what worked about 3e and gave that edition its characteristic flavor. And if they are going to try and sell me a subscription to the fluff through Dragon?  That's outrageous.  Anyone not subscribing to DDI will automatically be getting an impoverished gaming experience, regardless of the quality of the fluff they release in the future


Also I think that I would be negligent in my duties if I did not reiterate that we are _not furries:_

http://hackvan.com/pub/stig/funny/geek/the-geek-hierarchy/the-geek-hierarchy-chart-2.0-abridged.gif



Dragonbait said:


> The spirit of the game is whatever we wish. The spirit of my game is FUN. If you're having fun, who is anyone else to tell you you're "doing it wrong?" You have that authority?




The spirit of the game is whatever my DM wishes. If my DM decides that Orcs or Tieflings came from the planet Xanadu in fleets of mighty spaceships made of cheese, as the player I'd be forced to eat  and like it.  Only I wouldn't, and I'd be really unhappy because that kind of tampering with community-established standards for a fantasy realm disrupts the suspension of disbelief requisite to having a good time adventuring through fantasy realms. In any case, it is overreaching on the part of the DM.  As an RPGA member, my DM is Wizards.  He can be a real dick.



Dragonbait said:


> Dragonborns being added to D&D somehow makes it more like a Micheal Bay movie? I guess, if you picture the dragonborn's fight scenes in jerky, out-of-focus snippets. When I picture dragonborn I get visions of Braveheart, Predator, Conan, The 13th Warrior... perhaps they're shallow to you but it seems you made your mind up long before trying to imagine a brave, heroic dragonborn paladin (for example).




GOD. Transformers was the WORST MOVIE EVER.

On-topic though, I was referring more to the over-the-top style of the new fluff that wizards is pushing on us.  Others have likened it to a WoWification of DnD.  I know that i am not the only one who prefers the intricate fluff of the default 3e setting as opposed to the broad and garish cartoon strokes that are taking place now with 4e.  I mean, if I wanted cartoon action hero, i would play in the Eberron campaign.  Wasn't that why they made the Ebberon setting?  There had to be some niche reason for it.





Dragonbait said:


> Dang, so you're sitting outside with some other players, the baby, and the bathwater? I figure your time would be better spent with a system you enjoy.




I would, but the RPGA is strictly Wizards stuff, and the announcement of 4e was the death knell of Living Greyhawk.  They're pulling the rug out from under us and forced early retirment for all our 3e characters. (I JUST got access to the Drunken Master prestige class too.  *Grumble*)

As it stands, I don't have a schedule that permits weekly get-togethers with a DM and a group of friends.  Personally, I like to game as god intended: in sleepless, uninterrupted 72 hour caffeine-fueled stretches at cons with a bunch of other likeminded gamers.  For me that means I'm stuck with 4th Edition, but I am not going to be silent about it.

I imagine that a bunch of LG fans are as angry about 4e as I, but I sincerely hope that they don't stop coming to cons, because I still want to play.


----------



## Rel (Jul 12, 2008)

A few things:

1) Giskard, welcome to ENWorld.

2) Please review the rules.
2a)  Like first of all watch the language.  I deleted some of your more colorful metaphors above.  That is not necessary to get your point across.  Knock it off.
2b)  That first post of yours is what we commonly call a "threadcrap".  It basically is just a bunch of bile with little real substance to it.  Knock that off too.

3) mhac...mnahc...mhacdebhandia, whatever, you there in Sydney:  Even though Giskard got off on the wrong foot, no need for you to be insulting.  Knock that off as well.

In summary:  Everybody quit doing stuff I don't like.  Now.


----------



## Corjay (Jul 12, 2008)

Rel said:


> In summary:  Everybody quit doing stuff I don't like.  Now.



LOL. So, nails on a chalkboard=bad.


----------



## chaotix42 (Jul 12, 2008)

I could do without the clever name-changing in the quotes, too. 

Giskard, I have a recommendation for you. When you go to your next RPGA marathon session, ask if everyone there can agree to a pact, fellowship, or written contract. Start it off something like this:

_We, the undersigned, while engaged in the act of playing the Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition roleplaying game, will imagine that dragonborn women do NOT have boobies. They have flat chests - actually, well-developed pectorals more often than not - and perhaps they are monotremes or full-blown reptiles. Where their "milk patches" or ovipositors are located is uncertain. Whatever the truth of these most curious details, we, the undersigned, hereby abolish the possibility of dragonboobies amongst all other (credible) possibilities._

It should be a good start, and I don't think it will infringe on your RPGA duties or any prior agreements you had with the organization. In fact, since you seem to be so passionate about the subject your fellow players may be more inclined to agree to your "No Dragonboobies" stipulation.

I sincerely hope you enjoy your future gaming experiences despite your distaste of certain elements of 4e, but considering that you'll still be playing regardless of your satisfaction I hope you can adapt and find some middle ground along the way.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Jul 12, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Gryphons are fun. Dragonborn are cheap. And any attempt to make them more "humans with scales, but sexy and kewl" makes them cheaper.




How and why are Dragonborn cheap? It's your opinion, of course, but it seems to be something a lot of people don't share. (And "making female dragonborn instantly recognizable as female, instead of just dragon-people with different colors or a smaller crest" != "making them sexy and kewl".)


----------



## rounser (Jul 12, 2008)

I, for one, welcome our new monotreme core race and will be retconning mammaries onto all female actual dragons as well, post haste.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 12, 2008)

Giskard1708 said:


> I agree for the most part with your assesment—the threshold dividing the conditionally believable fluff from the outright cheesy can vary for each individual and subject, but it *does *exist, and Wizards has arguably crossed it with the Dragonborn.



For you, certainly. I couldn't care less. (Oh, wait, that's not true. There are still some worse things)


> Boobs are generally great on the mammalian humanoids.  (I Don't think many will argue with that.)  However, the placement of breasts on a creature that has no obvious evolutionary purpose for them taxes the suspension of disbelief, which in many cases can be critical to enjoying a fantasy/sci-fi experience.



The purpose of female breasts is to be a secondary sexual characteristic. It exists to attract males (similar to colorful feathing of male birds, except the other way around). Theories suggest that the female human breast grew in size when mankind begin to walk upright. The typical secondary characteristics, the female butt, were no longer easily visible in this position, which is why the breast of females enlarged. 



> Now, I understand that an argument can be made to take the fluff at face value and say that the race sprung from the blood of the dying Dragon god Io,  but if you are going to take that stance, then you have to admit that Dragon's aren't mammalian and thus not monotremes,and they_ *darn well don't have boobs. *_Personally, I think it is unlikely that any dragon or (especially) dragon-god would have any use for or want to have anything to do with breasts.  If I were a dying dragon god, my last act as a celestial being wouldn't be to make my begotten-not-made descendents top-heavy with useless fleshbags.



What do we know about dying gods, aside that they don't exist in the real world? I could claim that if I was the creator of mankind, I wouldn't have created breasts for females. I would have focussed on mental capabiilties for both genders and make them so smart that they could figure out to live peacefully. Creating myths often make little sense in an objective or scientific point of view.



> Now, take as an example the 3e Half-Dragons.  This race had a logical explanation for the boobage.  As half-human (or half-whatever else,) the breasts were assumed to come from the non-draconic side of the character's ancestral tree.  This was a _much _easier pill to swallow. Likewise, the fluff explanation for the intermingling of dragon blood with the general population of DnD races was not only believeable, but _Awesome.  _It added more reasons for Dragons to become involved with the affairs of the other races and contributed to the Dragon's characterization as an NPC character archetype in the campaign.  It also hardly even stretched the suspension of disbelief—If I were cooped up in a lair for centuries without companionship, I'd be _horny as . _



Half-Dragons also indicate that Dragons have another purpose then to be killed or fought. Some apparently mate with them. And some can call them their father.

Metallic Dragons, by the way, are another sign for Dragons not being there to be killed.



> The fact that Wizards felt it necessary to justify their pro-furry pandering with this ill-conceived monotreme retcon speaks to the fact that
> dragonboobs just dont wash with the geek community. Wizards' decision to can a rich and perfectly workable backstory for the Half-Dragon is emblematic of everything else that is wrong with 4e: they overreached and threw out much of what worked about 3e and gave that edition its characteristic flavor. And if they are going to try and sell me a subscription to the fluff through Dragon?  That's outrageous.  Anyone not subscribing to DDI will automatically be getting an impoverished gaming experience, regardless of the quality of the fluff they release in the future



So given a logical explanation for the physique of a creature is not reasonable?

Damn... i gotta go, have to catch a bus.


----------



## rounser (Jul 12, 2008)

> Half-Dragons also indicate that Dragons have another purpose then to be killed or fought.



Acting as a posterboy for the template system, a 3E "proud nail"...?


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 12, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> That's actually a far more interesting criticisimn. I think it was Jürgen Huberts blog on Urbis where I noticed that a lot of races seemed to have a trait that caused that could lead them in conflict with others. (I think Dragonborn was one of them.) I liked that.




The article is here. Basically, in Urbis they were originally an artificial servitor race - dragons created them as servants from their favorite humans, but then the dragonborn got second thoughts about that relationship when a dragon matriarch became genocidal on them (note how the human origin of dragonborn nicely explains some of the stranger aspects of their anatomy, including the often-mentioned boobs).

The potential for conflict that Mustrum Ridcully mentioned is that after they fled their dragon overlords, they essentially became a race without a home country. And in recent decades, a new generation of dragonborn wants to change that. I've deliberately made a number of parallels to pre-WWII Zionism, and I think that approach works quite nicely...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 12, 2008)

All this Dragonboob worries seem to me as people are not finding any real faults in the Dragonborn, and instead care only about the superficial, meaningless.

I get the impression that maintaining a sense of wonder is difficult for experienced role-players. We know to much about numbers, "realismn" and stuff to care about the little things that give color to the game - unless we can nit-pick them...



			
				Idealistic Naive Beginning Roleplayer said:
			
		

> - Hey, it reads here that my character hatched from an egg!
> - Cool! Do you still have a piece of the shell?






			
				True Hardboiled Roleplayer said:
			
		

> - Hey, have you seen that Dragonborn Illustration?
> - Terrible. Absolutely terrible. Reptilioids with Breasts? What were they thinking?!




But forward to more interesting stuff: 


Jürgen Hubert said:


> The article is here. Basically, in Urbis they were originally an artificial servitor race - dragons created them as servants from their favorite humans, but then the dragonborn got second thoughts about that relationship when a dragon matriarch became genocidal on them (note how the human origin of dragonborn nicely explains some of the stranger aspects of their anatomy, including the often-mentioned boobs).
> 
> The potential for conflict that Mustrum Ridcully mentioned is that after they fled their dragon overlords, they essentially became a race without a home country. And in recent decades, a new generation of dragonborn wants to change that. I've deliberately made a number of parallels to pre-WWII Zionism, and I think that approach works quite nicely...




Thanks for chiming in! I can only repeat I really liked your racial write-ups.
I hope that WotC will begin to do more in this direction - there should be more sources of potential conflict. They don't have to be developed in entirety, and there is no need for any open conflicts, but it would be helpful for the general Point-of-Light concept if there were a few more hooks on what to do.

Of course, I already have the general idea - for me, it's all about restoring the unity of the PoLs to fight and drive of the darkness. If I ever want to have a campaign run into epic, I am not content with stopping some cultist - it should end with the beginning of a new age of civilization and hope!


----------



## Fenes (Jul 12, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:


> How and why are Dragonborn cheap? It's your opinion, of course, but it seems to be something a lot of people don't share. (And "making female dragonborn instantly recognizable as female, instead of just dragon-people with different colors or a smaller crest" != "making them sexy and kewl".)




I consider them cheap because they were made for those people who like dragons, yet WotC didn't go all the way and made them actual dragons (tail, wings, size). They're a cheap stand in for real dragons.

IMHO, it would have been possible to add Dragons as a player race for those who like playing dragons, especially with the scope of the game now ranging from starting hero to god-like, and the stated "PCs are special and different from the rest of the world" theme. I certainly do not see any reason why an actual dragon adventuring in such a world would be anymore jarring or strange or theme altering than an entire repitilian race plopped into a setting.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 12, 2008)

I just have to say...Who cares?

In 3e the first game I ran used sunless citadel as the opening adventure, but the PCs were a bit on the high power side (3 out of 5 PCs played monsters out of MM, and one rolled his character at the table and had 4 18s, and 2 16 before Race) so I made some modfications. 
I went into the MM and took the kobold sorceress and added the 1/2 Dragon template to her as 1 mod. When the PCs meet the Kobold and I said it was a woman, they asked how they could tell it was a female lizard...thinking quick I said with her 19 cha she must of had at least C cups, and a nice butt. (we always used cha as looks in 2e...and give me a break it was 8 years ago I was a dumb kid).
about a year later when that game ended  our PC Sorcerer (Asimar) was married to that kobold and they had 3 kids

No one cared then...noone should care now. In real life if a woman was completly flat chested and had no curves she could be mistaken for a guy...So you know what lets keep the Core races of D&D as human like as possible...

and now I am off to go through all my 3.5 books to stat out the offspring of a Asimar who had elven harratige, and a 1/2 Green Dragon Kobold...I forgot how messed up that game was.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2008)

I don't understand why dragonborn have to be monotremes, or reptiles, or any other real-world classification of animals. I don't understand why real-world physical characteristics of animals have to apply to D&D. I don't know of any real-world humanoid creature that has pointed ears, yet they're all over the place in D&D.

Where's hong when you need him?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I certainly do not see any reason why an actual dragon adventuring in such a world would be anymore jarring or strange or theme altering than an entire repitilian race plopped into a setting.



Core D&D has always been about humanoid creatures. PC races are humanoid. If you put in actual dragons, you change the dynamic significantly. It could certainly be done, but the reasons why they chose not to do so are quite obvious to me, and have nothing to do with "cheapness".


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 12, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Core D&D has always been about humanoid creatures. PC races are humanoid. If you put in actual dragons, you change the dynamic significantly. It could certainly be done, but the reasons why they chose not to do so are quite obvious to me, and have nothing to do with "cheapness".




Basically: if you want to have magical equipment, you need humanoids. Dragons don't wield Swords or wear Clothes. And while for mythical dragons it might be "interesting" to hoard treasure, it won't be for a human playing a dragon. If the treasure has no purpose other to be hoarded, it won't be satisfactory most of the time.

And, of course, people will have a far harder time to identify with "real" dragons then with dragonmen.


----------



## DandD (Jul 12, 2008)

Also, it's not that hard to play dragonmen. Wizardry has them, Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced has them, other japanese RPGs also feature dragonmen, the infamous Dragonlance series has them. 

I still dislike the boobs on the dragonborn females, however. Artistically, I dislike the race. Thematically, they're okay.


----------



## Andor (Jul 12, 2008)

Good lord. It this Dragonboob nonsense still going on? I thought we got this out of our systems before the game even came out.

*sigh* For the record, evolution don't enter into it. In most D&D worlds the races look the way they look because thats how it amused the gods to create them.

Besides, the real question is: Do dragonborn males have two penises like real world reptiles?


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jul 12, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Meh, I still think dragonboobs are stupid ;p




Constructive as always, eh Cirno?



mlund said:


> Yeah, there's nothing quite as sad as poorly cobbled rationalizations to try and justify what is nothing more than anthropomorphism and shoddy art work.
> 
> As noted, monotremes don't come with teats, and creatures whose young can walk within hours and thus don't need to be carried about for years at a time by nursing mothers don't have their mammary glands 4+ feet off the ground.
> 
> ...




I see your scientifical impossibility and raise you with Bellisario's Maxim, the Rule of Cool, and the recommendation that you should just relax and enjoy.

(I am using links from TV Tropes because I believe roleplaying games are all about the narrative experience, much more than about the simulationist consistency)


----------



## wayne62682 (Jul 13, 2008)

My only problem is the arrogance of WotC's designers to admit that they made a mistake.  They *should* have just said "Yeah... that artwork is wrong.  They don't have boobs." and be done with it.  Instead, they just have to appear to know what they're doing and write some contrived bullcrap to justify their nonsensical decision in the first place.

The whole thing stinks of "That's not a bug, that's a feature" syndrome, wherein you never want to look like you didn't think things through and fouled up, but look as though you intended it from the start, usually with some lame explanation to go along with it.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 13, 2008)

DandD said:


> I still dislike the boobs on the dragonborn females, however. Artistically, I dislike the race.




Therin lies much of the issue with dragonboobs.  People look at them and think "Oh come on, that's just LAZY."


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 13, 2008)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> Constructive as always, eh Cirno?



If you have a problem with a poster, you can put them on ignore, report the post, or (preferably) discuss the issue. What you _can't_ do is make snide and insulting comments to them. We expect folks to behave like adults, and that means not picking a fight just because you don't like someone's posting style. There are better solutions.

Please drop me an email if there are any questions about this.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 13, 2008)

> I see your scientifical impossibility and raise you with Bellisario's Maxim, the Rule of Cool, and the recommendation that you should just relax and enjoy.




If you wanna play that game, I'll trump all that with the almighty Fetish Fuel, follow up with a Author Appeal, suplex it with a combo of Non-mammal Mammaries paired with You Fail Biology Forever, and, of course, the famous finishing move, Most Writers Are Male.

Guess what? Squick. 

Though for my mileage, I don't give much of a rat fart about dragonbewbs (though I do think they're frickin' hilarious). 

I don't like the fact that they're dragonBORING, though (see my wit! oh-ho-ho-ho!). Urbis's take on them as Zionists without a homeland is interesting...


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 13, 2008)

What is silly to me is that folks are defending and rationalizing dragonboobs:

"_Don't think to hard about fantasy."_

_"Their monotremes so they can have boobs."_

_"Dragons aren't reptiles so therefore dragonborn can have boobs."_

...and on and on and on.

Its all nonsense on its face. Dragons are obviously reptilian in nature, they aren't monotremes, they do not have boobs. I don't need RAW to tell me that dragons are magical, reptilian monsters and the whole _"well the RAW doesn't call them reptiles so therefore there is a rationale for dragonboobs"_ makes no sense because dragons, the creatures most related to dragonborn do not have breasts.

The only reptilian races in D&D with breasts are crossbreed races such as half-dragons and yuan-ti crossbreeds. No purely reptilian race in D&D or any fantasy game, movie, literature I am aware of has breasts unless it is partly mammal. There are no known humanoid monotremes in D&D.

The artists who draw dragonborn with breasts are doing so likely because the art direction told them to do so. Art direction told them to do so so that 10-13yr olds would face the crippling intellectual dilemma _"Well I want to play a female dragonborn, but how will anyone know she's female!!!"_

The answer...add breasts.

Yeah its dumb, yeah its lazy and yes it demonstrates that WoTC, on some level, believes that D&D players are unsophisticated nimrods who can't even conceive of differentiating an anthropomorphic reptilian species in any way other than by adding breasts to the females.

Other more sophisticated option (that anyone who ever read about reptiles or watched TLC could understand):

1.) The genders have different coloration. The males can be more colorful and the females more drab. This is common in nature.

2.) One of the genders has a crest, or both have different crests. They can attract mates by flaring their crests or to show agression.

3.) Different physiology such as males having thicker tales shorter necks and females having longer necks and thinner tales or vice versa (I know they don't have tails but they should).

...There are potentially countless options that are no only more interesting but that do not require rationalizations or intellectual gymnastics in order to justify the existance of the abberation that is breasts on a non-part mammalian creature. Dragonboobs are pandering, creatively lazy and a sad little act of handwaving that presumes a lack of sophistication on the part of the D&D audience.

When I was 12 and started playing D&D, I was a savvy enough tween to know that creatures that looked like lizardfolk (ie. all humanoid reptilian races) don't look right with breasts.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## rounser (Jul 13, 2008)

> Therin lies much of the issue with dragonboobs. People look at them and think "Oh come on, that's just LAZY."



Look, I think you're just not seeing the bigger picture, here.  Echnidnafolk and Platypeople are just around the corner.  It's all part of a bold new strategic direction for D&D.  Just wait, you'll be clamouring for "The Complete Marsupials Handbook" just like everyone else.


----------



## Dragonbait (Jul 13, 2008)

Giskard1708 said:


> stuff




I didn't say any of those things you said I did after the first quote. Please correct that.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 13, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> What is silly to me is that folks are defending and rationalizing dragonboobs:
> 
> "_Don't think to hard about fantasy."_
> 
> ...




No, they aren't.  Dragons are not reptiles in any way, shape or form.  Reptiles do not have six limbs.  Reptiles are not warm blooded.  No reptile flies.  The only reptilian thing about dragons is scales.  Guess what?  CHICKEN'S have scales.

You might be able to call dragons saurial, but, not really.



> The only reptilian races in D&D with breasts are crossbreed races such as half-dragons and yuan-ti crossbreeds. No purely reptilian race in D&D or any fantasy game, movie, literature I am aware of has breasts unless it is partly mammal. There are no known humanoid monotremes in D&D.




"No known humanoid monotremes"?  This is false.  Dragonborn are.  But, in any case, WHO CARES?



> The artists who draw dragonborn with breasts are doing so likely because the art direction told them to do so. Art direction told them to do so so that 10-13yr olds would face the crippling intellectual dilemma _"Well I want to play a female dragonborn, but how will anyone know she's female!!!"_
> 
> The answer...add breasts.
> 
> Yeah its dumb, yeah its lazy and yes it demonstrates that WoTC, on some level, believes that D&D players are unsophisticated nimrods who can't even conceive of differentiating an anthropomorphic reptilian species in any way other than by adding breasts to the females.




Wow, way to say that anyone who likes the artwork is an unsophisticated nimrod.  Good luck with that. 



> Other more sophisticated option (that anyone who ever read about reptiles or watched TLC could understand):
> 
> 1.) The genders have different coloration. The males can be more colorful and the females more drab. This is common in nature.




Oh boy, we can make half the artwork ugly.  That's better than giving them breasts.



> 2.) One of the genders has a crest, or both have different crests. They can attract mates by flaring their crests or to show agression.




Wow, let's REALLY appeal to the geeks out there.  "Hey, is that a male or female dragonborn?"  "Well, the crest is exactly 15 centimeters long, so it must be female."   



> 3.) Different physiology such as males having thicker tales shorter necks and females having longer necks and thinner tales or vice versa (I know they don't have tails but they should).




Or, give them different physiology, like, boobs.



> ...There are potentially countless options that are no only more interesting but that do not require rationalizations or intellectual gymnastics in order to justify the existance of the abberation that is breasts on a non-part mammalian creature. Dragonboobs are pandering, creatively lazy and a sad little act of handwaving that presumes a lack of sophistication on the part of the D&D audience.
> 
> When I was 12 and started playing D&D, I was a savvy enough tween to know that creatures that looked like lizardfolk (ie. all humanoid reptilian races) don't look right with breasts.
> 
> ...




Good for you.  Unfortunately, for you anyway, there's a pretty large number of people out there for whom this is completely a non-issue and have no problems with separating their amateur biologist impulses from gaming.


----------



## rounser (Jul 13, 2008)

> No, they aren't. Dragons are not reptiles in any way, shape or form. Reptiles do not have six limbs. Reptiles are not warm blooded. No reptile flies. The only reptilian thing about dragons is scales. Guess what? CHICKEN'S have scales.



OMG, what a can of worms WOTC has opened here.  Kenzer doesn't need to parody D&D with Hackmaster anymore, these days it's DIY.

Flying reptiles = pteranodon, pterodactyl?  Or are they dinosaur proto-birds?  

Monotremes don't breathe fire, btw...*but they could!*

"Durned firebreathing platypus in the lettuces again, ma!  Git mae wand o' magic missils!"

LOL


----------



## Hussar (Jul 13, 2008)

dinosaur =/= reptile.

Nice try though.

Of course, since you ignored the warm blooded, SIX LIMBED parts, and simply picked one little piece out, I shouldn't expect more.

Then again, my experience with scaly folk was Assaathi from Scarred Lands, and they had bewbs and no one cared.


----------



## rounser (Jul 13, 2008)

> dinosaur =/= reptile.
> 
> Nice try though.



Confound it!  Foiled again!

And I would have got away with it too (etc.)

*moustache twirl*


> Of course, since you ignored the warm blooded, SIX LIMBED parts, and simply picked one little piece out, I shouldn't expect more.



Does this mean wyverns can be reptiles?  Two wings, two legs.  Oh right, the flying thing...

You know, nowhere in the core rules is it stated that wyverns aren't fungi.  I think we need more taxonomy in the MM.  I mean, the one thing you could say about the Phantom Fungus is that you knew where you stood with it with regard to what Kingdom it was from.  Being invisible is quite clearly a thing that reptiles can't do, either, so _clearly_ it's a fungus.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 13, 2008)

Nice straw man.

I'm not claiming anything.  Burden of proof is on you.  You are claiming that dragons are reptiles.  Prove it.  Other than they both have scales, what makes dragons reptiles.

Heck, fish have scales.  I guess dragons are fish.  

What we need a whole lot less of is amateur biologists trying to apply real world taxonomy to fantasy.


----------



## rounser (Jul 13, 2008)

> Nice straw man.



No, not really.


> I'm not claiming anything. Burden of proof is on you. You are claiming that dragons are reptiles. Prove it. Other than they both have scales, what makes dragons reptiles.



Nothing.  Clearly they're monotremes.  Obviously.


> Heck, fish have scales. I guess dragons are fish.



There is a monster called the dragonfish, yeah?  I wonder what taxonomical adventures await you there.


> What we need a whole lot less of is amateur biologists trying to apply real world taxonomy to fantasy.



The WOTC article is exempt from this, of course.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Jul 13, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And this might actually be very true in the real world, too.
> 
> On a related note,the first illustration of Dragonborn is really great. The scene evokes the feeling as if the two Dragonborn are teacher and pupil/child. Or is itteacher and lover? The hand on the shoulder indicates a stronger bond between the two.
> Since I can't see Dragonboobs, I tend to assume the former. The softer face of the Dragonborn could certainly go either way.
> ...



My thought was "huh, Dragonborn pederasty, probably unintentional, but actually quite appropriate to the culture." On reading the article, the Child/Parent thing works though, I guess.



Wyrmshadows said:


> What is silly to me is that folks are defending and rationalizing dragonboobs:
> 
> ........
> 
> When I was 12 and started playing D&D, I was a savvy enough tween to know that creatures that looked like lizardfolk (ie. all humanoid reptilian races) don't look right with breasts.



The only people doing silly rationalisations are those rationalising their dislike for an art direction with real world sciences. You think they look silly? Fine. I don't. We don't need Science to talk about subjective opinions regarding fantasy races.


----------



## rounser (Jul 13, 2008)

> The only people doing silly rationalisations are those rationalising their dislike for an art direction with real world sciences.



Oh really?  So that article is a logical justification based on hard science, then.  Gotcha.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 13, 2008)

2 Things: 
- I will not follow any more TV Trope links (and I started with those provided here). They are a time sink, and using them should be seriously restricted only in extreme cases of emergency. If both sides of a discussion start using TV Trope links, that's basically *M*utually *A*ssured *D*estruction.

- Furthermore, I wish that Dragonboob discussions henceforth fall either under an Edition War Ban or under Eric's Grandma rule. So much talk about female breasts is inappropriate. 

Can we not just agree that the primary reason for Dragonborn Boobs in the real world are that the artist or the art direction decided that breasts are the easiest way to distinguish female and male Dragonborn, and that real-world taxonomy has little value if applied to fantasy creatures with properties that defy the natural world, and where fantasy creatures do not evolve*, but are created from gods or other bizarre processes. 


*) Please note that real world taxonomy is sometimes put into question due to our findings in genetic research.


----------



## rounser (Jul 13, 2008)

> Furthermore, I wish that Dragonboob discussions henceforth fall either under an Edition War Ban or under Eric's Grandma rule. So much talk about female breasts is inappropriate.



Wow.  

That's...you know when a soccer player stages falling over to fake an injury for the referee so they get a free kick?  That's what you've reminded me of there.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 13, 2008)

rounser said:


> Wow.
> 
> That's...you know when a soccer player stages falling over to fake an injury for the referee so they get a free kick?  That's what you've reminded me of there.




 I think in German, that's called a "Schwalbe" (=Swallow, but the soccer term is - according to the LEO dictionary - dive), isn't it? I don't care for soccer...

Of course, what I really want to say is that these discussions are making it nearly impossible to talk about the interesting stuff on Dragonborn. 
What can they do in my game? What does your Dragonborn do? What culture should I associate with them? What plot hooks can we create for them? 

---


For the record, my first Dragonborn character (A Dragonborn Warlord that I got to play at level 15) worked pretty well. And I uttered "Today is a good day to die" a few times... I am an inspirational Warlord, after all. I was surprised how little I was hit by enemies, I guess Shield Specialization and Wyrmscale Armor really payed off. Shockingly, I think I used my Dragonborn breath way too little. But getting combat advantage by flanking means that Close Bursts are not all that helpful any more...

But I really need to come up with more lines. There are other warrior races out there - Jem'Hardar, Luxans, I should check those out. (I personally still love "Revenge is a dish best served immediately") And maybe some Conan?

I think I should start to work on my homebrew, too. What kind of role will Dragonborn play there?


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 13, 2008)

rounser said:


> and will be retconning mammaries onto all female actual dragons as well, post haste.




heh I had this dream once...


----------



## rounser (Jul 13, 2008)

> heh I had this dream once...



Ew.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 13, 2008)

rounser said:


> Ew.



It's not the kind of dream I would talk about in a public speech... 

"I've had a dream, where every female dragon, regardless of color or metallic element would be equal and had a mammary"
*confused audience* 



Er, damn, I am doing it, too! Aargh


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 13, 2008)

I was going to close this thread because it was going downhill. Then it did an entire loop-the-loop, and I'm somehow in love with it. What's up with _that_?


----------



## hamishspence (Jul 13, 2008)

*Now that Authentic-true doesn't work for PDFs, how do we look at them?*

I'm a bit wary of signing up, given the number of problems it sounds like its having. Is there a direct link into Dragonborn, the way there was with Ashardalon?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 13, 2008)

Piratecat said:


> I was going to close this thread because it was going downhill. Then it did an entire loop-the-loop, and I'm somehow in love with it. What's up with _that_?




I just noticed that one tag for this thread is clearly missing, despite this being the main topic for several pages...

Well, do with it what you like, you're the mod!


----------



## Hellzon (Jul 13, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> "I've had a dream, where every female dragon, regardless of color or metallic element would be equal and had a mammary"
> *confused audience*




One? No wonder the audience is ing.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 13, 2008)

Piratecat said:


> I was going to close this thread because it was going downhill. Then it did an entire loop-the-loop, and I'm somehow in love with it. What's up with _that_?



It's the boob talk, isn't it?


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 13, 2008)

I find it hilarious that people worry about dragonboobs and seem to ignore the 5 o'clock shadow on the female dwarf next to the relevant racial entry in the phb.  I guess that issue died with 1st-3rd ed?   

Anyhow, I don't mind them, and dragonborn are the most popular race next to humans in my 4e campaign (humans just win - extra feat, extra at-will (for my wizard, yo!), extra skill, great defences, awesome racial feats, pure LOVE!)


----------



## lutecius (Jul 13, 2008)

This article is just bland fluff. No intriguing twist, nothing to steal. It certainly doesn’t make db more interesting, let alone appealing to me.

And the "awesome" and "inspiring" picture on the first page just adds cheesiness to the db’s ugliness and dorkitude.
I guess from this angle, the seme’s uh..i mean the adult's nose looks a little less porpoiselike than in the PHB, but a pseudo-reptilian head on a body with human proportions and posture will always look like a rubber mask. They should be slightly stooped like draconians or lizardman from soulcalibur and, did I mention they should have a tail? 

I really don’t understand why they didn’t play the reptilian angle. Chameleon abilities, natural armour, sweeping tail attacks, venomous skin, prehensile tongue… so many cool possibilities.

As for dragonboobs, I always thought they were stupid but they never bothered me as much as the Predator dreadlocks or the lack of tail. 
Now that I see people actually defending them I am starting to worry. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for prominent boobage or package on, you know… humans (or humans with pointy ears) but on dragons?  The thought that some may find that even remotely titillating is too disturbing, so I’m willing to think it’s just to differentiate genders. But besides being silly and visually less interesting than colourful crests and such, why is it so important to have a clearly identifiable gender when you play a dragon?


----------



## NMcCoy (Jul 13, 2008)

lutecius said:


> ...why is it so important to have a clearly identifiable gender when you play a dragon?



So the dragonborn adventurers know who to flirt with in the tavern between adventures? To protect the elves' androgyny niche? To forestall endless flame wars over whether a particular illustration depicts a male or female? Because most D&D players are human, and it's a convenient and hardwired visual shortcut for "female" without having to go "wait, is it the males or females that have the wavy crest?"

For the record, I was a tiny bit miffed at the initial decision myself as it goes against my personal preferences and fantasy-biological sensibilities, but the fact that it's still being debated simply amuses me. The "monotreme" bit is, once again, counter to my personal preferences, but I am utterly delighted at the prospect of nerdrage-fueled holy wars over the dragonborn digestive/reproductive tract once people realize the full implications of that particular designation.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 13, 2008)

Hussar, I said that dragons are reptilian to which you responded:



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> No, they aren't. Dragons are not reptiles in any way, shape or form. Reptiles do not have six limbs. Reptiles are not warm blooded. No reptile flies. The only reptilian thing about dragons is scales. Guess what? CHICKEN'S have scales.




Tell me that you can't tell by sight alone whether or not these creatures are reptilian within the context of the fantasy tropes we accept for the genre. Are these reptiles? Should any of these creatures have breasts added to allow players to determine their sex?

*Lizardfolk*
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/sblock]


*Wyvern*
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

*Hydra*
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

*Troglodyte*
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

I can post more, but what would be the point? These creatures are inarguably reptilian/sauroid and one doesn't need to be an amateur biologist to see that. My 9yr old can see that.

These are monotremes:

*Platypus*
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

*Echidna*
[sblock]





[/sblock]

Monotremes apparently have a great deal of mammalian traits. In fact the egg-laying is pretty secondary in regards to the appearance of these animals that could never be misconstrued to be reptiles.

And finally...

*Dragon*
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

Do these need breasts so as to not confuse D&D players?

Having posted enough visual evidence for the differences between reptilian/saurian creatures and monotremes (which are far, far more mammalian in appearance than their egg laying nature would seem to allow).

We are using sight to determine a creature's type because we aren't amateur biologists we are fantasy RPers. All precedent in fantasy RPing and fiction indicates that one can easily tell the nature of a creature...whether reptile, mammal, vegetable, elemental, etc. We don't need to check their DNA. In fact is is only the issue of dragonboobs that has even brought the monotreme into the vocabulary of D&D. 

Dragonborn female:
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

Can you, with any hint of intellectual honesty, tell me that this creature is a monotreme? Dragonborn nurse offspring? If dragonborn are monotremes wouldn't that mean that dragons are monotremes as well? 

Its really a shame how many ultimately pointless questions bad art direction can make someone ask. Even sillier than the questions however are the rationalizations that attempt to make sense of bad art direction.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Vanuslux (Jul 14, 2008)

I think it's an interesting debate that mostly hinges on personal preferences.  It's still pretty silly, though, and it saddens me how angry and hostile some people are starting to be over the topic of dragonborn breasts. 

For my setting, Dragonborn are going to be descendants of humans that were magically fused with dragons.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 14, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Oh boy, we can make half the artwork ugly.  That's better than giving them breasts.




The artwork is already ugly.  All the dragonborn are already dull colors.  All this would do is make one of the genders an array of brilliant colors.  If anything, this would make the artwork _less_ ugly.



> Wow, let's REALLY appeal to the geeks out there.  "Hey, is that a male or female dragonborn?"  "Well, the crest is exactly 15 centimeters long, so it must be female."




Stop being obtuse.  Give one gender a crest and not the other, I'd say that's a pretty striking difference.

Your entire argument is built on "BUT...BUT...BUT I LIKE BOOBIES."  Congrats - you're making our argument for us.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 14, 2008)

Vanuslux said:


> I think it's an interesting debate that mostly hinges on personal preferences. It's still pretty silly, though, and it saddens me how angry and hostile some people are starting to be over the topic of dragonborn breasts.
> 
> For my setting, Dragonborn are going to be descendants of humans that were magically fused with dragons.




That would make sense and a good workaround that would allow the art to make some sense.


Wyrmshadows


----------



## NMcCoy (Jul 14, 2008)

One could do worse than be a liker of boobies.

Also, does anyone else feel like giving male dragonborn venomous feet as consolation for the whole cloaca thing? I mean, that's gotta make things a bit awkward for them around the other humanoid races.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 14, 2008)

NMcCoy said:


> One could do worse than be a liker of boobies.
> 
> Also, does anyone else feel like giving male dragonborn venomous feet as consolation for the whole cloaca thing? I mean, that's gotta make things a bit awkward for them around the other humanoid races.




Nah, I think what would be more fair would be to give them great big humanoid schwantzes. Hey, it would give the female dragonborn something to look at. Heck, they aren't reptiles..they are monotremes and anything goes. 


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Aldarc (Jul 14, 2008)

Fans tend to think a little too much about some things.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 14, 2008)

Aldarc said:


> Fans tend to think a little too much about some things.




Or perhaps some people think too less about some things.


----------



## NMcCoy (Jul 14, 2008)

Aldarc said:


> Fans tend to think a little too much about some things.



'Tis in the very definition, is it not? "Fan" derives from "fanatic", after all. If the target demographic of D&D generally likes thinking about dragons and boobies in various permutations, who can blame the artists for giving them what they want? If the fantastical-biology nerds enjoy arguing endlessly on the merits of such a combination, and what that ultimately boils down to is _more people talking about the product_, why wouldn't they stir the controversy a little to keep things going?

Anyone for an "Improved Dragonborn Senses" feat that adds electroception?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Or perhaps some people think too less about some things.




No, it's some people think too much about it.

Let's take the whole "brilliantly colored" bit for a second.  What if I want to play a male (assuming males are to get the colors) rogue?  Does having yellow and purple splotches affect my hide checks?  Seems like it should.  Trying to be sneaky while dressed like a Vegas showgirl would be tricky.

Upthread someone pointed to the whole dwarf female beard thing.  This is pretty much identical.  Same argument different set of glasses.

Wyrmshadows - you yourself admit that all of the creatures you point to are not reptiles.  You said it yourself - they're reptilian as in look kinda like reptiles, but they aren't reptiles.  So, pretty much any amateur biology crap is pointless.  I would point out that non-bipedal creatures rarely have visible mammaries (although there are some exceptions).  One doesn't have breasts on a horse for example.  So, no breasts on dragons makes pretty decent sense if you want to go that way.  

Now lizard folk?  Why not?  Why not give them breasts?  Heck, SF does it all the time.  In the end though, we don't because lizard folk don't feature in a whole lot of art or games.  The question of gender simply doesn't come up.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 14, 2008)

wayne62682 said:


> My only problem is the arrogance of WotC's designers to admit that they made a mistake.  They *should* have just said "Yeah... that artwork is wrong.  They don't have boobs." and be done with it.



My only problem with this is that it's utterly stupid to assume that the artwork *has* to be wrong.

It's a fantasy setting. (There are gelatinous cubes!) If it pleased Io to create dragonborn as humanoid creatures which hatch from eggs and have a superficial resemblance to dragons but otherwise human-like biology, including breasts on the women as either mammaries or simply as secondary sexual characteristics, then that's why it happened.

Dragons aren't reptiles. If you want to start in on realistic biology in _D&D_, let's start with dragons that can fly, think at a superhuman level, and speak. Ain't no reptile in the real world that could do that, because of fundamental facts of muscular and neural biology. That's a bigger "problem" than the terrible plague of breasted dragonborn women.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 14, 2008)

Hussar said:


> No, it's some people think too much about it.
> 
> Let's take the whole "brilliantly colored" bit for a second.  What if I want to play a male (assuming males are to get the colors) rogue?  Does having yellow and purple splotches affect my hide checks?  Seems like it should.  Trying to be sneaky while dressed like a Vegas showgirl would be tricky.




They seem to do fine in studded leather - you know, leather with _hundreds of light catching shiney objects_ on it.



> Upthread someone pointed to the whole dwarf female beard thing.  This is pretty much identical.  Same argument different set of glasses.




The dwarf female beard thing is a *completely* different argument.



> Now lizard folk?  Why not?  Why not give them breasts?  Heck, SF does it all the time.  In the end though, we don't because lizard folk don't feature in a whole lot of art or games.  The question of gender simply doesn't come up.




We've already say why not.  Because it's dumb, ugly, lazy, and insulting.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> They seem to do fine in studded leather - you know, leather with _hundreds of light catching shiney objects_ on it.



What kind of drooling moron would *polish* their studded leather's metal parts?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 14, 2008)

Heh, yeah, it's not like you could, I dunno, USE PAINT?

I would also point out that studded leather in every edition has penalties to hide checks.

I know, male dragonborn have Razzle Dazzle patterns to make them harder to see.


----------



## Vendark (Jul 14, 2008)

> Can you, with any hint of intellectual honesty, tell me that this creature is a monotreme? Dragonborn nurse offspring? If dragonborn are monotremes wouldn't that mean that dragons are monotremes as well?




You do realize that the article doesn't refer to dragonborn as monotremes, right? It describes them, it doesn't classify them. So all this "they don't look like monotremes" claptrap is completely pointless.

Dragonborn are warm-blooded, scaled, egg-laying humanoids that nurse their young. They're not reptiles. They're not monotremes. They're unique. Fantasy is filled with unique creatures, so who the hell cares?


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 14, 2008)

Vendark said:


> You do realize that the article doesn't refer to dragonborn as monotremes, right? It describes them, it doesn't classify them. So all this "they don't look like monotremes" claptrap is completely pointless.
> 
> Dragonborn are warm-blooded, scaled, egg-laying humanoids that nurse their young. They're not reptiles. They're not monotremes. They're unique. Fantasy is filled with unique creatures, so who the hell cares?




I'm not saying that they are monotremes...if you are reading what my argument is...you can see I am against the idea of them being monotremes and never said the article made any such ridiculous claims. 

I am against the idea of rationalizing the breasts on dragonborn by suddenly calling them monotremes which is exactly what some posters are attemting to do.

I don't care if they are _"warm-blooded, scaled, egg-laying humanoids that nurse their young."_ I only care if such odd creatures are supposed to be direct relations to dragons when dragons are/do none of these things. Effectively, dragonborn are, outside of a largely reptilian appearance, seemingly unrelated to the very creatures supposedly more closely related to.


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Hussar (Jul 14, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> /snip
> 
> I don't care if they are _"warm-blooded, scaled, egg-laying humanoids that nurse their young."_ I only care if such odd creatures are supposed to be direct relations to dragons when dragons are/do none of these things. Effectively, dragonborn are, outside of a largely reptilian appearance, seemingly unrelated to the very creatures supposedly more closely related to.
> 
> ...




Which part don't dragons do?  Warm blooded?  Can't see any real problem with that.  Humanoid?  Well, ok, dragons aren't humanoid, so, fair enough.  Nurse their young?  Well, dragons might not, but, there are reptiles that do.  And, we have no real way of saying whether dragons do or not.  

Meh, they look dragonlike, they breathe fire (or whatever), that makes them close enough for me.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 14, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Wyrmshadows - you yourself admit that all of the creatures you point to are not reptiles. You said it yourself - they're reptilian as in look kinda like reptiles, but they aren't reptiles. So, pretty much any amateur biology crap is pointless. I would point out that non-bipedal creatures rarely have visible mammaries (although there are some exceptions). One doesn't have breasts on a horse for example. So, no breasts on dragons makes pretty decent sense if you want to go that way.




I didn't say they aren't reptiles, I clearly said that we aren't using DNA structure and whatnot to determine the nature of fantasy creatures and fantasy tropes pretty much rely on sight identification in regards to what a race is. I never said they look kina like reptiles but aren't reptiles. They most certainly are reptiles and only 4e's ridiculous art is even bringing into question whether or not creatures that look like reptiles in D&D are actually reptiles. Up until now, prior to 4e, no one really questioned whether a wyvern, hydra, or dragon were reptiles or not...everyone knew they were.

The reason this type of discussion never came up before is because it was only recently that we have ever seen art that posited a purely reptilian (as in not part human or other mammal) species with breasts. Its not that some of us think to much, some of us would like come internal consistancy.



> Now lizard folk? Why not? Why not give them breasts? Heck, SF does it all the time. In the end though, we don't because lizard folk don't feature in a whole lot of art or games. The question of gender simply doesn't come up.




So, here's what is boils down to...you don't mind breasts plastered on anything. That's cool. At least it is honest. That position is way more honest that trying to call dragonborn and breast bearing reptilian a monotreme.

Me, I'll take my lizard folk, troglodytes, serpent people, hydra, wyvern, turtle people, iguana people, chicken people, pigeon people, and dragons as breastless, scaley reptilians/sauroids.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 14, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Which part don't dragons do? Warm blooded? Can't see any real problem with that. Humanoid? Well, ok, dragons aren't humanoid, so, fair enough. Nurse their young? Well, dragons might not, but, there are reptiles that do. And, we have no real way of saying whether dragons do or not.
> 
> Meh, they look dragonlike, they breathe fire (or whatever), that makes them close enough for me.




Yeah, I do imagine that dragons are likely warm blooded or at least in some state between warm and cold blooded like paleantologists believe that dinosaurs may have been.

Hussar, you know damn well that D&D dragons certainly do not nurse their young. They don't have breasts and their young are able to hunt and kill from the moment of hatching. I believe the draconomicon says something to this effect. But lord do I hate having to reference RAW to point out something that is basically common sense.

No reptile nurses its young. Not nursing young is one of the signature qualities of reptiles. 


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 14, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> Monotremes apparently have a great deal of mammalian traits. In fact the egg-laying is pretty secondary in regards to the appearance of these animals that could never be misconstrued to be reptiles.




Actually besides the cloaca and egglaying Monotreme also have far more reptilian traits including a reptialian gait, primitive eye and ear structures, no true teeth, a sensitive ducklike bill and poison glands (no mammal has poison glands) they are as close to mammals as crocodiles are to birds

Personally I'd posit that Wyverns were avian...

but yeah this debate really has gone on for a while


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jul 14, 2008)

Tonguez said:


> Personally I'd posit that Wyverns were avian...




You would 

_"Oh no it isn't a turkey vulture, its a wyvern...draw your steel."_

But in all seriousness. This debate is one of aesthetics as well as what one will accept in regards to believable fantasy. Its a debate that neither can win. I know I'm right and you believe you are...so I think we are at an impasse.


Wyrmshadows


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 14, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> So, here's what is boils down to...you don't mind breasts plastered on anything. That's cool. At least it is honest. That position is way more honest that trying to call dragonborn and breast bearing reptilian a monotreme.




I just wish people would just ADMIT to this instead of saying others have no imagination or that dragonboobs work just fine in science or that others are thinking too hard.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 14, 2008)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> It's still pretty silly, though, and it saddens me how angry and hostile some people are starting to be over the topic of dragonborn breasts.




Oh heck yeah. The amount of mud being slung is perhaps the only thing more absurd than dragonbewbs in the first place.

"OH NO! He said they were absurd! He's obviously thinking too hard about fantasy! Because obviously he could rationalize them if he were to think harder about fantasy! Which obviously the designers have done because anything other than breasts would obviously have some sort of mechanical drawback in a game that is so obviously concerned with realistically simulating the effect of bright hunter orange on a creature's observational powers (taking into account, of course, the colorblindness of the viewer!"



			
				Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> So, here's what is boils down to...you don't mind breasts plastered on anything. That's cool. At least it is honest. That position is way more honest that trying to call dragonborn and breast bearing reptilian a monotreme.
> 
> Me, I'll take my lizard folk, troglodytes, serpent people, hydra, wyvern, turtle people, iguana people, chicken people, pigeon people, and dragons as breastless, scaley reptilians/sauroids.




Huzzah!

As the TV Tropes links I posted basically argue, male artists like to draw breasts and will do so given half an opportunity, and if this serves as fetish fuel for one of the designers then someone somewhere is going to come up with the whole "I like them and so they're a go, screw the naysayers," approach.

Which is wonderful, but at least it doesn't try to argue that it makes sense if you think about it because only those who think about it too much think it doesn't make sense.

I don't think that much about dragonbewbs. I think they're dumb, and I arrived at that conclusion after seeing the picture and going "what the hell is that thing doing with breasts, it doesn't look like it should have them there, that's weird." 

Trying to rationalize them as monotremes or mammals with scales or whatever the heck else is being passed around is missing the point. To me, it's dumb. I don't care what kind of explanation you offer up, the _visual image looks dumb to me_.

The dragonborn don't have breasts because they nurse their young. They nurse their young as an excuse for having breasts. They have breasts because that's what the artist drew, mang, and someone in the upper register liked it, so that's what they have, deal with it. 

I've now wasted far too many words on this issue, and am going to see about buying some of that time back from Satan. The End.


----------



## Hambot (Jul 14, 2008)

I really liked the article.  I was very happy that there was not a source of conflict built into the dragonborn race - I am so tired of people playing racist characters.  The whole elf vs dwarf thing is just so irritating to me now.  I also like that they painted the dragonborn with broad strokes, yet taking care to point out that there are exceptions to the general rule, allowing players to go ahead with an unusual concept if they are enamoured with it.

I would love more articles like this to come out, I just hope people read my feedback on the article.  (This thread has so little discussion on the article and so much on whether or not a MAKE BELIEVE mammal lizard is possible/pretty/fun/realistic/artistically valid/mere statement of latent artist sexual repression etc.)


----------



## Leatherhead (Jul 14, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> You would




I would too, or at least put them closer to birds than others.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jul 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I just wish people would just ADMIT to this instead of saying others have no imagination or that dragonboobs work just fine in science or that others are thinking too hard.




It´s good that you know what other people think. Please tell us freely about it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I just wish people would just ADMIT to this instead of saying others have no imagination or that dragonboobs work just fine in science or that others are thinking too hard.




Can't do. If I admit there is just one flaw in 4E, regardless of size, all h4ters will be over it and use it to prove my game is inferior, I am a bad role-player, I don't know even know what D&D really is about, and we should all go back to our 3E games.
(Which is a kinda off-topic way to summarize what's the big negative of having any kind of "Edition War" - it forces us to polarize, because we can't give up any inch of territory!)



Well, my opinion is that the whole complaining about dragonboobs is ridiculous. The stuff on monotremes was "educating", but ultimately, it's all meaningless.

The real reason why Dragonborn can have Boobs is because that makes it the easiest for everyone to say if the Dragonborn is female or not. If it was me, I hadn't done it. But on the other hand, I probably couldn't have come up with something like 3E or 4E either, so what do I knew, eh? 
I can live with the artwork for Dragonborn, and am fine to rationalize it with vague hints to playtypuses and non-reptilian dragons and what-you-have if I never need to. Which I won't have to outside of message boards.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 14, 2008)

I really don't get the "so we can tell if a dragonborn is female" argument. What do GMs do, present a picture and no description? Or present a detailed description, but neglect to mention the gender even if a dragonborn PC would know the gender?

If I had a lizardfolk player character in one of my campaigns, and they'd met a lizard folk NPC, I'd not play some metagame of "... and the character has a crest of maybe 15 cm, surely not 20, but could be 10, harhar, guess the gender", I'd describe the NPC as "female lizardfolk, above average size, darker skin, etc." to another lizard folk PC. If the PC spots the gender based on some colorisation, some different build, or some scent, I don't really care, I simply assume a male could recognise a female of its own species. (I could imagine that this was not the case, and that would bring some plot-relevant changes, and would not be without potential, but boobs on lizards clearly indicate that the gender is meant to be clear and easily spotted.)

I'd require some knowledge or perception checks for people not familiar with lizardfolk to spot the gender, if it was important - but honestly, in most situations, it wouldn't be important at all, since no one but lizardfolk would even care IMC.


----------



## Derren (Jul 14, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The real reason why Dragonborn can have Boobs is because that makes it the easiest for everyone to say if the Dragonborn is female or not.




You don't need boobs for that. Just look at what Sony did with the Iksar in EQ2. Males and females of this lizard species are clearly distinguishable even without boobs.


----------



## rounser (Jul 14, 2008)

> I really don't get the "so we can tell if a dragonborn is female" argument.



I really don't get why we have dragonborn in the PHB _at all_.  

They don't have a proper uncontrived name, they look ugly, they don't have mythological resonance, it's hard to imagine something so monstrous walking down the street outside of the Citystate of the Invincible Overlord without people running and screaming, and we can't even tell what gender they are without weird stuff being involved.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 14, 2008)

And, to make another point:

How many of you actually describe humans, elfs, halflings etc. without stating the gender?

I don't know anyone who does it like this:
"You see a slim adult human. It has boobs and long hair."

I don't know about all the "lizards need boobs so we can spot the gender" people, but in a pen and paper game, we usually describe them gender first, if applicable - "you see a slim human woman with long hair."

So, I do claim that boobs on lizards are not needed to tell the gender, DM description already takes care of that. Boobs on lizards seems a purely aesthetic decision - namely, to add more female curves to the game's illustrations, or more eye candy for fantasy fans of the male persuasion.

I'd rate boobs on lizards in the same category as chainmail bikinis.

That said, I don't really care about the mammary glands on lizards, the main reason for my dislike of them is that they look ugly, have no tail, and would better serve their purpose (catering to Dragon fans) by using a half-dragon template, or by using real dragons.

For all "exotic reptilian warrior race" themes, we already have lizardfolk, yuan-ti, and draconians.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I really don't get the "so we can tell if a dragonborn is female" argument. What do GMs do, present a picture and no description? Or present a detailed description, but neglect to mention the gender even if a dragonborn PC would know the gender?



People like to look at pictures and interpreting them correctly without having to read a text. Also, people to imagine how characters would look like, and having some clues on how to differentiate an imagined Dragonborn woman and a Dragonborn man in your imagination is also nice. 



> I really don't get why we have dragonborn in the PHB at all. They don't have a proper name, they look ugly, they don't have mythological resonance, it's hard to imagine something so monstrous walking down the street outside of the Citystate of the Invincible Overlord without people running and screaming, and we can't even tell what gender they are without weird stuff being involved.



In a world where Dragonborn, Orcs, Lizardfolk and spellcasters exist, it is quite possible to imagine people not to run screaming just because they see a Dragonborn. It is not our world. 

Maybe that's too cosmopolitan for a fantasy world? Maybe you're right. But then, even Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes and Halflings are to cosmopolitan already. With Dragonborn (and Tiefling), you can no longer hide this fact. 

But it makes sense - the implied setting is not just a fantasy world - it is a world with several large empires in its past, each spanning wide areas of the world and uniting people not only of different color, but also of different species. These empires lead to an "inter-mingling" that is probably unprecedented in our history (at least not in Europe - America might be in fact the first historical example for such a thing).


----------



## rounser (Jul 14, 2008)

> But it makes sense



I disagree.  A yuan-ti abomination couldn't walk (slither?) down the street in old FR without havoc ensuing.  A lizardman would draw a crowd or maybe fleeing onlookers, and probably the watch.  A drow would have to keep a very low profile as well (usually stay hooded).  Not even D&D logic is with you on this one.

WOTC can change this, but I think it's silly of them.  It's too wahoo for the implied setting of D&D for this to be a core PC race, IMO.

I _want_ my yuan-ti to be weird and scarey, but if dragonborn look far freakier than that, who cares about a little monstrousness?  Just because the designers are seemingly jaded about monsters doesn't mean they should bring the NPCs of every D&D world down with them.  

Besides, they'd be run out of town for being a fire hazard every time they sneezed, guaranteed, if you want to bring "fantasy logic" into it.  Pseudomedieval cities burn so very easily, after all.

It reminds me of the time I wanted to play a goblin PC.  The DM allowed it with an evil grin to the other players, and my character rocked up to the party.

"Hey, a goblin!  Kill it!"
"No-*THWACK*..ow! Wait-*THWACK*...oW! I-*THWACK*--yargh! Want...*THWACK*..to join you...urrrrgh..."

They made their point.  I rolled up a dwarf.  The new core PHB misses that point - playing goblins and dragonpeople should be optional, not core to the D&D game.  It challenges one of D&D's core assumptions: "Monsters are bad, mmkay?"

Make them routine and everyday and that...well, that sucks.


----------



## Derren (Jul 14, 2008)

rounser said:


> it's hard to imagine something so monstrous walking down the street outside of the Citystate of the Invincible Overlord without people running and screaming




Why? Unless they just appeared recently out of nowhere (FR 4E) most humans know by now that they are civilized and got used to them, as they got used to Halflings and Eladrin.
Especially in the PoL setting Dragonborn are known far and wide because of their history.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 14, 2008)

rounser said:


> I disagree.  A yuan-ti abomination couldn't walk down the street in old FR without havoc ensuing.  A lizardman would draw a crowd or maybe fleeing onlookers, and probably the watch.  A drow would have to keep a very low profile as well (usually stay hooded).  Not even D&D logic is with you on this one.
> 
> WOTC can change this, but I think it's silly of them.  It's too wahoo for the implied setting of D&D for this to be a core PC race, IMO.




True. Also, if lizardfolk is so integrated, then that also changes the whole dynamic of the setting. It gets more Sigil, less "calssic D&D fantasy world". And invariably, the more common exotic stuff like lizardfolk is, the less exotic and special the rest of the world feels. I don't really like this - I prefer to play in settings where society is not generally as cosmopolitan as in Sigil, and where sigil is the exception, not the norm.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2008)

rounser said:


> I disagree.  A yuan-ti abomination couldn't walk down the street in old FR without havoc ensuing.  A lizardman would draw a crowd or maybe fleeing onlookers, and probably the watch.  A drow would have to keep a very low profile as well (usually stay hooded).  Not even D&D logic is with you on this one.
> 
> WOTC can change this, but I think it's silly of them.  It's too wahoo for the implied setting of D&D for this to be a core PC race, IMO.




But why would Drow have to keep low-profile? Or Lizardfolk?

It's not because of their looks. It is because they are usually evil! Drow occopy the Underdark and are usually only heard of when they are trying to conquer the surface world or go Elf-hunting. Lizardfolk constantly battle against human villagers because they want to expand their territory.

Dragonborn once had a major Empire that was considered mostly benevolent and progressive. They fought a Tiefling Empire that was ruled by Devils and oppressed non-Tielflings And these days, they often work as mercenaries helping out cities or villages to defend against Drow or Lizardfolk. 

If anyone should be looked upon with hatred or fear, it might be Tieflings. But Tieflings have lost their Empire, and they haven't tried to rebuild it or continue fighting. They have built new communities with humans and were probably part of the last, human Empire as well. 

The trick of the Tieflings and Dragonborn is that they did not isolate themselves from the other races - Lizardfolk and Drow never did that. They are foreign to most, and they are usually at odds with "normal" communities.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> True. Also, if lizardfolk is so integrated, then that also changes the whole dynamic of the setting. It gets more Sigil, less "calssic D&D fantasy world". And invariably, the more common exotic stuff like lizardfolk is, the less exotic and special the rest of the world feels. I don't really like this - I prefer to play in settings where society is not generally as cosmopolitan as in Sigil, and where sigil is the exception, not the norm.




Lizardfolks aren't integrated, though. Neither are Drow. They are still aggressive, isolationist folk always fighting the "good people". 

But in regards to Dragonborn or Tieflings, sure, 4E PoL is more "Sigil" then "Warhammer".


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2008)

Derren said:


> Why? Unless they just appeared recently out of nowhere (FR 4E) most humans know by now that they are civilized and got used to them, as they got used to Halflings and Eladrin.
> Especially in the PoL setting Dragonborn are known far and wide because of their history.



Who are you and what have you done to Derrens account?!


----------



## Fenes (Jul 14, 2008)

Derren said:


> Why? Unless they just appeared recently out of nowhere (FR 4E) most humans know by now that they are civilized and got used to them, as they got used to Halflings and Eladrin.
> Especially in the PoL setting Dragonborn are known far and wide because of their history.




That's exactly what I consider a negative - the setting loses a lot of its appeal if people are used to lizardfolk in society. It's just a touch too fantastic, and raises the bar too much for other things to be exotic, IMHO.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 14, 2008)

On the whole "abomination" thing.

You're telling me that there's no problems with extremely magical virtually imortal races walking down the street, but, see a lizard man and people go screaming?

I think not.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 14, 2008)

Hussar said:


> On the whole "abomination" thing.
> 
> You're telling me that there's no problems with extremely magical virtually imortal races walking down the street, but, see a lizard man and people go screaming?
> 
> I think not.




What races are extremely magical and virtually immortal, and walking down the street? Neither dwarves, nor elves, nor eladrin are immortal, and all are not really "extremely magical", not compared to a human/halfling/whatever wizard.


----------



## Derren (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> That's exactly what I consider a negative - the setting loses a lot of its appeal if people are used to lizardfolk in society. It's just a touch too fantastic, and raises the bar too much for other things to be exotic, IMHO.




If you prefer traditional Tolkien fantasy (everything civilized looks like humans) ok, but things like Eladrin are far more exotic than Dragonborn because of their fey nature.
Also I think many humans would feel more uncomfortable when among Halflings (because they remind humans of children, but act like adults. A classic horror theme) than when around Dragonborn (who mostly have a good reputation, depending on the campaign world, and are clearly not humans).


----------



## Fenes (Jul 14, 2008)

Derren said:


> If you prefer traditional Tolkien fantasy (everything civilized looks like humans) ok, but things like Eladrin are far more exotic than Dragonborn because of their fey nature.
> Also I think many humans would feel more uncomfortable when among Halflings (because they remind humans of children, but act like adults. A classic horror theme) than when around Dragonborn (who mostly have a good reputation, depending on the campaign world, and are clearly not humans).




I actually hate Tolkien (Tried three times to read the trilogy, never made it further than book 2), I prefer grittier Sword and Sorcery settings.

Eladrin look far more human than lizards. But yes, I'd not have such fey be part of civilised society either - my humans are more xenophobic than the idealised, star trek-like people in the PoL setting of 4E.


----------



## Derren (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Eladrin look far more human than lizards.




Yes, but their mindset is much more alien.
Humans and Dragonborns have more or less the same mindset. Eladrin on the other hand have think in completely alien ways as they live much longer and are fey.

Dragonborn look more scary at first, but unless they are complete strangers and the humans have never heard of them they would imo be more fearful of Eladrin because of their strange powers, nature and way of thinking.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I actually hate Tolkien (Tried three times to read the trilogy, never made it further than book 2), I prefer grittier Sword and Sorcery settings.
> 
> Eladrin look far more human than lizards. But yes, I'd not have such fey be part of civilised society either - my humans are more xenophobic than the idealised, star trek-like people in the PoL setting of 4E.



If you want, you can have both. 

Xenophobia requires something alien to fear. Dragonborn, Eladrin, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings and Tieflings are not "Xeno" in the Point of Light setting, because they are all sharing communities. They are mixed. (At least they are not more "alien" then an immigrants quarter might be - which can still be a lot, but it's not "open" xenophobia in most cases. It is a general distrust or unease, but not hostility and fear)

But any other race is still alien. Lizardfolk might look a little like Dragonborn, but the only thing you've ever heard about them is how they attacked a village - unprovked! - and killed all women and children 10 days from here - your cousin second grade heard it from some traveler of the Kings Road! 
And the last time you heard from the Drow was in history when they helped some Hobgoblins in destroying the Elven settlement a few miles from here.


----------



## Wormwood (Jul 14, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But in regards to Dragonborn or Tieflings, sure, 4E PoL is more "Sigil" then "Warhammer".



Upgrade, I'd say.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 14, 2008)

Derren said:


> Yes, but their mindset is much more alien.
> Humans and Dragonborns have more or less the same mindset. Eladrin on the other hand have think in completely alien ways as they live much longer and are fey.
> 
> Dragonborn look more scary at first, but unless they are complete strangers and the humans have never heard of them they would imo be more fearful of Eladrin because of their strange powers, nature and way of thinking.




Lizards thinking like humans is another point in the "just scaly humans" pile. It doesn't really make me like them even a bit better, it just makes them even more boring. "Humans in a rubber suit" is not really an interesting concept.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 14, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If you want, you can have both.
> 
> Xenophobia requires something alien to fear. Dragonborn, Eladrin, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings and Tieflings are not "Xeno" in the Point of Light setting, because they are all sharing communities. They are mixed. (At least they are not more "alien" then an immigrants quarter might be - which can still be a lot, but it's not "open" xenophobia in most cases. It is a general distrust or unease, but not hostility and fear)
> 
> ...




If all the PC races are not alien, what's their point then? Just some differences in looks, but they think alike, and all live in harmony? If they are alien, why would they live in harmony, and why would people fear lizardfolk, who just want to live alone in swamps, and not fey, who steal children according to myth? And where's the difference between elves killing loggers, and lizardfolks killing prospectors?

I really don't see the point in this artificial divide between politically correct reptilians, and "kill on sight" reptilians.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> What races are extremely magical and virtually immortal, and walking down the street? Neither dwarves, nor elves, nor eladrin are immortal, and all are not really "extremely magical", not compared to a human/halfling/whatever wizard.




I was referring to older editions actually, where elves are, for all intents and purposes, immortal.  And highly magical.

But, if you want to stick to 4e, eladrin certainly come to mind - a race that can teleport at will?  Yeah, that's not a problem.  

Meh, the idea of xenophobia is something to leave up to DM's.  1e tried to force the issue with the race relation tables and that got left on the cutting room floor a couple of decades ago.  If you want race X to be hated, go for it.  Why expect it to be in the PHB?


----------



## Fenes (Jul 14, 2008)

I do not expect the default community in a PoL setting to be a miniature-sigil.


----------



## rounser (Jul 14, 2008)

> I really don't see the point in this artificial divide between politically correct reptilians, and "kill on sight" reptilians.



A draconian, a saurial and a dragonborn walk into this bar, see, and the bartender says...no, wait, I'll start again.  See, a lizardfolk, a dragonborn and a yuan-ti walk into a bar, and the bartender hides behind the counter and reaches for his masterwork longsword...no, wait, maybe if he notices one of them has breasts he'd feel better...hmmm...

...and then the dragonborn sneezes and the tavern burns down, and the D&D party has nowhere to meet dark strangers offering them quests, so the campaign ends.

All because of dragonborn in the core.  Just say no to core PC race dragonborn.  They'll make your campaign world a silly place.  Then burn it down.


> But, if you want to stick to 4e, eladrin certainly come to mind - a race that can teleport at will? Yeah, that's not a problem.



That's kind of silly too.  Makes everything high magic.  Stuff doing this sort of thing should be hiding out in the woods away from man, doing whatever fey do...playing fetch with the blink dogs and thinking unknowable thoughts, maybe.  Not downing tankards with farmers, and then blinking to the bar to pay for the round.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> If all the PC races are not alien, what's their point then? Just some differences in looks, but they think alike, and all live in harmony? If they are alien, why would they live in harmony, and why would people fear lizardfolk, who just want to live alone in swamps, and not fey, who steal children according to myth? And where's the difference between elves killing loggers, and lizardfolks killing prospectors?
> 
> I really don't see the point in this artificial divide between politically correct reptilians, and "kill on sight" reptilians.




They still have their own cultures. (And racial abilities, of course, but that's more a gamist thing). That makes them a "little" alien, but not in the "oh my god, they are scaled and want to kill us all!", just like scots don't make me run and shout "oh my god, they wear kilts and want to kill us all!".


----------



## rounser (Jul 14, 2008)

> That makes them a "little" alien



Oh, pull the other one!  They breathe fire and "look like dragons" (apparently).  

What, exactly, would be a "lot" alien?  Extra heads?  Tentacles?  A "Hug Me, I'm From The Far Realm" t-shirt?


----------



## Fenes (Jul 14, 2008)

I really don't see much of a difference between them and lizardfolk - other than "those are PC races, and threfore good, those are nPCs, so kill'em all!"

It simply feels not logical, and contrived to me. Like all that went into developping them was "We want some kewl dragon-thing, let's write them in, logic, cosistency, and common sense be damned! Let's just make them humans in rubber suits!"


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I really don't see the point in this artificial divide between politically correct reptilians, and "kill on sight" reptilians.




Personally, I'd say the dividing line between "PC races" and "NPC races" is:

"Can we sell stuff to them/buy stuff from them without getting killed/eaten?"

If the answer is yes, they count as "civilized" and likely won't be attacked on sight in most except truly xenophobic settlements. If no, eventually one side will attempt to kill the other.

The "implied backstory" says that in the last human empire, all the PC races managed to live together, and this created a certain measure of trust that still endures to this day. For a good metaphor, think back to the time of the Roman Empire. The Greeks disliked the Romans, who in turn sneered at the Gauls, but ultimately they were all members of the Roman empire and theoretically received some measure of protection by it. In contrast, all of these were deeply suspicious of the barbaric Germanic tribes to the north, and any trade and other contact with them was rare and only happened at a few places.

So let's say the human empire of the backstory managed to conquer a good chunk of the world - halfling marshlands, elven and eladrin forest kingdoms, dwarven mountain strongholds, and so forth. They convinced dragonborn nomads to join their armies (where they probably joined certain elite units), and tieflings had always dwelled in communities in their midst - widely distrusted, but with abilities that were too useful to ignore. And everyone learned Common and learned to communicate with each other.

On the other hand, there were some races which the Empire never conquered and assimilated before it collapsed. Orcs were too fierce to submit to civilization. Others, like lizardfolkn, simply dwelled in regions too far away. As a result, they never learned Common in large numbers, were hard to trade with, and didn't leave their native regions in numbers large enough to be accepted as "civilized". Ancient manuscripts from the Empire talked about the "civilized races" - the PC races listed in the PHB - but the lizardfolk were never more than curiosities, complete with the kind of stories authors like to make up about foreign countries to send a chill down the spine of their readers and make them glad that they live in a _civilized_ region.

Of course, it's perfectly acceptable that lizardfolk are counted among the "civilized" races in your campaign world. But if you want a justification for the current setup, here it is...


----------



## Wormwood (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I do not expect the default community in a PoL setting to be a miniature-sigil.



I thought the average PoL community was a miniature Ankh-Morpork: mostly human but more than willing accomodate 'monsters' as long as they mind their own business and spend some coin.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 14, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> Personally, I'd say the dividing line between "PC races" and "NPC races" is:
> 
> "Can we sell stuff to them/buy stuff from them without getting killed/eaten?"
> 
> ...




It just feels made up. In our history, minorities who were part of an empire ended up persecuted once the empire changed hands or broke up. Old prejudice never really died out, not even in the enlightened times.

I just don't buy the "and we PC races all live in harmony" line.


----------



## Wormwood (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I just don't buy the "and we PC races all live in harmony" line.



On the face of it, neither do I.

But then again I usually roll Horde.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> It just feels made up. In our history, minorities who were part of an empire ended up persecuted once the empire changed hands or broke up. Old prejudice never really died out, not even in the enlightened times.
> 
> I just don't buy the "and we PC races all live in harmony" line.



Has this always been true in our history? Or has this only be true where the empire was oppressive and exploited its members? 

But what's with other D&D settings - why can Elves and Humans live peacefully most of the time? Why isn't an Elf a strange or fearful sight in a Greyhawk Village?
Why do PC races get along with each other? Or do they not in your campaign?


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> It just feels made up. In our history, minorities who were part of an empire ended up persecuted once the empire changed hands or broke up. Old prejudice never really died out, not even in the enlightened times.
> 
> I just don't buy the "and we PC races all live in harmony" line.




Of course it didn't die out. But for gaming purpose, it's sufficient that the races don't try to kill each other on sight most of the time.

I mean, Jews managed to live throughout most of Europe for most of the Middle Ages, despite constant prejudices and the occasional pogrom. I don't see why a similar model couldn't be used for D&D - especially since the "civilized" races have all those outsider races to pin their hatreds on. Who cares about the dragonborn next door when you have to worry about the marauding orc horde? Especially since the dragonborn has always helped out with repelling orc invaders?

Mind you, you still don't like him and wouldn't invite him for dinner (let alone allowing him to date your daughter... never mind, let's not go there). But as long as he doesn't bother you, you won't bother him too much (beyond the occasional "premium" you charge him on your wares - but you are sure that that filthy scalehead is doing the same to you, so that's all right)).


----------



## Fenes (Jul 14, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Has this always been true in our history? Or has this only be true where the empire was oppressive and exploited its members?
> 
> But what's with other D&D settings - why can Elves and Humans live peacefully most of the time? Why isn't an Elf a strange or fearful sight in a Greyhawk Village?
> Why do PC races get along with each other? Or do they not in your campaign?




Of course they do not get along peacefully, with some exceptions. The standard relations between elves and humans are always strained, with humans spreading out, and pushing into elven lands. Dwarves have less troubles, because humans don't really like to live underground. Both races also are in decline, so there's less conflict for lack of numbers on the elven/dwarf side. Basically, in my campaign, the races get along with each other as long as they do not mix much, or in some very cosmopolitan towns, and even there there might be a "dwarven quarter".


----------



## Fenes (Jul 14, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> Of course it didn't die out. But for gaming purpose, it's sufficient that the races don't try to kill each other on sight most of the time.
> 
> I mean, Jews managed to live throughout most of Europe for most of the Middle Ages, despite constant prejudices and the occasional pogrom. I don't see why a similar model couldn't be used for D&D - especially since the "civilized" races have all those outsider races to pin their hatreds on. Who cares about the dragonborn next door when you have to worry about the marauding orc horde? Especially since the dragonborn has always helped out with repelling orc invaders?
> 
> Mind you, you still don't like him and wouldn't invite him for dinner (let alone allowing him to date your daughter... never mind, let's not go there). But as long as he doesn't bother you, you won't bother him too much (beyond the occasional "premium" you charge him on your wares - but you are sure that that filthy scalehead is doing the same to you, so that's all right)).




I could see that in a strong Empire, where the law and order is kept up, but not in a PoL. Too easy to use each other as scapegoats there. And people are apt to band together in clans and tribes, excluding other humans - why would they tolerate non-humans much? And the same goes for the non-human races. Even by canon, how many humans live in dwarven or elven communities?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Of course they do not get along peacefully, with some exceptions. The standard relations between elves and humans are always strained, with humans spreading out, and pushing into elven lands. Dwarves have less troubles, because humans don't really like to live underground. Both races also are in decline, so there's less conflict for lack of numbers on the elven/dwarf side. Basically, in my campaign, the races get along with each other as long as they do not mix much, or in some very cosmopolitan towns, and even there there might be a "dwarven quarter".




Well, Tieflings and Dragonborn are just another race in decline - Dragonborn mostly travel alone or in pairs, and wander around a lot. Tieflings, after the fall of their Great Empire, don't really look that much better either. 

They get along as long as there is nothing to quarrel about. If there is, you can be sure species will become an issue. Of course, as long as their are Lizardfolk, Goblins, Kobolds and Giants threatening civilization, it might be better not to quarrel too much...


----------



## Fenes (Jul 14, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, Tieflings and Dragonborn are just another race in decline - Dragonborn mostly travel alone or in pairs, and wander around a lot. Tieflings, after the fall of their Great Empire, don't really look that much better either.
> 
> They get along as long as there is nothing to quarrel about. If there is, you can be sure species will become an issue. Of course, as long as their are Lizardfolk, Goblins, Kobolds and Giants threatening civilization, it might be better not to quarrel too much...




I use PS tieflings, not the streamlined but boring 4E ones, so that's one less race in decline.

And I don't use dragonborn, of course - there's lizardfolk for those who want to play a lizard.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I could see that in a strong Empire, where the law and order is kept up, but not in a PoL. Too easy to use each other as scapegoats there. And people are apt to band together in clans and tribes, excluding other humans - why would they tolerate non-humans much?




Given how dangerous the world at large is, I'd assume that communities that insist on kicking out all elves, dwarves, halflings, dragonborn etc. tend to have weakened defenses and are much more likely to die when the next orc horde comes along.

Jews in medieval Europe, despite being strongly disliked by the majority population, were tolerated because they were useful to the communities they lived in, mostly through financial services that Christians were forbidden from providing. Nonhuman communities in human cities could likewise be tolerated because their very presence is useful for the communities.


Kick out the dragonborn? Those used to be the strongest defenders of your community when the orcs came visiting in their annual spring plunder drive.
Kick out the dwarves? Forget about your nobles prancing around in plate mail - shoddy chain mail is the best the local human smiths can do.
Kick out the eladrins? Say goodbye to your suppliers of high-end magic.
Kick out the elves? Well, don't complain if some forest monster eats your lumberjacks, then.
Kick out the halflings? Why, sure! We don't trade anything along the river, after all. Right?
Kick out the tieflings? Are you mad? Haven't you heard of <former village X> which was cursed by other tieflings when they were driven out of town? They got razed by the orcs during their annual spring plunder drive - a sure sign of a curse! No, it's better to keep them where we can keep an eye on them...

Apart from these services, these nonhuman members of a community also serve as a vital source of news. A human-only community will only get news from other human community - while a mixed community will receive news from all the other communities in the region as well. And that's vital - not just for when the orcs arrive during their annual spring plunder drive, but also for all kinds of other disasters and wars. Temporary or even permanent alliances with those communities will be much easier to establish if the nonhumans of your community can act as mediators.

Frankly, I think you are making all this harder than it has to be. You seem to start with a default assumption that humans in general _must_ be so bigoted to reject nonhumans wanting to live in their communities even when permitting it would be of tremendous benefit to themselves both economically and in terms of survival. While some human towns like this exist, I'd say it is at least equally likely that other towns will ebrace other races to some degree. After all, towns exist for the purpose of facilitating trade, and the presence of nonhumans certainly helps trade.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> "Humans in a rubber suit" is not really an interesting concept.



This is why you also make the 'humans in a rubber suit' act like Romans...

It seems to me that inventing wholly alien modes of cognition and the cultures they spawn is beyond the scope of a fantasy RPG. Or of fantasy/SF literature, for that matter. And if you did somehow succeed in characterizing the truly alien, the result would be a character nobody could relate to, thus of limited utility as a _character_ and usable only as a foil or plot device.

In short, count me as a fan of rubber suit brigade. What they lack in novelty, they more than make up for in being doable.


----------



## lutecius (Jul 14, 2008)

NMcCoy said:


> So the dragonborn adventurers know who to flirt with in the tavern between adventures? To protect the elves' androgyny niche? To forestall endless flame wars over whether a particular illustration depicts a male or female? Because most D&D players are human, and it's a convenient and hardwired visual shortcut for "female" without having to go "wait, is it the males or females that have the wavy crest?"



Just like i said, dragonboobs are less interesting. Even if you are actually going to play out the whole dragonflirt thing  that shouldn't be a problem, unless your dm describes women as humans with boobs.
But really, I thought the point of db was to play a scary monster, not hook up in taverns. To me, the idea ranges from mildly grotesque to plain icky, but whatever floats your boat...



NMcCoy said:


> One could do worse than be a liker of boobies.



...on a dragon. Again, they didn't disturb me so much before I realized some people actually liked them.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 14, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> Kick out the dragonborn? Those used to be the strongest defenders of your community when the orcs came visiting in their annual spring plunder drive.
> Kick out the dwarves? Forget about your nobles prancing around in plate mail - shoddy chain mail is the best the local human smiths can do.
> Kick out the eladrins? Say goodbye to your suppliers of high-end magic.
> Kick out the elves? Well, don't complain if some forest monster eats your lumberjacks, then.
> ...




I don't play in a setting where humans are stupid apes, unable to craft, fight, or learn any art. 
Humans make platemail. Humans fight as well as lizards. Humans have wizards just like eladrin  - and as powerful. Humans have foresters too, and they battle more with elves trying to hog the forest for themselves, than with forest monsters. Humans can steer riverboats as well. And humans burn witches who curse villages.

And from the setting novels I read, humans are generally distrustful of the other races, and generally have conflicts - the "Human settlers clash with elven forest village" is a clichee plot.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 14, 2008)

lutecius said:


> Again, they didn't disturb me so much before I realized some people actually liked them.




Call me shallow, but flat-chested dragonborn chickadees don't do it for me. I like my women with curves, no matter what race they are.


----------



## Wormwood (Jul 14, 2008)

Mourn said:


> Call me shallow . . .



You're shallow.

But so am I, and for the same reason.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 14, 2008)

MR said:
			
		

> scots don't make me run and shout "oh my god, they wear kilts and want to kill us all!".




Obviously then, you will be the first to fall when the scots hulk out and start murdering everyone within arm's reach.

_it's only a matter of time_....



More about the "monstrousness" of the Dragonborn, I would definately argue that in a high fantasy world (of which D&D 4e certainly is) "lookin' freaky" isn't any sort of barrier to anything. Humans in such a world would have a necessarily more accepting bent than historical humans here, because campaigns of racial cleansing and the like are that much more difficult to carry out against 90% of the world, and because those races come in handy. 

A lower fantasy world might be freaked out of dragonborn (and even halflings would give pause), but D&D has _never_ been a low fantasy setting, so I wouldn't ask it to try and provide that to me out of the box.

Still, I think the idea that all the PC races are harmonius is exceptionally boring, and I really regret that it has been played up so much in the fluff. You can get along and still have conflict, which is something this article doesn't really consider, because the dragonborn don't have any interesting conflicts that might make for a fun night of gaming when used as the seed for a character or an adventure.



			
				Lutecius said:
			
		

> Again, they didn't disturb me so much before I realized some people actually liked them.




I am squicked out beyond belief at some of these comments, and maybe more by those who say they're not _enough_. I guess we all have our fetishes though, so it's probably a wash. 

I mean, I was weirded out when people offered up their Lidda fantasies in 3e, too.

....maybe I just wish people would keep their fantasies to themselves and those loved ones that can help them act it out.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I don't play in a setting where humans are stupid apes, unable to craft, fight, or learn any art.
> Humans make platemail. Humans fight as well as lizards. Humans have wizards just like eladrin  - and as powerful. Humans have foresters too, and they battle more with elves trying to hog the forest for themselves, than with forest monsters. Humans can steer riverboats as well. And humans burn witches who curse villages.




Sure, humans could do all of those. But could they do all of these _as well_ as the other races?

Dwarves have a mining and smelting infrastructure that is hard to replicate for any race not as obsessive as they are. Dragonborn have innate advantages that make them, all other things being equal, better fighters than humans. Elves have lived in forests for so long that forestry is part of their very culture, and it would take an exceptionally dedicated human to learn everything what is common knowledge among the elves.

In real life and real world history, societies specialize. Some societies are good at producing one kind of trade goods, and they trade it with other societies which are good at other things. I see the same thing going on between humans and the various nonhuman societies. Sure, humans _could_ try to do everything the other societies do - but then they'd end up being "jacks of all trades, and masters of none".

To sum it up: Communities that trade, prosper. Communities that don't, suffer for it. Anything else is implausible - _far_ more implausible than any "the PC races manage to live together without killing each other" scenario.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> It just feels made up.





It is! Dragonborn aren't real.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Jul 14, 2008)

Fenes said:


> If all the PC races are not alien, what's their point then? Just some differences in looks, but they think alike, and all live in harmony?



You know, there's an _excellent_ reason why the PC races aren't all that alien, and why they all play as somewhat exaggerated human stereotypes with cosmetic detailing and stat modifiers...

This is a _game *played by humans*_! Your characters must be at least somewhat human, or you're unable to engage meaningfully with them. Sure, Dragonborn are scaly and hulkish, and are born from eggs, but they _must be people_, or you can't play them meaningfully. (I see this thing all the time with SF, by the way; an alien that's too alien to empathize with is not a character, it's either a plot device or a "bug".)

But if you feel that the races, as shown in the PHB, are too dull, you can draw upon the existing background for them, to make them more alien. Take the DBs; one thing mentioned in the "Ecology of Dragonborn" article is that they marry only to procreate, and these pairings end as the young DB is three years old.

How about if _love_, in the romantic sense, is an emotion alien to Dragonborn? They feel affection for their friends, camaraderie, parental pride of their children, and the heady, lustful passion of mating that inevitably fades; but all the human talk about "eternal love", and "love conquering all obstacles", is just word salad to them?


----------



## Mallus (Jul 14, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:


> This is a _game *played by humans*_! Your characters must be at least somewhat human, or you're unable to engage meaningfully with them. Sure, Dragonborn are scaly and hulkish, and are born from eggs, but they _must be people_, or you can't play them meaningfully. (I see this thing all the time with SF, by the way; an alien that's too alien to empathize with is not a character, it's either a plot device or a "bug".)



I raise this point every time I see that 'humans in a funny suit" line. It's seems so obvious, and yet there's a lot of resistance to it.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 14, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:


> You know, there's an _excellent_ reason why the PC races aren't all that alien, and why they all play as somewhat exaggerated human stereotypes with cosmetic detailing and stat modifiers...
> 
> This is a _game *played by humans*_! Your characters must be at least somewhat human, or you're unable to engage meaningfully with them. Sure, Dragonborn are scaly and hulkish, and are born from eggs, but they _must be people_, or you can't play them meaningfully. (I see this thing all the time with SF, by the way; an alien that's too alien to empathize with is not a character, it's either a plot device or a "bug".)




Is this the part where someone insults your imagination had you been decrying 4e instead of defending it?

There's a difference between a humanized race and a race that's literally "People in funny customs."  Dragonborn are the latter.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> There's a difference between a humanized race and a race that's literally "People in funny customs."  Dragonborn are the latter.



Then explain it.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 14, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Then explain it.




One has similarities with humans but differences, the other is a human with no differences.  An example was _already given_.  If they had actually put in the PHB and such that Dragonborn have no concept or feeling of love, that would've been a great way to set them apart from humans.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Jul 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Is this the part where someone insults your imagination had you been decrying 4e instead of defending it?



You tell me, since you made that up.

Also, you might notice that in the same post where I argued that you can't have really alien PCs, I suggested a simple way to make Dragonborn psychology more different from humans that would not render them impossible to empathize with.

For a home exercise, I ask how the Eladrin psychology and mentality is altered by the fact that they do not sleep, and that they experience true unconsciousness only as the result of trauma?



> There's a difference between a humanized race and a race that's literally "People in funny customs."  Dragonborn are the latter.



What is the difference, besides "I like this race and dislike this one"?


----------



## Mallus (Jul 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> One has similarities with humans but differences, the other is a human with no differences.



That was illuminating. 



> If they had actually put in the PHB and such that Dragonborn have no concept or feeling of love, that would've been a great way to set them apart from humans.



So the Dragonborn would be cold and unromantic people. A lack of love is hardly straying far past the human (and I bet they'd love filthy lucre as much as the next bipedal mammal...). 

For the most part, fantasy and SF have to make do with simple inversions and negations like the example you just gave. To me, that's still well within 'funny suit' territory.

Can you name some alien characters that evade the 'funny suit' trap. That might be helpful.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jul 14, 2008)

rounser said:


> A "Hug Me, I'm From The Far Realm" t-shirt?



Can I get one of those?


----------



## Leatherhead (Jul 14, 2008)

Lurks-no-More said:


> This is a _game *played by humans*_! Your characters must be at least somewhat human, or you're unable to engage meaningfully with them. Sure, Dragonborn are scaly and hulkish, and are born from eggs, but they _must be people_, or you can't play them meaningfully. (I see this thing all the time with SF, by the way; an alien that's too alien to empathize with is not a character, it's either a plot device or a "bug".)




I disagree on account of dogs and other such domesticated animals. A creature doesn't have to look like, or even fully act like a human for there to be meaningful interaction with them.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> One has similarities with humans but differences, the other is a human with no differences.  An example was _already given_.  If they had actually put in the PHB and such that Dragonborn have no concept or feeling of love, that would've been a great way to set them apart from humans.



Here's something that is very different from humans:
Dragonborn don't have long-lasting marriages or relationships. They meet for a few years, have a child, and then split up again. 

You might get humans that leave their girlfriend if she gets pregnant, but that is outside the standard norms. And it certainly doesn't happen systematically, we usually enter relationships with the hope to have something for life.
Dragonborns are a society of single parents by choice (maybe even "nature").


----------



## Leatherhead (Jul 14, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Here's something that is very different from humans:
> Dragonborn don't have long-lasting marriages or relationships. They meet for a few years, have a child, and then split up again.
> 
> You might get humans that leave their girlfriend if she gets pregnant, but that is outside the standard norms. And it certainly doesn't happen systematically, we usually enter relationships with the hope to have something for life.
> Dragonborns are a society of single parents by choice (maybe even "nature").



 Oh don't go into what is "normal" for humans to do, nobody can agree on that. As a counterpoint, consider the divorce rate of the United States.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2008)

Leatherhead said:


> Oh don't go into what is "normal" for humans to do, nobody can agree on that. As a counterpoint, consider the divorce rate of the United States.



But is that intentional by humans? Especially considering how we phrase our marriage rituals and vows? 
And how many people meet or marry to just procreate? Having sex, sure, but having a child and always leaving behind a single parent?

There might be a lot of variety in human behavior, but this is definitely not one of the strong or common ones. Even less so in a (pseudo)medieval setting.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 14, 2008)

Leatherhead said:


> Oh don't go into what is "normal" for humans to do, nobody can agree on that. As a counterpoint, consider the divorce rate of the United States.



It's rather relevant, given that part of the discussion is how fantasy races differ from real humans. If we can't discuss what humans do, then there is no basis for comparison.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jul 14, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But is that intentional by humans? Especially considering how we phrase our marriage rituals and vows?
> And how many people meet or marry to just procreate? Having sex, sure, but having a child and always leaving behind a single parent?
> 
> There might be a lot of variety in human behavior, but this is definitely not one of the strong or common ones. Even less so in a (pseudo)medieval setting.




Marriage itself isn't always intentional, somtimes it is a socially enforced consequence of copulation that results in procreation, at least in western societies.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jul 14, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> It's rather relevant, given that part of the discussion is how fantasy races differ from real humans. If we can't discuss what humans do, then there is no basis for comparison.




Oh we can discuss what real humans do,  and what humans do may be relevant, but to presume something as "normal" is a bit much.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 14, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> One has similarities with humans but differences, the other is a human with no differences.  An example was _already given_.  If they had actually put in the PHB and such that Dragonborn have no concept or feeling of love, that would've been a great way to set them apart from humans.



According to the PHB, "...a dragonborn takes responsibility for his or her actions and their consequences." I'd say that's not a feature of real-life humans in general.

But by your logic, I guess halflings are human with no differences. Dwarves too. Really, all of the non-human races take some aspect or aspects of human personality and amplify them. Playing something terribly non-human, after all, is either beyond the capabilities of, or of no interest to, most gamers.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 14, 2008)

Leatherhead said:


> Oh we can discuss what real humans do,  and what humans do may be relevant, but to presume something as "normal" is a bit much.



"Normal" in the sense of "common"? I'd say that's fair game.

(The divorce rate in the US is one of the higher in the world, after all).


----------



## Scribble (Jul 14, 2008)

Leatherhead said:


> Marriage itself isn't always intentional, somtimes it is a socially enforced consequence of copulation that results in procreation, at least in western societies.




While it may not actually be the actual result, the cultural "norm" is that men and women come together to form a unit. Together they have a child, or multiple children, and their offspring go on to do the same. Even if it doesn;t work out that way, the idea still remains the same.

Even if a human is divorced, the "social norm" is that the family "unit" is still in a way tied together, (through things like alimony, and child support.)

Even before the idea of divorce, you can see how a child outide of a married couple was considered "outside the norm" the term "bastard becoming an insult and such..."

And you can even see it in the above statement. If they have a child out of wedlock, society almost pressures them to get married... Because the "societal norm" is that two parents come together to raise a child.

To a human, if you say "I got a divorce." a valid responce could be: "I'm sorry things didn;t work out between the two of you."

Dragonborn society would be completely different.

Two Dragonborn come together out of the need to procreate. Once they've done that, they move on. No concept of a continued family unit (divorced or not.)

One parent maintains the child, the other moves on to the next.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 15, 2008)

Stepping away from the "What is the human norm," I think it WOULD have been a big upgrade to the class if they had given dragonborn a bigger emphasis on the "doesn't feel love" bit and made them to be a bit more - forgive the pun - cold blooded.  Focus on them not connecting to others, and not because of trust issues or anything like that, but simply because they don't feel large amounts of empathy for others (they still feel some; we don't want a race of psychopaths).

Again, give races things that STAND OUT and set them apart from you and I, _especially_ if you're trying to go for the Wowee! factor in _dragon people_.


----------



## rounser (Jul 15, 2008)

> Again, give races things that STAND OUT and set them apart from you and I, especially if you're trying to go for the Wowee! factor in dragon people.



Or, you could actually make them like dragons, perish the thought, so that they actually, you know, _resembled_ dragons in some way other than the rubber mask: Arrogant, treasure-obsessed, easily flattered, and very cunning.

I don't care if someone thinks the "treasure obsessed" steps on the toes of dwarves - either go the whole hog, or get out of the kitchen.  Or at least get the heck out of the core.

But then, going the whole hog would mean letting people play _actual dragons_, and they've already watered that down and compromised and hedged that into...well, what we've got now.  Nevermind, horse has bolted.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 15, 2008)

Scribble said:


> While it may not actually be the actual result, the cultural "norm" is that men and women come together to form a unit. Together they have a child, or multiple children, and their offspring go on to do the same. Even if it doesn;t work out that way, the idea still remains the same.
> Even if a human is divorced, the "social norm" is that the family "unit" is still in a way tied together, (through things like alimony, and child support.)




In Human polynesian socieities a child was raised by the 'family' and it was not uncommon for fathers to be entirely absent. In fact their were even a class of Poea (Idle adventurers) who amongst other things would travel around the islands and have sexual liaisons with women sometimes getting them pregnant - there was no shame in this and no concept of 'born out of wedlock' (this was however balance by the impetus for such children to eventually 'look for' their father). Morever in Tahiti at one point infanticide was a common practice with missionary reports of some women having drawn dozens of unwanted babies 

I'd could imagine Dragonborn doing this - mating takes place on a seasonal basis as males move outside their own clans and seek mates, once procreation occurs males return 'home' and have no part in the family unit. Instead females live with their brothers who will protect the young out of duty and because they strengthen the clan. Infanticide would also be common and sickly or otherwise weak juveniles would be routinely killed


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Jul 15, 2008)

Leatherhead said:


> I disagree on account of dogs and other such domesticated animals. A creature doesn't have to look like, or even fully act like a human for there to be meaningful interaction with them.




Dogs started off as wolves, which - as highly intelligent, social chaser-predators - are about the closest psychological match for humans outside other primates in the first place; and we've spent last ten thousand years breeding them into more and more human-like in tendencies. I'd say that dogs are one of the few non-human creatures where our tendency to anthropomorphize things isn't misleading.

On the subject of DBs and "no love", I did not intend them to be cold or distant or uncaring; just that they don't _love_.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 15, 2008)

I posted some extended thoughts about the "realism" issue regarding dragonborn and multi-racial communities here. Make of my comments what you will.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jul 15, 2008)

Fenes said:


> I really don't see much of a difference between them and lizardfolk - other than "those are PC races, and threfore good, those are nPCs, so kill'em all!"



What's the difference between humans and orcs?
When you get right down to it, beyond a change in skin color, how are Orcs significantly different then humans?  Why do Dragonborn get your dander up when 'Humans with different skin color and maybe ear/height changed' dont make you bat an eye?


----------



## Fenes (Jul 15, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:


> What's the difference between humans and orcs?
> When you get right down to it, beyond a change in skin color, how are Orcs significantly different then humans?  Why do Dragonborn get your dander up when 'Humans with different skin color and maybe ear/height changed' dont make you bat an eye?




Who said all the humans in my campaign treat each other or demihumans differently? The people in the "home country" of my campaign look down on the rest of the humans, and are in a constant state of war with both their northern neighbours. They'd also likely try to kill any armed party above a given size of their southern neighbours, steppe-dwelling nomad clans, if they crossed the border, just on account of past raids. Elves & half-elves are distrusted in that country, in other countries, people attempt to enslave them on sight. Not that there are many elves around anyway. Dwarves would be battled if they were not living mainly underground "out of the way" of the human nations. Halflings are living on the fringe, in their own lands, avoiding most of the humans. Gnomes... haven't had a gnome NPC for years, so they can be on their own island for all I care.

There's one country where all "civilised races" (HUmans, dwarves, elves, halfelves, halfings) are equal (humans dominate though), but only as long as everyone worships the four elements according to the prophet's law. Most "infidels" and all "uncivilised races" (all the other humanoid races) are to be enslaved for their own good since they're no good for society otherwise. Orcs though are killed on sight, not enslaved - the relam remembers the horrors of a past horde.

Most of the enemies of my PCs are actually humans.

So, lizards are not singled out, just treated even worse for being so different - that is, they'd be treated differently, if they ventured out of their swamps. Of course, having a snake god be the leading evil god and main enemy of the campaign's central country's pantheon and having Yuan-Ti meddling against the realm doesn't eactly help with acceptance of scaly humanoids as civilised races.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Jul 15, 2008)

...So basically you're not even playing a standard campaign to begin with?


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 15, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:


> ...So basically you're not even playing a standard campaign to begin with?




Apparently.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with adjusting the rules and PC races to fit a setting. But asking that the published rules material fit a homebrew setting in the first place seems like a bit much.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 15, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The dwarf female beard thing is a *completely* different argument.




I am sooooo tempted to sig this.  The only thing that could make it better is if I could get a sound recording of it by Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons.  

Anyhow, the question is the same:

"Is race X sexually differentiated in the same way that most humans are sexually differentiated?"

Answer for Dwarves: No if dwarven women have beards.  See Terry Pratchett for the interesting difficulties dwarves have in trying to discover each other's gender, for marrying/mating purposes.  

Answer for Dwarves: Yes if dwarven women don't have beards.  Seems Wotc went mostly this route for 4e, with a slight not to the debate by giving the dwarf woman what appears to be 5 o'clock shadow, but could just be...shadow, I guess.  

Answer for Dragonboarn: Yes.  Dragonborn women are identifiable in the same way as human women (or, for that matter, halfling women, elf women, eladrin women, dwarf women, tiefling women or half-elf women).

Although I am kinda tempted to take boobs away from female halflngs and give them various colourations and crests, now.


----------



## Wormwood (Jul 15, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> Of course, there's nothing wrong with adjusting the rules and PC races to fit a setting. But asking that the published rules material fit a homebrew setting in the first place seems like a bit much.



This.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 15, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:


> ...So basically you're not even playing a standard campaign to begin with?




Actually, most of what I posted is adapted from 2E FR.

Calimport for the "enslave all elves" stance.

Old Empires for the "we're better than you humans" and the war with Thay, and the steppe raider genocide.

The religious state is modelled after Al-Quadim.

Elves and dwarves in retreat - pure 2E FR. And the conflict with elves in forests over logging was brought up so often in sourcebooks and novels, no need to claim that as original.

It's not so much a homebrew as an amalgan of 2E sourcebooks - all of those books set in FR.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 15, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> Apparently.
> 
> Of course, there's nothing wrong with adjusting the rules and PC races to fit a setting. But asking that the published rules material fit a homebrew setting in the first place seems like a bit much.




It's early 2E Forgotten Realms, actually, with low magic, and less "Star Trek good" humans. Not exactly a homebrew.


----------



## DandD (Jul 15, 2008)

Fenes said:


> It's early 2E Forgotten Realms, actually, with low magic, and less "Star Trek good" humans. Not exactly a homebrew.



But even the Forgotten Realms entered third edition and retconned sorcerors back into the universe, and brought some changes. In the end, asking for Forgotten Realms 4th edition to accomodate to a Forgotten Realms 2nd edition playstyle while Forgotten Realms 3rd edition already went away from it is a little bit late. 
Not that the Forgotten Realms are that interesting, anyway.


----------



## Fenes (Jul 15, 2008)

DandD said:


> But even the Forgotten Realms entered third edition and retconned sorcerors back into the universe, and brought some changes. In the end, asking for Forgotten Realms 4th edition to accomodate to a Forgotten Realms 2nd edition playstyle while Forgotten Realms 3rd edition already went away from it is a little bit late.
> Not that the Forgotten Realms are that interesting, anyway.




As long as I am playing in that campaign setting, any new rule set needs to fit it, not the other way around. 3E was no problem to get adapted. 4E could be adapted as well, once it has more options than the pitifully few classes, feats, skills and powers in the first PHB. Dragonborn, however, don't have a place in my campaign - they serve no purpose, and their entire background does not fit.


----------



## DandD (Jul 15, 2008)

Fenes said:


> As long as I am playing in that campaign setting, any new rule set needs to fit it, not the other way around. 3E was no problem to get adapted. 4E could be adapted as well, once it has more options than the pitifully few classes, feats, skills and powers in the first PHB. Dragonborn, however, don't have a place in my campaign - they serve no purpose, and their entire background does not fit.



That's entirely okay. Background lore-decision to any campaign is the prerogative of any game-master, after all. It's not like WotC-Rule-Ninjas are spying upon anybody who buys and plays their campaign setting and punishes those who deviate from it. 
There are no rules to force you having dragonborn player characters, and no sanctions from any higher autority (it would be weird if there were). 
And anyway, the 4th edition Forgotten Realms are a hundred years after the current 3rd edition Forgotten Realms. Other people still play 1st edition Forgotten Realms and are using 3rd edition rules. I even read from gaming groups who use The Dark Eye 4th edition-rules for the Forgotten Realms (now that is true masochism).


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jul 15, 2008)

Fenes said:


> As long as I am playing in that campaign setting, any new rule set needs to fit it, not the other way around. 3E was no problem to get adapted. 4E could be adapted as well, once it has more options than the pitifully few classes, feats, skills and powers in the first PHB. Dragonborn, however, don't have a place in my campaign - they serve no purpose, and their entire background does not fit.




Then don't use them! No race is going to fit into everyone's setting. Some people like them and will use them, and others - such as you - don't. Either approach is equally valid as long as everyone is having fun.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 15, 2008)

DandD said:


> That's entirely okay. Background lore-decision to any campaign is the prerogative of any game-master, after all. It's not like WotC-Rule-Ninjas are spying upon anybody who buys and plays their campaign setting and punishes those who deviate from it.



People keep saying this, but forget the fact that Ninjas entire shtick is to be unseen. Deviating groups just ... disappear, silently, with no one noticing. 



> I even read from gaming groups who use The Dark Eye 4th edition-rules for the Forgotten Realms (now that is true masochism).



 Indeed it is... I'd play DSA if I absolutely had to, with a good DM. But most likely I would find an excuse to play something else... Maybe a MMORPG, or Pong...


----------



## DandD (Jul 15, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> People keep saying this, but forget the fact that Ninjas entire shtick is to be unseen. Deviating groups just ... disappear, silently, with no one noticing.



That is not true. WotC denied that they use Rule-Ninja-commandos. Surely anything they say is true, right? 

I think I heard something in the shadows...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 15, 2008)

DandD said:


> That is not true. WotC denied that they use Rule-Ninja-commandos. Surely anything they say is true, right?
> 
> I think I heard something in the shadows...



Watch out, fellow board members! If DandD appears again, this is not only proof for Rule-Ninja commandos, but a strong sign that they take your account or possibly even clone or brainwash you!

Strange... There is also some noise in the shadows.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 15, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Watch out, fellow board members! If DandD appears again, this is not only proof for Rule-Ninja commandos, but a strong sign that they take your account or possibly even clone or brainwash you!
> 
> Strange... There is also some noise in the shadows.




On second thought, that's of course ridiculous. It's highly doubtful that WotC could pull that off. They might be the 800 lbs Gorilla of role-playing, but don't have the resources to finance some Ninja-traning camp. 

And really, Ninjas are a joke anyway... We all know that pirates win...


----------



## DandD (Jul 15, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> On second thought, that's of course ridiculous. It's highly doubtful that WotC could pull that off. They might be the 800 lbs Gorilla of role-playing, but don't have the resources to finance some Ninja-traning camp.
> 
> And really, Ninjas are a joke anyway... We all know that pirates win...



Yes, fellow board-members. All rumors about rule-ninjas are wrong. There are no ninja-camps in Louisiana and Hawaii. 

It's far worse. 
WotC have created monstrous abominations: Instant-spawning Ninja-Pirates that steal rules from other games and make you vanish if you deviate from their stolen game-mechanics. They have flying junks with shuriken-shooting cannons. 

Oh my gosh, they're he-afsdasdasdfasdfasfncü erknüw


----------



## Andor (Jul 15, 2008)

I for one welcome our new ninja overlords.


----------



## garyh (Jul 15, 2008)

Fenes said:


> As long as I am playing in that campaign setting, any new rule set needs to fit it, not the other way around. 3E was no problem to get adapted. 4E could be adapted as well, once it has more options than the pitifully few classes, feats, skills and powers in the first PHB. Dragonborn, however, don't have a place in my campaign - they serve no purpose, and their entire background does not fit.




Expecting a new set of rules to fit long-running campaigns built under different rules seems a bit much.  I seem to recall similar complaints about sorcerers when 3e came out.  In such cases, your options are pretty much:

1 - Don't allow the new option - "race or class just doesn't exist here, sorry"

2 - Pretend the new thing has always existed off-screen - "oh, yeah, there have always been those who use untamed arcane magic, there's just so few you've never seen them"...  "The dragonborn have arrived from the across the ocean, seeking X, Y, and Z in our lands"

3 - Create a campaign-changing event to explain the new options -  "The dragon god was killed, and with its last thought, it create the dragonborn to continue its work" or "the Spellplague did it.  Now, moving on 100 years..."

All of these are valid options.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 16, 2008)

Particle_Man said:


> A whole bunch of stuff




No, it's not the same issue, because dwarves aren't _dragon people_.  You're trying to muddle the issue by introducing completely off set crap while insulting me at the same time.  Dwarves don't have the WOWEE! factor of Dragonborn, so they don't NEED to be extremely different.  Or are you telling me you honestly don't see the difference between dwarves and _dragon people_?


----------



## IanArgent (Jul 16, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> No, it's not the same issue, because dwarves aren't _dragon people_.  You're trying to muddle the issue by introducing completely off set crap while insulting me at the same time.  Dwarves don't have the WOWEE! factor of Dragonborn, so they don't NEED to be extremely different.  Or are you telling me you honestly don't see the difference between dwarves and _dragon people_?




For anything but the physical, no, not really. They're both creatures of myth and legend. They both tend to focus on a handful of human traits. And neither of them are interfertile with humans (Dark Sun excepted).


----------

