Most boring take on dragons I've ever seen. Dragons have pretty much never been exclusively creatures of fire, with water and acidic bile being common themes across different cultural incarnations. Dragons should be pretty rare, what with their power allowing them to make hundreds of square miles their territory, but otherwise this article is just saying to make dragons the most basic gold hoarding lizards.
I will continue to have cool interesting dragons that hoard things other than gold and have motivations beyond power through fear thank you very much.
this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
18 points (82.1% liked)
rpg
3175 readers
41 users here now
This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs
Rules (wip):
- Do not distribute pirate content
- Do not incite arguments/flamewars/gatekeeping.
- Do not submit video game content unless the game is based on a tabletop RPG property and is newsworthy.
- Image and video links MUST be TTRPG related and should be shared as self posts/text with context or discussion unless they fall under our specific case rules.
- Do not submit posts looking for players, groups or games.
- Do not advertise for livestreams
- Limit Self-promotions. Active members may promote their own content once per week. Crowdfunding posts are limited to one announcement and one reminder across all users.
- Comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and discriminatory (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) comments. Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators.
- No Zak S content.
- Off-Topic: Book trade, Boardgames, wargames, video games are generally off-topic.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This article is dumb. It claims that diversity among dragonkind is reductionist? No, what's reductionist is claiming all dragons should be Smaug.
What are the essential parts of a dragon? There are literally none. The terrasque of myth had a lion's head, turtle's shell, scorpion's tail and no wings, but it was still called a dragon. Eastern dragons are commonly wise sages and protectors. Artwork of Saint George has the dragon barely bigger than his horse.
Saying "all dragons have to be this specific thing" is terrible worldbuilding advice.
It claims that diversity among dragonkind is reductionist?
Yeah, I got a couple paragraphs in and couldn't take any more. It was incoherent noise from someone whose personal dragon fantasy comes from being scared of them as a toddler.
If I make a story about how a stegosaurus did amazing feats to the point they became blessed gaining feathered wings and flight, becoming the first dragon, then that's still a dragon.
"Nooooo you can't have nuanced or benevolent dragons, they can only be evil and kidnap princesses and hoard gold! That's how it's been for centuries, it's totally not an overdone trope! Fantasy worlds aren't supposed to have depth!"
Technically, it's not an overdone trope. Because it's hardly done at all.
In most folktales with a dragon as a villain, they either hoard wealth or hold a woman captive before eating her, rarely both. And they don't even need to kidnap her, because she's offered to the dragon as a tribute to avoid its wrath. And this isn't even mentioning worldwide variations on dragon mythology.
Username checks out.
That or some vore shit...
I do not agree with a lot of the person's ideas here, but it was a fun read. And I will give them that
- Big
- Snake-like
- Flight
- Breathes fire
is primarily how I'll visually recognize a dragon. You can differ from this template, but I'll probably always recognize it as a variant drawing from this.
And I do also personally dislike dragons shapeshifting, especially into humans, and sorting dragon personality by color, though I could not say why. It's always interesting to see someone I disagree with have a few opinions that resonate with me.
Overall, I think this person is very much a fantasy trope traditionalist: stick with the established dragon stereotype and don't move too far from its spirit; while a lot of people nowadays (including myself) like playing with it much more.