Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 Running the Realms
 Origin of dragonborn race and nature's equilibrium
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

Taurendil
Seeker

Chile
43 Posts

Posted - 11 Jul 2015 :  19:56:40  Show Profile Send Taurendil a Private Message  Reply with Quote  Delete Topic
Is there any source that states how the dragonborn came to be? I'm really confused about their nature. I only know that they re-appeared via Returned Abeir.

I need this info because one of the PCs in my group is one, and at some point he will interact with a truly neutral druid. Will he see him as a member of a legitimate race, or as an aberration of nature?

- Ideas desordenadas sin RPG en específico www.juegoconamnesia.blogspot.com (Spanish)
- Des idées en vrac pour n'importe quel JdR www.jeudeloubli.blogspot.com (French)

Hoondatha
Great Reader

USA
2400 Posts

Posted - 11 Jul 2015 :  20:28:22  Show Profile  Visit Hoondatha's Homepage Send Hoondatha a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dragonborn are not a natural race. They're created by Bahamut after a being of another race volunteers for the war against Tiamat. Though it's not explicitly stated, it's heavily implied that dragonborn are all sterile.

So among other things, your PC needs to decide what race they were before becoming dragonborn, and why they decided to take up the fight.

As for the druid, it's entirely possible that they would think of dragonborn as an aberration. At the very least, they're prime evidence of godly meddling in the natural world for their own reasons. On the other hand, the monstrosities that Tiamat creates are worse, so the druid might decide that the dragonbord are a just balance.

Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well.
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30338 Posts

Posted - 12 Jul 2015 :  00:23:00  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
There's actually a bit of confusion, here, caused by WotC's odd insistence on reusing names.

There are two types of dragonborn. There are the ones from 3E, that Hoondatha describes, and then there are the 4E ones, from the original question. There is no apparent connection between the two races, which of course begs the question of why in the heck WotC decided to reuse the racial name.

I read most of the 4E FR source material, but I don't recall a discussion of the racial origins of the dragonborn.

Here's what I think is the best angle: some isolated area with a lot of humans and dragons, and some outside factor that caused a lot of interbreeding betwixt the two.

Here's my spin. Keep in mind two things: my spin was a combination of my desire to use the idea of a far-traveled Netherese enclave, and my desire to come up with a way to incorporate some 4E FR elements without having the Spellplague. I'll not rehash that argument; suffice it to say that I was no fan of the 4E Realms.

None of what follows is canon; nothing even suggests this could be the actual origin. This is purely my own creation.

So, there was a Netherese enclave that was over another continent when Netheril fell. This enclave somehow managed to land without killing everyone, but was no good for going back -- so the stranded Netherese had to make due with their new home. Their new home also had a sizable population of native dragons.

And it was also home to this seriously scary nastybad. Something really big and scary, like a cross between the Cloverfield monster and the tarrasque. And this thing spawned a lot of smaller nastybads, like the WH40k genestealers.

So this thing forced the dragons and the humans to work together to survive. And eventually, there was a lot of interbreeding between the two.

As these human/dragon hybrids became more and more common, some nasty plague or something wiped out most of the human population. The end result was be a society dominated by the half-dragons, who bred with each other and thus created a stable race.

Eventually the remaining humans died out, leaving only the growing population of human-dragon hybrids.

The dragons, too, were decimated in the fight against the grand nastybad. They eventually took it out, with the help of the humans and the half-dragons, but there were no longer enough dragons to form any kind of stable society.

So, a few centuries after the Fall, all that was left on this continent were a few dragons and this new race of dragon-descended humanoids. And then this new race (draeneth, perhaps?) made it back to their legendary ancient homeland, Faerûn, where they were immediately and unfortunately dubbed "dragonborn."

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Ayrik
Great Reader

Canada
6428 Posts

Posted - 12 Jul 2015 :  02:07:49  Show Profile Send Ayrik a Private Message  Reply with Quote
WotC's odd insistence on reusing names has been worked into canon before with tieflings, no real confusion about new vs old tiefling types - aside from a little implicit "sweep it under the rug" handwavium.

"Dragonborn" is a cool name, worth reusing. "Draconians" and "saurials" have already been too firmly established in D&D and FR lore, but "dragonborn" (like "tiefling" and "warforged" etc) never saw enough use to cause much confusion if redesignated onto something new.

[/Ayrik]
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30338 Posts

Posted - 12 Jul 2015 :  04:16:27  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik

WotC's odd insistence on reusing names has been worked into canon before with tieflings, no real confusion about new vs old tiefling types - aside from a little implicit "sweep it under the rug" handwavium.

"Dragonborn" is a cool name, worth reusing. "Draconians" and "saurials" have already been too firmly established in D&D and FR lore, but "dragonborn" (like "tiefling" and "warforged" etc) never saw enough use to cause much confusion if redesignated onto something new.



I would disagree, since we had dragonborn established as followers of Bahamut who who reborn in scaly format, and then an entirely different type of dragonborn with wholly different looks, origins, and mindsets. Heck, it's explicitly stated that 4E dragonborn hate dragons -- while the 3E ones were so dedicated to a deity of dragons that they'd left their birthrace behind.

Tieflings weren't changed from one thing into a wholly unrelated thing -- they just went from "each one is unique and may or may not be able to pass for human" to "every single one of them looks the same, because that's somehow kewler than individuality."

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

SaMoCon
Learned Scribe

USA
210 Posts

Posted - 12 Jul 2015 :  21:15:08  Show Profile Send SaMoCon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly RupertI would disagree, since we had dragonborn established...

Established might be too strong of a word. I can only find reference to 3 books that have the 3e variety and those were released 2006-2008. The 4e dragonborn were revealed in 6 books & 1 Dragon magazine article printed 2007-2009. That was hardly enough time for the 3e specialty material to make an impact on the RPG community before being overwritten by 4e products which were necessary to have for 4e players to play the game in the Forgotten Realms.

The 3e version seems to be a divine gift that can be taken away and is in no way conferred to others through progeny or infection. They are no more an aberration than a druid's wildshape ability. I don't believe the druids would have a problem with such a vessel of a god's will unless it was taking action to destroy the local habitat, which puts them on a case-by-case basis with all other native humanoids.

The 4e version, I don't know. Are they considered transplanted humanoids like dwarves and orcs? Are they native outsiders like aasimar and tieflings? Or are they supposed to be as natural to the world as lizardmen, saurials, & dragonkin except just having returned from an extended holiday?

Make the best use of the system that's there, then modify the mechanics that don't allow you to have the fun you are looking for.
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3418 Posts

Posted - 13 Jul 2015 :  07:09:41  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Taurendil

Is there any source that states how the dragonborn came to be? I'm really confused about their nature. I only know that they re-appeared via Returned Abeir.

I need this info because one of the PCs in my group is one, and at some point he will interact with a truly neutral druid. Will he see him as a member of a legitimate race, or as an aberration of nature?



Two ways: blessed by Bahamut (which is a ritual to a deity that probably won't be considered "natural" by druidic standards) and being a native of Returned Abeir (which would be natural). You can make the two distinguished thematically (like coloration or markings) and the druid will most likely know the difference between the two. Good thing is the player can decide which background to implement.

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

Taurendil
Seeker

Chile
43 Posts

Posted - 13 Jul 2015 :  16:39:49  Show Profile Send Taurendil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Thanks guys! At least now I know where all the misundertanding came from.

The background of the PC sticks more with the 4th Ed. view, so I'll keep it.

Was there any info for dragonborn pre-3Ed, or is it a "relatively new" incorporation (3Ed and ongoing)?

- Ideas desordenadas sin RPG en específico www.juegoconamnesia.blogspot.com (Spanish)
- Des idées en vrac pour n'importe quel JdR www.jeudeloubli.blogspot.com (French)
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30338 Posts

Posted - 13 Jul 2015 :  17:01:30  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Taurendil

Thanks guys! At least now I know where all the misundertanding came from.

The background of the PC sticks more with the 4th Ed. view, so I'll keep it.

Was there any info for dragonborn pre-3Ed, or is it a "relatively new" incorporation (3Ed and ongoing)?



Dragonborn -- of either variety -- did not exist pre-3E.

2E did introduce half-dragons as a playable race; they were humanoids that were the offspring of a human or demihuman and a metallic dragon.

3E expanded that and made dragons seems like Zeus -- having sex with and impregnating anything that held still for longer than a breath or two. 3E and its templates for everything certainly made things easier for DMs to create customer monsters, but it also lead to goofy things like The Snail from one or two strips of Order of the Stick.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Hoondatha
Great Reader

USA
2400 Posts

Posted - 13 Jul 2015 :  17:03:40  Show Profile  Visit Hoondatha's Homepage Send Hoondatha a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The dragonborn were a mid-to-late 3e invention. We had half-dragons in earlier editions going back to at least 2e's Council of Wyrms setting, and of course tieflings and genasi are from 2e's Planescape and earlier. But the dragonborn were, I believe, the newest "major" race, and were added relatively late in 3e.

Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well.
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30338 Posts

Posted - 13 Jul 2015 :  17:08:47  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha

The dragonborn were a mid-to-late 3e invention. We had half-dragons in earlier editions going back to at least 2e's Council of Wyrms setting, and of course tieflings and genasi are from 2e's Planescape and earlier. But the dragonborn were, I believe, the newest "major" race, and were added relatively late in 3e.



Indeed. They (the dragonborn) were introduced in Races of the Dragon, I believe, when WotC was on its kick of "hey, let's sell more books by coming up with a buttload more playable races, even if they're ridiculous or only slightly different than existing races!"

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!

Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 13 Jul 2015 17:18:46
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3418 Posts

Posted - 14 Jul 2015 :  08:41:50  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha

The dragonborn were a mid-to-late 3e invention. We had half-dragons in earlier editions going back to at least 2e's Council of Wyrms setting, and of course tieflings and genasi are from 2e's Planescape and earlier. But the dragonborn were, I believe, the newest "major" race, and were added relatively late in 3e.



Indeed. They (the dragonborn) were introduced in Races of the Dragon, I believe, when WotC was on its kick of "hey, let's sell more books by coming up with a buttload more playable races, even if they're ridiculous or only slightly different than existing races!"



Or it could be that the designers realized how terrible most of the monster manual templates were and how significant level adjustments were that a less punitive approach was what players wanted? Sometimes I wonder why some people even bother pursue a system past the initial core books if the options are often considered "money grabs"?

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

Taurendil
Seeker

Chile
43 Posts

Posted - 14 Jul 2015 :  13:59:31  Show Profile Send Taurendil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I have always thought that dragonborn are kind of a far-fetched choice for a major race in D&D. Even goblins sound more like it to me, at least statistically.

- Ideas desordenadas sin RPG en específico www.juegoconamnesia.blogspot.com (Spanish)
- Des idées en vrac pour n'importe quel JdR www.jeudeloubli.blogspot.com (French)
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30338 Posts

Posted - 14 Jul 2015 :  14:57:06  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Taurendil

I have always thought that dragonborn are kind of a far-fetched choice for a major race in D&D. Even goblins sound more like it to me, at least statistically.



I liked the 3E dragonborn, where they were not as much a proper race as the products of extreme dedication to a cause.

I was less fond of the 4E dragonborn, but a large part of that was their introduction... They were suddenly there, out of the blue, with no real story on their origin. They hated dragons, but the racial name implies a descent from dragons... And it was also stated that the Cult of the Dragon had a lot of success recruiting dragonborn members.

So an entirely new race that hates yet willingly serves their namesakes... Yeah, that's problematic.

That's why I rewrote them the way I did: I gave them a racial backstory, a connection to mainland Faerûn, and had I ever finished, a different name. Plus, my approach would have also intro'ed the race to the Heartlands in smaller numbers, rather than having an entire established society dropping out of the sky. I did a similar thing with my Realmsified warforged: enough that the possibility was there, but few enough in number to keep them from suddenly popping up everywhere.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

ErinMEvans
Forgotten Realms Author

USA
294 Posts

Posted - 14 Jul 2015 :  17:09:05  Show Profile  Visit ErinMEvans's Homepage Send ErinMEvans a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Taurendil

Thanks guys! At least now I know where all the misundertanding came from.

The background of the PC sticks more with the 4th Ed. view, so I'll keep it.

Was there any info for dragonborn pre-3Ed, or is it a "relatively new" incorporation (3Ed and ongoing)?



It's not pre-3.5 but if your player is using something like the 4E background, they might be interested in these two blog posts I did on the dragonborn. These are in a sort of mushy place when it comes to canon--some of it is pulled from what's been written, mostly by me and RLB, and some of it is extrapolated. But most of it will be canonical once Ashes of the Tyrant comes out.

http://slushlush.com/2015/05/on-playing-a-dragonborn-in-the-forgotten-realms-part-1/
http://slushlush.com/2015/05/on-playing-a-dragonborn-in-forgotten-realms-part-2/

My take has always been that the dragonborn wouldn't call themselves dragonborn, that that's likely the word that Faerunians have applied to them, and they're so insular and inclined to seek allies at first that they haven't forced the subject. And on some level, it's not an incorrect term--they were created by manipulating dragons' eggs and humans. Some people would probably be unfazed by the usage.

/my 2 cents

www.slushlush.com
Go to Top of Page

TBeholder
Master of Realmslore

1489 Posts

Posted - 14 Jul 2015 :  20:20:58  Show Profile Send TBeholder a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Taurendil

how the dragonborn came to be?
[...]
I need this info because one of the PCs in my group is one, and at some point he will interact with a truly neutral druid. Will he see him as a member of a legitimate race, or as an aberration of nature?

Er... do you mean "druid" or "elf"?
Why would a druid ever care about how anything "came to be"? If a critter isn't any more prone to overhunting or deforestation than humans or dwarves are, why a druid would give a fig about one?

People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3418 Posts

Posted - 14 Jul 2015 :  20:31:01  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Taurendil

I have always thought that dragonborn are kind of a far-fetched choice for a major race in D&D. Even goblins sound more like it to me, at least statistically.



I'm not sure I fully understand? What, specifically, is far-fetched about a dragon-like race in a game called Dungeons & Dragons?

Now I agree that their inclusion was ham-fisted into the Realms. Its unfortunate since they already had previously established reptile/dragon-like beings in the Realms like "half"-dragons, Dragonkin, & Saurials. It would've been extremely easy to re-flavor the Dragonborn into an existing race and give a more extensive background for that race. Alas, no such treatment was done and we got Dragonborn, precisely like they were depicted in the PHB. AT least they learned their error with Dark Sun and we got the Dray.

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30338 Posts

Posted - 14 Jul 2015 :  21:55:56  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ErinMEvans

quote:
Originally posted by Taurendil

Thanks guys! At least now I know where all the misundertanding came from.

The background of the PC sticks more with the 4th Ed. view, so I'll keep it.

Was there any info for dragonborn pre-3Ed, or is it a "relatively new" incorporation (3Ed and ongoing)?



It's not pre-3.5 but if your player is using something like the 4E background, they might be interested in these two blog posts I did on the dragonborn. These are in a sort of mushy place when it comes to canon--some of it is pulled from what's been written, mostly by me and RLB, and some of it is extrapolated. But most of it will be canonical once Ashes of the Tyrant comes out.

http://slushlush.com/2015/05/on-playing-a-dragonborn-in-the-forgotten-realms-part-1/
http://slushlush.com/2015/05/on-playing-a-dragonborn-in-forgotten-realms-part-2/

My take has always been that the dragonborn wouldn't call themselves dragonborn, that that's likely the word that Faerunians have applied to them, and they're so insular and inclined to seek allies at first that they haven't forced the subject. And on some level, it's not an incorrect term--they were created by manipulating dragons' eggs and humans. Some people would probably be unfazed by the usage.

/my 2 cents



There is some good lore, there... I would ask about one thing that I've already commented on, though, that's always bugged me: why would dragonborn join the Cult of the Dragon?

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Taurendil
Seeker

Chile
43 Posts

Posted - 14 Jul 2015 :  22:11:56  Show Profile Send Taurendil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

There is some good lore, there... I would ask about one thing that I've already commented on, though, that's always bugged me: why would dragonborn join the Cult of the Dragon?



Quick idea: Stockholm syndrome

quote:
Originally posted by DiffanWhat, specifically, is far-fetched about a dragon-like race in a game called Dungeons & Dragons?


For me it is too forced, basically the same idea that you stated. But maybe it is just that I don't know the background given for the race in 4th ed.

quote:
Originally posted by TBeholderIf a critter isn't any more prone to overhunting or deforestation than humans or dwarves are, why a druid would give a fig about one?


Because of [from D&D PHB] "But though druids may have accepted cruelty in nature, they abhorred that which was alien to it, violently opposing the existence of aberrations and undead, both of whom were affronts to the natural order."

That's a general description, I know. But in this specific druid, he is an extreme version of that idea.


- Ideas desordenadas sin RPG en específico www.juegoconamnesia.blogspot.com (Spanish)
- Des idées en vrac pour n'importe quel JdR www.jeudeloubli.blogspot.com (French)
Go to Top of Page

Ayrik
Great Reader

Canada
6428 Posts

Posted - 15 Jul 2015 :  03:57:41  Show Profile Send Ayrik a Private Message  Reply with Quote
2E half-dragons were not too different from dragonborn. Mutated dragon-human offspring could also be found in the Dark Sun setting (although perhaps in only one sourcebook and related mini-campaign). The origins of these proto-dragonborn species were far less than divine, lol.

I dont personally think mainstream dragonborn fit well in the Realms, I remember the days when it was a Really Big Deal to have a small village of scaly saurials living nearby.

[/Ayrik]
Go to Top of Page

TBeholder
Master of Realmslore

1489 Posts

Posted - 15 Jul 2015 :  04:05:39  Show Profile Send TBeholder a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan


I'm not sure I fully understand? What, specifically, is far-fetched about a dragon-like race in a game called Dungeons & Dragons?

Now I agree that their inclusion was ham-fisted into the Realms.

Those are two parts of one issue. And the name of this issue is: "furry fetish". If the dragonkobolds weren't enough of a hint.

quote:
Originally posted by Taurendil
quote:
If a critter isn't any more prone to overhunting or deforestation than humans or dwarves are, why a druid would give a fig about one?

Because of [from D&D PHB] "But though druids may have accepted cruelty in nature, they abhorred that which was alien to it, violently opposing the existence of aberrations and undead, both of whom were affronts to the natural order."

The point remains that it obviously has nothing to do with "nature's equilibrium".
Okay, so attentive reading shows PHB has one more stupid thing in it than previously assumed. In this case, of Green iPants with MacBook Elfy sort.
Luckily, generic to the point of meaningless PHB "fluff" is easy to ignored in a setting with meat of its own.

And now, to FR material that, as a bonus, actually makes sense.
quote:
Bara's First Rule of Nature
A natural force can be generated by unnatural means.
Mages of all types, and even druids, have been known to use spells to create wind, rain, or even lightning.
All these are natural forces, yet they can be produced by unnatural means. In the High Moor, the fire swamps are
one example of this. Fire is a natural phenomenon, yet the fires in these marshes are produced by lingering magic.
And look at the Undermoor, with rivers that flow upward.
[...]
Bara's Second Rule of Nature
An unnatural force can become part of the natural environment.
Suppose some unthinking mage opens a gate to the Elemental Plane of Fire, creating a sea of fire. (There are a lot of
ye thoughtless types out there, so give a listen.
-Elminster) For a time this unnatural force causes a lot of problems in
the local environment. Animals and plants die, others move to new homes, and the weather is affected by a permanent
source of heat. (This would irritate me, by the way. Don't do it.)
After a while, though, the surrounding environment and the organisms living within it would adapt to this strange incursion.
Creatures accustomed to heat and fire would move in, and everything would adjust to accommodate the sea of fire.
At this point, which occurs only after years of pain, death, and adaptation, the sea of fire would become a "normal" part of
the environment. Removing it would have the same effects as its original introduction: a lot of creatures and plants
would die, the ecology would be upset, and a long period of adaptation to the new conditions would follow.
- Elminster’s Ecologies, Appendix 2


People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30338 Posts

Posted - 15 Jul 2015 :  04:38:09  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder

quote:
Originally posted by Diffan


I'm not sure I fully understand? What, specifically, is far-fetched about a dragon-like race in a game called Dungeons & Dragons?

Now I agree that their inclusion was ham-fisted into the Realms.

Those are two parts of one issue. And the name of this issue is: "furry fetish". If the dragonkobolds weren't enough of a hint.


I'd say that's a rather unfair characterization. It's pretty much a given among fantasy fans that dragons are really cool. Thinking that it's also cool to have humanoid dragons is not any kind of fetishizing -- it's just exploring the coolness of the concept in another way.

It's like enjoying Transformers. Making humanoid versions of vehicles isn't a fetish thing - it's just putting a different spin on something enjoyed.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

SaMoCon
Learned Scribe

USA
210 Posts

Posted - 15 Jul 2015 :  12:55:30  Show Profile Send SaMoCon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Yeah, but are dragons so cool that they need yet another PC race that is a weak facsimile? Kobolds, urds, dragonkin, dracotaurs, draconians, dragonbloods, half-dragons, lesser dragons, etc..., etc... are already dragon related playable character races which were already created prior to this offering? Aren't there already enough ways for PCs to become dragons through magical emulation (i.e., Draughts of Fiery Breath or Polymorph spells) or class level abilities (Sorcerer PrC Dragon Blood Sorcerer) without needing this latest pile-on? There is a fetish at play though I wouldn't say it is necessarily "furry" so much as "wannabe badass" and/or munchkinism in nature depending on whether it is the imagery or the stats that attracts the player.

Somewhere, Fonzi is strapping on his waterskis and muttering darkly about having jumped this shark a couple times already.

Make the best use of the system that's there, then modify the mechanics that don't allow you to have the fun you are looking for.
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3418 Posts

Posted - 15 Jul 2015 :  15:33:06  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

Yeah, but are dragons so cool that they need yet another PC race that is a weak facsimile? Kobolds, urds, dragonkin, dracotaurs, draconians, dragonbloods, half-dragons, lesser dragons, etc..., etc...


•Kobolds can not, in my opinion, hold any semblance to a dragon in the sense of wanting to play a dragon-like being.
• Urds are just Kobolds with wings.
• Dragonkin, as detailed in the Monsters of Faerûn supplement, are not a PC options. Maybe they're detailed somewhere else?
• Dracotaurs are a possible PC race, with a laughable +5 Level Adjustment...
• Draconians are not a PC race, though I could be wrong as I don't have access to my DL setting material for v3.5.
• Dragonbloods, if you're meaning the sub-type found in Races of the Dragon / Dragon Magic supplement, don't really confer any of the traits I'd qualify with as playing a "Dragon-based" character. It's like grabbing a Dhampyr feat and saying "Look! I'm a Vampire!! Rawr!"
• Half-Dragons are one of probably the only reasonable solutions you've mentioned so far that confers the normal traits I'd say most people imagine when you play a dragon-like character. But they too come with a very hefty +3 Level Adjustment.

So out of all of that we have two ways to gain draconic-like elements but they come with extremely hefty penalties tied to them. Or you could grab a Dragonborn ritual, become one, and lose no levels. I know which one I'd pick.


quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

are already dragon related playable character races which were already created prior to this offering?


I'd say 95% of those options are bad or don't convey the draconic image well enough.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

Aren't there already enough ways for PCs to become dragons through magical emulation (i.e., Draughts of Fiery Breath or Polymorph spells) or class level abilities (Sorcerer PrC Dragon Blood Sorcerer) without needing this latest pile-on?


Ah, so you either have to hope to find/buy magical items or be a magic-user yourself to have dragon-like effects. Nice to know we're being ever-so inclusive of the other half of classes out there that don't wield magic around 24/7. Though I'm not totally surprised since most non-magical classes are trap options later on in the game when it comes to 3e. At least 4e and 5e got it right in those regards.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

There is a fetish at play though I wouldn't say it is necessarily "furry" so much as "wannabe badass" and/or munchkinism in nature depending on whether it is the imagery or the stats that attracts the player.


I'm fairly certain you don't understand the term "munchkinism" as it doesn't necessarily apply in this context. Also, how are more options bad when no one is being forced to use/buy them?

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon

Somewhere, Fonzi is strapping on his waterskis and muttering darkly about having jumped this shark a couple times already.



Well you can always just ignore all the splats that come out after each and every core-books. Luckily no one from WotC (or any other publisher for that matter) is sending lead-booted thugs to peoples homes demanding they purchase and use "shark-jumping, munchkin-pandering" options at their tables.

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30338 Posts

Posted - 15 Jul 2015 :  18:02:01  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan


• Draconians are not a PC race, though I could be wrong as I don't have access to my DL setting material for v3.5.



I don't recall if the War of the Lance-style draconians were playable in 3.5, but I know the "noble draconians" were. They were the flip side of the evil draconians -- they were draconians created from the eggs of evil dragons, who thus came out good in alignment. They were obviously fewer in number, and still got a lot of bad PR because of their more numerous kin.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!

Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 15 Jul 2015 18:05:59
Go to Top of Page

SaMoCon
Learned Scribe

USA
210 Posts

Posted - 16 Jul 2015 :  11:26:27  Show Profile Send SaMoCon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
Yeah, but are dragons so cool that they need yet another PC race that is a weak facsimile?...

Originally posted by Diffan
... So out of all of that we have two ways to gain draconic-like elements but they come with extremely hefty penalties tied to them. Or you could grab a Dragonborn ritual, become one, and lose no levels. I know which one I'd pick.

...I'd say 95% of those options are bad or don't convey the draconic image well enough.
So... a race needs to have dragon-like game-adjusting abilities to be linked to or be built in the image of dragons? On top of that you want it to have no penalty for awesome starting powers when compared to common humans, halflings, elves, dwarves, & gnomes? I noticed, also, that you completely ignored the lesser dragons I listed along with the weaker homages. I guess playing an actual dragon with the level adjustment counts as one of those "95%... are bad or don't convey the draconic image well enough" options.

You want the awesome cosmic powers but you don't want the itty-bitty living space that comes with them. Then, in your game, remove the level adjustments. Strip away the things you don't like or you feel are an impediment to playing the "draconic image" you have in your mind's eye. Unless you are looking for WotC's stamp of approval, I don't see what the problem is.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
Aren't there already enough ways for PCs to become dragons through magical emulation (i.e., Draughts of Fiery Breath or Polymorph spells) or class level abilities (Sorcerer PrC Dragon Blood Sorcerer) without needing this latest pile-on?

Originally posted by Diffan
Ah, so you either have to hope to find/buy magical items or be a magic-user yourself to have dragon-like effects. Nice to know we're being ever-so inclusive of the other half of classes out there that don't wield magic around 24/7. Though I'm not totally surprised since most non-magical classes are trap options later on in the game when it comes to 3e. At least 4e and 5e got it right in those regards.
I didn't realize I had to be class-inclusive in a thread which is being race-exclusive. Do I need to make a public apology and volunteer at the Paladins' community centers as an act of contrition?

Jackassery and edition brinksmanship aside, I'm pointing out that anybody can acquire dragon abilities and powers which are not built into their characters from the moment the game starts. Even you point out the Dragonborn of Bahamut ritual as a means for an otherwise non-draconic person to acquire draconic abilities. And, YES, they are going to have to find them, buy them, or make them on their own! Considering how many stories in folk lore, children's stories, pulp novels, television shows, and movies have exactly this kind of quest line to gain the ability to defeat the bad guy I don't know why people always balk at this instead of embracing it as something to make their games either better or more character-driven.

quote:
Originally posted by SaMoCon
There is a fetish at play though I wouldn't say it is necessarily "furry" so much as "wannabe badass" and/or munchkinism in nature depending on whether it is the imagery or the stats that attracts the player.

Originally posted by Diffan
I'm fairly certain you don't understand the term "munchkinism" as it doesn't necessarily apply in this context. Also, how are more options bad when no one is being forced to use/buy them?

I guess it comes down to how you define munchkins. I think what I said applies to the dragonborn and all other playable creatures that have more advantages than drawbacks in comparison to the core races of D&D - they attract munchkins. Game designers know this and can turn a steady profit by catering to this element with easily ignorable splatbooks.

But the dragonborn are not off in some unknown corner of Faerun like others of their ilk and they are not sidelined into an ancillary splatbook. The dragonborn are in the 4e player's handbook, 4e monster manual, 4e Forgotten Realms campaign guide, and the 4e Forgotten Realms player's guide. My personal experience has shown that disallowing material from non-core & non-setting books is easy and players readily accept that while the opposite is contentious and requires explaining during a time that I would rather spend gaming. Also, there is an established nation where these things exist in numbers with outliers spread far and wide in the Forgotten Realms. That's kinda' hard to ignore.

And, for clarification, I confused dragonspawn with draconian. My mistake.

Make the best use of the system that's there, then modify the mechanics that don't allow you to have the fun you are looking for.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2017 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000