This is just the western derangement over 'Everything has to have a perfectly defined category!!!' striking again. It's the succubus/incubus thing all over again. It's why so many people are more obsessed with what genre a game or song is than actually playing it.
Westerners didn't care until people started using D&D as some sort of mythical fauna bible.
The incubus/succubus distinction I will defend though because there it's actually a very clear and obvious difference. It's like b***hing over king and queen being two separate titles.
Correct. The fake 'gets energy from sex so you can totally have a male succubus' shit is the made up part.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I've literally never heard that
7 months ago
Anonymous
If you look into Christian demonology, it does get pretty weird, even without the whole soul sucking part of incubi and succubi
7 months ago
Anonymous
I feel like you're way overselling this "controversy". Sounds like something a couple of trannies made up so they can do their poopdick roleplay as succubi with dicks.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Probably born from something like pic related where it's just a way to feminize a femboy further
>the made up Ganker definition
What?
Female sex demon that eats life energy. And male sex demon that eats life energy. The same type of creature but one is female and one is male. What made up definition are you referring to?
Also sorry for the double post, but westerners absolutely did care. Westerners invented the idea of the 'genre' and westerners invented binomial nomenclature. I'm not saying it's bad and it's usually a very good and convenient thing, but loving the idea of classifying everything into a neat, discrete box is a distinctly western trait.
This is just the western derangement over 'Everything has to have a perfectly defined category!!!' striking again. It's the succubus/incubus thing all over again. It's why so many people are more obsessed with what genre a game or song is than actually playing it.
What is there to argue about when it comes to succubus/incubus? Is this something new? I've always just thought male dicksucker demon = incubus, female dicksucker demon = succubus
All wyverns are dragons.
Not all dragons are wyverns.
Just like squares are rectangles.
You dumb ass mother frick moron.
When you say a game is based on killing dragons they expect the 4 legged 2 winged type. Not the shitty half b***h wyvern.
If I write a fictional story and in my story there is an animal that is essentially a dog, but everyone in the fictional universe calls it a horse, then that animal is, within the context of my story, a horse.
If the people in Skyrim call them dragons, then that's how it is in Skyrim.
The needless conflict between your story's fictional world and the reality we live in inherently makes you story a bad story. Come up with your own ideas and names and use those in your story. Don't conflate two real life terms needlessly and expect the reader to make allowances for you and your lack of creativity. If you can't be bothered to show some competence I can't be bothered to read your work.
>he flibbered his smokestick at the rebber on the side of the strib and it fell into the floatcorridor
shut the frick up and go read your nonsense pretentious writing with shit names for normal shit just for the sake of it lmao. horses turning out to have been dogs an entire chapter revealed only by the actions, events and descriptions in a story is an infinitely better narrative device that your spastic pseud judgement of "competence".
It's a Chinese/Asian dragon. They're a "species" of dragon that doesn't have wings. Notice they still have 4 arms/legs. The only real requirement for being a dragon is that it has four legs and flies. The wings being present or not depends on whether it's an eastern or western dragon.
The fact that both western dragons and eastern dragons are considered to be both "true" dragons for 1000s of years despite one not having wings while wyverns (and wyrms) aren't considered true dragons and instead they're considered draconic creatures because they have less legs. Seems like that would be a pretty good indicator that the requirement is the legs and not the wings.
See all the medieval art posted in this thread. There was no distinction drawn between Dragons and Wyverns until the late middle ages/renaissance, and even then It was more for heraldry than mythology and wasn't as much of a thing outside of western europe. Autistically caring about the differences between Wyverns and dragons like OP does is some D&D shit from 40 years ago at most, a "Dragon" by definition are any mythological creature that's a big reptile, doesn't matter how many legs or wings its got
It's not draconic, so no. Wyverns and dragons are draconic creatures, and as an extent partially related, but they're not the same creature. Gryffins are obviously not related to either, they're their own thing.
>The wyvern (/ˈwaJvərn/ WY-vərn, sometimes spelled wivern) is a type of dragon with two legs, two wings, and often a pointed tail which is said to be a venomous stinger.[4]
Dragon definition: >a mythical monster resembling a giant reptile
thats it. a dragon doesnt even need wings or legs. it can be a giant floating sea serpent looking thing and still technically be a dragon. >noooo it has to have 2 arms, 2 legs and 2 wings because..... JUST BECAUSE OK!?
great troll thread. way to go OP.
I don't think the bible ever describes dragons in details, and even If it did I don't think It would resemble Skyrim dragons since "Dragons" were represented as literally just giant snakes in Europe and the Middle East well into the Middle Ages
A wyvern can be a dragon. so calling a wyvern a dragon is not necessarily wrong. Wyveren gays are just pendantic nerds who are arbitrarily defining something 1 way so they can feel special.
OP should travel back in time and inform medieval artist Paolo Uccello that his representation of the Saint George myth is wrong, as what he drew is actually a wyvern and not in fact a dragon
OP should travel back in time and inform medieval artist Paolo Uccello that his representation of the Saint George myth is wrong, as what he drew is actually a wyvern and not in fact a dragon
[...]
I'll forever wonder how the idea of dragons even came to life. Could they've been some surviving dinosaur species that was hunted down to extinction?
Just like saber-toothed tigers once reigned over all of Europe, of which we have in fact very few traces, maybe some weird big lizards, and over cryptids as well, might have disappeared without leaving any trace?
It's nowhere near as mysterious as people make It out to be. What we now know as european dragons are just heavily modified giant snake Monsters. They were depicted as literally just big snakes well into the early middle ages. That's what dragons are in every culture, either chimeras with a reptilian base or literally just a big snake.
>I'll forever wonder how the idea of dragons even came to life.
Part of it is Jenny Hanivers for certain.
It's the carcass of a manta ray, dried and cut a certain way to resemble a weird creature with wings and a tail. Basically fishermen scamming scholars and people who collect peculiarities.
Pic related is what a biology artist thought a live one looked like. Google Jenny Haniver for more examples, you can sorta see why they got onto dragons from this, especially given how big a manta ray can get.
Yeah that's the other kind of jenny haniver, they sold those as little mermen. They look kinda like gray aliums though I wonder if there's a connection
Evolution isn't really a particularly good argument for any fantasy shit either, since there's plenty of settings out there where evolution as it exists in real life isn't a thing at all, Elder Scrolls being one of them.
The Elder Scrolls is a setting in which the sun and the stars are just holes in the sky, there only exists one solar system, the universe is only like 10 thousand years old and the laws of physics and which biome a landmass is covered by are decided by which type of ancient Spirit decided to fuse with the ground in ancient times, the creatures in it absolutely don't need to make evolutionary sense, especially the dragons
Skyrim is the only "RPG" i actually managed to kill dragons, all the old school dnd crpgs dragons filtered me, even Dragon age origins 1st dragon i met was way too strong for my party.
Let's talk about flight adaptations. Early birds had long tails which they lost as they became more adapted for flight. Early bats had long tails which they lost as they became more adapted for flight. Early pterosaurs had long tails which they lost as they became more adapted for flight. This is a trend you see in every creature that becomes flight-capable: they become less long.
Why then are so many dragons shown with long bodies and long tails?
Tail Slap
The dragon can slap one opponent each round with its tail. A tail slap deals the indicated damage plus 1½ times the dragon’s Strength bonus (round down) and is treated as a secondary attack.
Tail Sweep (Ex)
This special attack allows a dragon of at least Gargantuan size to sweep with its tail as a standard action. The sweep affects a half-circle with a radius of 30 feet (or 40 feet for a Colossal dragon), extending from an intersection on the edge of the dragon’s space in any direction. Creatures within the swept area are affected if they are four or more size categories smaller than the dragon. A tail sweep automatically deals the indicated damage plus 1½ times the dragon’s Strength bonus (round down). Affected creatures can attempt Reflex saves to take half damage (DC equal to that of the dragon’s breath weapon).
>Why then are so many dragons shown with long bodies and long tails?
They're early dragons.
said. the dragons are so old that they are all still early dragons with very little genetic variation. millions of birds are born and pass in a single dragon lifetime. why would dragons need to "evolve for flight" when one commonly lasts 10,000+ years in some fictions. theyre also perfect. shorter tails wasnt ever "beneficial" for them because theyre immutably at the top regardless of how much effort it takes them. they would be at the top with hooves, no legs, four wings, it literally doesnt matter what shape a dragon is as long as its significantly destructive enough to do what they do
you need intermediary forms. Each intermediary individually needs to be advantageous otherwise it wont get passed on. Just because wings are useful doesn't mean that a 6 limb configuration would ever get to the point of evolving a patagium in the first place
dragons arent real. the same mechanism that allows a chest to grow teeth, halflings to exist or a horse to have a fish tail allows dragons to evolve wings. dipshit
Skyrim doesn't, it's just true scotsman fantasy nerds (D&D players who just play premade forgotten realms adventures) grasping at straws to take issue with a mass market AAA game.
Wyvern vs dragon autism is as old as the terms themselves. In nay case, it's rarely ever about the ruling or official designation its about how wyverns are typically a shittier less interesting design mechanically for combat and to just look at. It's the scalegays equivalent of Ganker b***hing about ugly women in vidya.
Reminder that reptiles never stop growing.
They'll die from old age or other causes, which prevents them from growing further. Because they're dead.
But if they just lived further they'd just keep growing and growing.
This is just the western derangement over 'Everything has to have a perfectly defined category!!!' striking again. It's the succubus/incubus thing all over again. It's why so many people are more obsessed with what genre a game or song is than actually playing it.
Westerners didn't care until people started using D&D as some sort of mythical fauna bible.
The incubus/succubus distinction I will defend though because there it's actually a very clear and obvious difference. It's like b***hing over king and queen being two separate titles.
Incubus and succubus both exist as terms, but nowhere near the made up Ganker definition.
One is male the other is female.
Correct. The fake 'gets energy from sex so you can totally have a male succubus' shit is the made up part.
I've literally never heard that
If you look into Christian demonology, it does get pretty weird, even without the whole soul sucking part of incubi and succubi
I feel like you're way overselling this "controversy". Sounds like something a couple of trannies made up so they can do their poopdick roleplay as succubi with dicks.
Probably born from something like pic related where it's just a way to feminize a femboy further
>the made up Ganker definition
What?
Female sex demon that eats life energy. And male sex demon that eats life energy. The same type of creature but one is female and one is male. What made up definition are you referring to?
Also sorry for the double post, but westerners absolutely did care. Westerners invented the idea of the 'genre' and westerners invented binomial nomenclature. I'm not saying it's bad and it's usually a very good and convenient thing, but loving the idea of classifying everything into a neat, discrete box is a distinctly western trait.
What is there to argue about when it comes to succubus/incubus? Is this something new? I've always just thought male dicksucker demon = incubus, female dicksucker demon = succubus
All wyverns are dragons.
Not all dragons are wyverns.
Just like squares are rectangles.
You dumb ass mother frick moron.
When you say a game is based on killing dragons they expect the 4 legged 2 winged type. Not the shitty half b***h wyvern.
when are you growing out of this phase?
Is one autist troony from kiwifarms who is friends with a former mod.
Just report his ass or let the thread autosage
>implying that furries are one person
nta but what the frick did he mean by this
If you were referring to the kiwi farms schizo no clue.
But if you were actually referring to being confused about
furries are autistically obsessed with differenciating wyverns from dragons for some reason.
the plight of wyverns who lack arms really speaks to OP who lacks sex
I'm 33 so probably never.
If I write a fictional story and in my story there is an animal that is essentially a dog, but everyone in the fictional universe calls it a horse, then that animal is, within the context of my story, a horse.
If the people in Skyrim call them dragons, then that's how it is in Skyrim.
shes right
The needless conflict between your story's fictional world and the reality we live in inherently makes you story a bad story. Come up with your own ideas and names and use those in your story. Don't conflate two real life terms needlessly and expect the reader to make allowances for you and your lack of creativity. If you can't be bothered to show some competence I can't be bothered to read your work.
dragons aren't real
Might as well write it in a language you invented then moron
>he flibbered his smokestick at the rebber on the side of the strib and it fell into the floatcorridor
shut the frick up and go read your nonsense pretentious writing with shit names for normal shit just for the sake of it lmao. horses turning out to have been dogs an entire chapter revealed only by the actions, events and descriptions in a story is an infinitely better narrative device that your spastic pseud judgement of "competence".
Dragons are real?
Yes.
Didn't you know God is a dragon?
Good thing they're dovah in Skyrim and dragon is just a nickname
>let me tell you once again about these creatures that don't exist in real life
Each universe decides what is a dragon and what is a wyvern
This guy has no wings, is he not a dragon?
that's a Long
you can tell because he's long
This homie is long too, is he a long?
That one is a Thunder Lizard, because it already has a cool name
but it doesn't make storms, it's just fat as frick
Bravo, Sandrovich
Wrym,but they don’t have legs
That's just a worm
It's a Chinese/Asian dragon. They're a "species" of dragon that doesn't have wings. Notice they still have 4 arms/legs. The only real requirement for being a dragon is that it has four legs and flies. The wings being present or not depends on whether it's an eastern or western dragon.
>real requirement
Dictated by whom? Who made such classifications?
The fact that both western dragons and eastern dragons are considered to be both "true" dragons for 1000s of years despite one not having wings while wyverns (and wyrms) aren't considered true dragons and instead they're considered draconic creatures because they have less legs. Seems like that would be a pretty good indicator that the requirement is the legs and not the wings.
See all the medieval art posted in this thread. There was no distinction drawn between Dragons and Wyverns until the late middle ages/renaissance, and even then It was more for heraldry than mythology and wasn't as much of a thing outside of western europe. Autistically caring about the differences between Wyverns and dragons like OP does is some D&D shit from 40 years ago at most, a "Dragon" by definition are any mythological creature that's a big reptile, doesn't matter how many legs or wings its got
>The only real requirement for being a dragon is that it has four leg
So a gryffin is a dragon?
It's not draconic, so no. Wyverns and dragons are draconic creatures, and as an extent partially related, but they're not the same creature. Gryffins are obviously not related to either, they're their own thing.
That's a Chinese myth dragon
Chinese Dragon. Goes down well with rice, a pork bun and onions sauce.
homie that's obviously a ghost dragon, or maybe a chameleon
this meme was never funny. catfish, lions, crawdads, turtles, snakes, literal worms, salamanders, people, goats, chimera, wyvern, drake, dragon, lung, deer, qilin, bull, they're all dragons.
I see you've been playing 7th Dragon
depends on the setting Black person
>depends on the setting
Yeah, you're right. In some settings cats are called dogs. Just depends on the setting bro.
dragon
>A penguin is not a bird because its morphology differs from the majority of other avians
This is how stupid you sound
penguins are fish, that's why you're allowed to eat them during lent
fun fact: you are true in 3 different ways apart from sarcastically
Where are three heads?
>The wyvern (/ˈwaJvərn/ WY-vərn, sometimes spelled wivern) is a type of dragon with two legs, two wings, and often a pointed tail which is said to be a venomous stinger.[4]
Dragon definition:
>a mythical monster resembling a giant reptile
thats it. a dragon doesnt even need wings or legs. it can be a giant floating sea serpent looking thing and still technically be a dragon.
>noooo it has to have 2 arms, 2 legs and 2 wings because..... JUST BECAUSE OK!?
great troll thread. way to go OP.
cool dragon
Wyverns are dragons.
Bottom is a Dragon per Biblical description and Tolkien Himself, top is the creation of a bunch of people with mutilated genitals.
I don't think the bible ever describes dragons in details, and even If it did I don't think It would resemble Skyrim dragons since "Dragons" were represented as literally just giant snakes in Europe and the Middle East well into the Middle Ages
dragons are far cooler than wyverns
wyverns should only be the mindless fodder
Both can be very cool.
Monster hunter has both cool wyverns and cool dragond
A wyvern can be a dragon. so calling a wyvern a dragon is not necessarily wrong. Wyveren gays are just pendantic nerds who are arbitrarily defining something 1 way so they can feel special.
OP should travel back in time and inform medieval artist Paolo Uccello that his representation of the Saint George myth is wrong, as what he drew is actually a wyvern and not in fact a dragon
Our local slang term for a thousand bucks comes from St. George's name because he used to be on the 1000 dinar bill.
It's also nowhere near big enough. Everyone know dragons are at least as big as a house
Not baby dargons.
Baby dragons aren't real
You just know
d
ragon
So a dragon is a disabled wyvern that has extra limbs like a pajeet child?
I guess them medieval homies were wrong about dragons, too...
medieval khomies were wrong about most things
I'll forever wonder how the idea of dragons even came to life. Could they've been some surviving dinosaur species that was hunted down to extinction?
Just like saber-toothed tigers once reigned over all of Europe, of which we have in fact very few traces, maybe some weird big lizards, and over cryptids as well, might have disappeared without leaving any trace?
Imprinted ancestral memory.
It's nowhere near as mysterious as people make It out to be. What we now know as european dragons are just heavily modified giant snake Monsters. They were depicted as literally just big snakes well into the early middle ages. That's what dragons are in every culture, either chimeras with a reptilian base or literally just a big snake.
>I'll forever wonder how the idea of dragons even came to life.
Part of it is Jenny Hanivers for certain.
It's the carcass of a manta ray, dried and cut a certain way to resemble a weird creature with wings and a tail. Basically fishermen scamming scholars and people who collect peculiarities.
Pic related is what a biology artist thought a live one looked like. Google Jenny Haniver for more examples, you can sorta see why they got onto dragons from this, especially given how big a manta ray can get.
pic related is a jenny haniver as a fisherman might've sold back then
>Google Jenny Haniver
Why hasn't this been made into a common vidya enemy?
Yeah that's the other kind of jenny haniver, they sold those as little mermen. They look kinda like gray aliums though I wonder if there's a connection
>whyboner.jpg
The British museum thought that platypuses were fakes for like 20 years after their discovery because of shit like this.
It's what Satan used to be before being turned into a serpent.
Evolution isn't really a particularly good argument for any fantasy shit either, since there's plenty of settings out there where evolution as it exists in real life isn't a thing at all, Elder Scrolls being one of them.
Dragons are magical beings, they are like Fairies like Tinkerbell actually.
fantasy is derived from real life i.e. evolution
The Elder Scrolls is a setting in which the sun and the stars are just holes in the sky, there only exists one solar system, the universe is only like 10 thousand years old and the laws of physics and which biome a landmass is covered by are decided by which type of ancient Spirit decided to fuse with the ground in ancient times, the creatures in it absolutely don't need to make evolutionary sense, especially the dragons
>there is no evolutionary reason for an extra pair of limbs sticking out of your back
What do you call a dinosaur with six legs?
Tyrannosaurus Hex
2 seconds in google
What do you aim to prove with this? It happened, it's all we need to know.
Maybe dragons with 4 legs and 2 wings came from 6 legged dragons.
>evolution in a world where literal gods exist and commune with humans and can demonstrably prove that they created the universe
just like real life
How do I commune with gods? I keep screaming but they don't hear me
God doesn't exist in real life, schizo
Dragons evolved from insects and are actually completely unrelated to wyverns or any reptile or bird, extinct or extant.
>muh realism
>meanwhile Skyrim has centipede+antlion larvae that metamorphose into a butterfly/moth cocoon and then a wasp
i love dragons
Skyrim is the only "RPG" i actually managed to kill dragons, all the old school dnd crpgs dragons filtered me, even Dragon age origins 1st dragon i met was way too strong for my party.
Let's talk about flight adaptations. Early birds had long tails which they lost as they became more adapted for flight. Early bats had long tails which they lost as they became more adapted for flight. Early pterosaurs had long tails which they lost as they became more adapted for flight. This is a trend you see in every creature that becomes flight-capable: they become less long.
Why then are so many dragons shown with long bodies and long tails?
>Why then are so many dragons shown with long bodies and long tails?
They're early dragons.
Tail Slap
The dragon can slap one opponent each round with its tail. A tail slap deals the indicated damage plus 1½ times the dragon’s Strength bonus (round down) and is treated as a secondary attack.
Tail Sweep (Ex)
This special attack allows a dragon of at least Gargantuan size to sweep with its tail as a standard action. The sweep affects a half-circle with a radius of 30 feet (or 40 feet for a Colossal dragon), extending from an intersection on the edge of the dragon’s space in any direction. Creatures within the swept area are affected if they are four or more size categories smaller than the dragon. A tail sweep automatically deals the indicated damage plus 1½ times the dragon’s Strength bonus (round down). Affected creatures can attempt Reflex saves to take half damage (DC equal to that of the dragon’s breath weapon).
what
said. the dragons are so old that they are all still early dragons with very little genetic variation. millions of birds are born and pass in a single dragon lifetime. why would dragons need to "evolve for flight" when one commonly lasts 10,000+ years in some fictions. theyre also perfect. shorter tails wasnt ever "beneficial" for them because theyre immutably at the top regardless of how much effort it takes them. they would be at the top with hooves, no legs, four wings, it literally doesnt matter what shape a dragon is as long as its significantly destructive enough to do what they do
If dragons are related to reptiles, many species of reptiles grow continuously through their entire lives as long as they have adequate food.
4 legs and wings is moronic, just like centaurs. No vertebrate has 6 fricking limbs, it's fricking moronic.
Only by random chance, there may as well have been a fish with 6 fins instead of 4 that made it onto land
>tfw the wrong fish exited the water
WHY
FRICKING WHY
even then having 4 limbs is more advantageous. more limbs means more energy wasted on useless limbs that dont add any benefit
Which is why 2 of them evolved into wings.
thats not how evolution works anon.
you need intermediary forms. Each intermediary individually needs to be advantageous otherwise it wont get passed on. Just because wings are useful doesn't mean that a 6 limb configuration would ever get to the point of evolving a patagium in the first place
dragons arent real. the same mechanism that allows a chest to grow teeth, halflings to exist or a horse to have a fish tail allows dragons to evolve wings. dipshit
Dragon is a generic term, isn't it? like car. there are different types of cars, like coupe, sedan, hatchback, etc etc
A dragon breaths fire, a wyvern doesnt
Not according to heraldry.
Is Ultimate Combat worth a try? What's it actually change?
Morphology based taxonomy is moronic and only reveals you as a midwit at best.
protip: all mythical flying lizards are dragons
that's just something you'll have to get used to
For me it's the common draccus
Why did this autism about wyverns start?
It kind of came out of nowhere like a decade ago or whenever it started.
D&D tards can't comprehend fantasy that doesn't follow their rulebooks to the letter.
The D&D beastiary isn't even that good anyway. Hackmaster all the way.
D&D by far precedes this dragon/wyvern autism thing though.
Skyrim doesn't, it's just true scotsman fantasy nerds (D&D players who just play premade forgotten realms adventures) grasping at straws to take issue with a mass market AAA game.
Right. It did crop up around the time of Skyrim didn't it? OP's image even is of Skyrim.
Wyvern vs dragon autism is as old as the terms themselves. In nay case, it's rarely ever about the ruling or official designation its about how wyverns are typically a shittier less interesting design mechanically for combat and to just look at. It's the scalegays equivalent of Ganker b***hing about ugly women in vidya.
Wyvern is a type of dragon moron. Fricking study up on mythos.
Reminder that reptiles never stop growing.
They'll die from old age or other causes, which prevents them from growing further. Because they're dead.
But if they just lived further they'd just keep growing and growing.
Dragons don't even need to have wings. I'm personally a fan of the Glaurung/Fafner sort.
I don't care whether it's a dragon or a wyvern, they both die after I empty the clip of my shotgun in their face.
>clip
That movie was rad
You're rad.
This is the king of dragons according to Final Fantasy 9
the autistic push to make things 'realistic; in the fantasy genre has done untold damage