>"Obviously since no vertebrates have more than four limbs, its more realistic for dragons to follow suit!"
>"uhuhu, actually, thats a WYVERN, not a dragon..."
which of these trains of thought is more insufferable?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It is all so tiresome.
Here's Smaug as drawn by Tolkien. They really shit on the lore.
Exactly
Tolkien drew Smaug as a long boy with four legs + wings.
Any other design is blasphemy.
Meanwhile, in Finland...
That's basically the same design, just a bit fatter around the midsection.
Count the legs my dude, the second one has three pairs of legs plus wings
Time to get my eyes checked i suppose
And an extra pair of legs
So what is the name of this creature /tg/?
ai generated dragon
Did Tove Jansson illustrate the finnish version of the hobbit?
yes
Dragons don't even need to be lizards in Hungary.
how cancerous
heh
originally the hungarian "sárkány" were not dragons. that came later after the sarkány legends became conflated with european dragon legends.
Sárkány is a compound word of turkic origin, of sari and khan meaning "yellow ruler" yellow being the color associated with the diretion of west making the word mean "western ruler". in early myths the sárkánys were simply powerful mostrous creatures more akin to demons as they guarded the underworld. (originally they wreaked havoc on the mortal world but they were banished akin to the greek titans, this is told to us in the story of the son of the white mare)
basically the original hungarian "dragons" are just monsters that can take on any form not necessarily a form of a flying lizard
This is like 4x the size of
I assume they made him much larger for the movie because it would have a larger impact on the audience.
I just want to pet them and call them good boys.
>They really shit on the lore.
Yeah it was at this point I thought they might be straying from the books a bit too much
The hobbit movies were a fricking abortion and retroactively ruined the original movies. Anyone who enjoys them should be banned from reading the books.
I watched the first one in a theater and thankfully I was with my bro who loved LOTR and shit on it as much as I did so we had a good laugh at least. I wasn't even mad, just bewildered by how garbage it was compared to the LOTR movies.
>wasn't even mad, just bewildered by how garbage it was compared to the LOTR movies.
The Legolas shield skateboarding thing should have warned us about what was coming
I liked the singing.
I liked the first one
>Here's Smaug as drawn by Tolkien.
Which is inconclusive for question at hand. We can clearly see one pair of wings and one pair of legs. Then there might or might not be second pair of legs behind the pile of gold, so this particular picture doesn't really tell us shit.
you can see the hip section of his back legs underneath the farthest back ribs of his left wing, the scales are different to the main body yet match the pattern on his front leg
You can see the "serpent" influences in most fairy tale depictions of dragons. You see less serpent and more dinosaur in the D&D dragon art coming out around late AD&D and continuing into most dragon depictions in film and cinema since, especially a lot of T-rex imagery.
It would actually be really interesting to see a more Pterosaur-inspired take like in
, especially after the more modern "terrestrial stalker" hypotheses about their behaviour.
None of this matters as long as in-universe consistency is maintained.
This
Does your setting contains both wyvern and dragons? The distinction matters
Does your setting contain only dragons? Thry can look however you like
Pic related: a dragon
you can also have a setting where both wyverns and dragons exist and they each have the same number of limbs, whether that number is 4 or 6 or something else, and you can also have a setting where wyverns have four legs but dragons only have two, etc.
Wyvern posting as it adds nothing of value to any discussion.
>acshually tHaTs a WYveRN!!!
Ok?
I just don't get why a chinese dragon is a dragon but a wyvern isn't
They are both equally insufferable. One for being a pseudo-intellectual "biologist" and the other for being a DnDrone/heraldry autist.
A wyvern is a dragon. It has always been a type of dragon, and being a pseudointellectual pedant about fricking heraldry in a discussion of a biological creature is the height of low IQ stupidity. And being pseudo-intellectual about Earth's biology and making creatures adhere strongly to its limitations for a fantasy creature who is meant to be flowing in magical power is a severe lack of imagination stemming from low IQ stupidity.
However, the actual reasons for Smaugs "wyvern" look are purely mechanical, namely the limitations of motion capture in regards to Benedict Cumberbatch's performance and what looked good in reveals of his whole body in motion on the big screen at the time. Personally, I think he's fine. Very sinuous and serpent-like, while still screaming arrogant fire-breathing dragon.
>but a wyvern isn't
It is, at least in D&D and related systems, what it isnt is a "True" dragon, which is the chromatic and metallics and others. The people who keep exclaiming it isnt are just pseuds talking about heraldry for some godforsaken reason, as if that has any weight or merit in regard to living breathing draconic entities.
>A wyvern is a dragon. It has always been a type of dragon, and being a pseudointellectual pedant about fricking heraldry...
Stubby wing-thumbs typed this post. YWNBAD
>However, the actual reasons for Smaugs "wyvern" look are purely mechanical, namely the limitations of motion capture in regards to Benedict Cumberbatch's performance and what looked good in reveals of his whole body in motion on the big screen at the time.
There was also issues of how it looks in terms of suspension of disbelief, with that level of detail and special effects it was harder for people to imagine that the wings could actually carry the body. It's not really a "it's not realistic" thing it's an issue that suspension of disbelief can only be stretched so far.
categories don't have rigorous definitions.
Western and Eastern dragons are two separate ideas of beings that just happen to be called dragons. Neither are usually considered the same thing. Wyverns are more like a subspecies of the western dragon.
the autistic push to make everything 'realistic' in fantasy media is a cancer
>NOOO THAT DRAGON HAS TOO MANY LIMBS ITS UNREALISTIC
>NOOO THAT ARMOR ISN'T PROTECTIVE ITS UNREALISTIC
>NOOOO THE MAGIC CAN'T BE MAGIC IT HAS TO BE ANCIENT ADVANCED SCIENCE, ITS UNREALISTIC
If you want to design a wyvern just call it a wyvern. It's not a dragon. What about this is so hard to understand?
anything I call a dragon is a dragon.
If it doesn't have a stinger, it isn't a wyvern. Simple as.
There's no lexical difference between dragon and wyvern outside of English.
I'll try to formulate a 'that guy' filter.
>There's no lexical difference between dragon and wyvern outside of English.
There has also never been any agreement on what body plan and how many limbs a dragon has.
Dragons are Wyverns that have absorbed/cultivated enough magic to evolve the arms necessary to properly weald it.
I kinda like that idea in a more whimsical setting. Sounds like some Pokemon thing, in a fun way. Gives any dragons/wyverns a drive to consume then, which gives them agency and makes them more dangerous (as opposed to their drive to sit on some gold all day).
>"uhuhu, actually, thats a WYVERN, not a dragon..."
But wyverns are dragons
Wyverns are dragons in the same way Hyenas are cats.
Cats and Hyena's are both members of the suborder Feliformia, but Hyena aren't Felids or 'True cats'.
No. That is entirely wrong. This whole "wyverns are actually..." bullshit was invented by modern pseuds. If you are not specifically talking about western European heraldry some 600 years ago they are the same fricking thing.
Based and correctpilled.
Nah. It's more like saying a house cat is a lion.
Incorrect
I was honestly looking for a >Rock the dragon
half way through there.
And not only am I a little sad again, but you didn't even have the joke.
>Drake
>Wyvern
>Wyrm
>Dragon
Yes, I am taking the piss.
Anyone who uses "realistic" and "dragons" in the same sentence deserves a swift kick to the balls.
Both are homosexuals but
>"uhuhu, actually, thats a WYVERN, not a dragon..."
Is the more obnoxious stance. The other take at least has some basis in logical thinking but the "m-muh dragons can't have 2 wings and 2 legs!" crowd out themselves as genuine morons who are incapable of doing a 30 second google search to fact-check themselves before spouting nonsense lore from D&D.
>I wish to change an established design because of (1 or 2)
Cringe
>Aesthetical preference, story elements or limits in my craft made me choose (1 or 2) for my work
Based
The second one. The first one is only annoying if they're ackchyually-ing you. The second one is always an ackchyually.
I have never seen anyone do either of those things yet you've been making threads here b***hing about it for years.
Checkmate atheists.
Six limbs is truth. Dragon, dragons are the white people of dragonkind.
We do know what some of the largest, non-avian flyers looked like.
>scientists were wrong about a ton of shit before but the current scientific consensus is 100% correct because it just is okay
Sure.
the process does work by increasing the degree of accuracy by trial and error, yeah
it's kind of the point
i bet you got the jab lmao
lol no, I let others be on the receiving end of the trials and errors
lmao
Paleontologists are so fricking moronic sometimes.
Feathered dinosaurs are part of the same demoralization program as "the Greeks were all fruity homos"
>sweaty that cool t-rex you lovrd as a kid was actually coverd in fabulous feathers and it was GAAAAY how you like THAT huh
unironically
Demoralization? What? How do feathers covering t-rex make it homosexual? Are eagles or hawks suddely "gay"? Are you using "gay" in a meaning invented by not even hoosexuals, but their supporters, or rather, those who sought to exploit their movement to own ends, and then dare to speak about twisting of narrative? You are walking twisted narrative yourself, dumb as homosexual and equally deserving to be split in two and thrown into fireplace.
most depictions of feathered dinosaurs give them highly colorful feathers like peawieners and parrots for whatever reason
So what? Anything colourful and vibrant is homosexual? Calvinism is having a resurgence and only bland utilitarian colouration is accepted? Why do you like t-rexes by the way? Were you not playing with other kids in the dirt or mentored on the maintenance of the carting wheels? Dreamed much huh? What are you, a girl? Or a moron?
>Anything colourful and vibrant is homosexual?
if it isn't, then why did you invoke drab feathers like those of eagles and hawks? are they automatically not homosexual because they're brown?
He's obviously one of the homosaurs, he's arguing in bad faith
Because they are predators like t-rex, moron, thats why they were brought up, and predator birds dont use colourful feathers.
yes they do, like half or more of all colorful parrots are predators for example
it's also questionable how relevant this is for a predator the size of a t-rex, it's not like the fricking thing could hide very easily
also it's questionable if the t-rex was primarily a predator or if it was more of a scavenger
but lastly and most of all, are you really implying that gays can't be predators? lmao
>So what? Anything colourful and vibrant is homosexual?
It sure is gay.
Please take your meds, we're all worried about you.
>make a wyvern
>call it a dragon
>get called out on your moronation
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
have you considered not being moronic?
The second one.
The train of thought that caused you to post this thread is more insufferable than those other two combined.
the second one, without a doubt
also there would be ways to get around the 4 limbs problem, if someone really, really, really wanted
The first one is a justification, the second one is a denial of the fiction, so the second one I think.
To me, a dragon is exactly as described in the pages of the 3.5e draconomicon, but if a setting, world, or whatever has defined their dragons as something else, it is what it is.
You said what I was trying to say, but smarter. Shit.
More like GAYVERNS
Do dragons and such have a parietal eye on their forehead?
Yes
Kalameet was so cool you guys
Hello bat
I like there to be a distinction because I like there to be a hierarchy of dragons with 4 leg 2 wing guys at the top, but if 2 leg 2 wing is the ONLY giant flying fire breathing lizard thing in the setting and the characters say "that's a dragon" then pointing at it and Insisting it's a wyvern is b***hmade.
I don't hate 'dragons have 4 limbs because they're vertebrate' at face value, I just think it's a little boring
>4 leg 2 wing guys at the top
>not wanting 6 wings and no legs guys so far above as to be considered unknowable gods
Get the frick out of here kukulkan nobody likes you
>0 limbs (full snek)
>2 limbs (wings)
>2 limbs (legs)
>4 limbs (4 wings)
>4 limbs (4 legs)
>4 limbs (2 wings and 2 legs)
>6 limbs (6 wings)
>6 limbs (4 wings and 2 legs)
>6 limbs (2 wings and 4 legs)
>6 limbs (6 legs)
things complicate a lot once one starts to account for whether the legs are forelimbs or hindlimbs, whether the forelimbs are manipulatory and/or the hindlimbs are enough to keep the creature up and moving, and whether the limbs are distributed along the length of the creature or grouped in a section
and god help us all if we start accounting for multiple heads and non-reptilian features
I should have taken elementalism rather than draconology for my studies
Where would four wings, two arms, and three tentacles fall?
>"Obviously since no vertebrates have more than four limbs, its more realistic for dragons to follow suit!"
Except for griffons and pegasi and centaurs and displacer beasts and girallons and aarakocra...
No wings, no legs, only snek.
The first is generally an appeal to being easy to animate more than anything else. Animators like having reference material and there's plenty of birds and bats to look at. I believe the animators on Desolation of Smaug actually said that in BTS stuff. The second is just D&D brainrot.
I still do disagree with getting rid of Smaug's arms in particular though; he's an established character with existing illustrations, just make him look like he's supposed to. Changing the design in the interest of being easier to animate just seems lazy. Still, that's far from my biggest problem with the The Hobbit adaptations. I'd actually say that Smaug is one of the few redeeming qualities of those films, not because of his design, but because the integration of Cumberbatch's mocap is amazing. Movie-Smaug as design is weak, but as a technical achievement he's super impressive. It's almost disorienting how good Smaug looks and moves compared with how shitty the rest of the film looks.
>easy to animate
more than it being easy it was a matter of it looking good
if I remember correctly they wanted a serpentine design for smaug, but when they went to animate that with 4 legs its movements were a bit ridiculous, like a short legged dog
but way too many people focus on the limbs when talking about smaug, personally I was blown away by the expressivity of the face depending on the angle, especially thanks to that upward curvature of the jaw
smaug was the only redeeming parts of those movies honestly
The first one because
>realistic
moronic discussion.
Instead be angry that the molten gold doesn't even looks like it melts at room temperature.
>since no vertebrates have more than four limbs,
Except for angels, griffins, centaurs, your mom, etc.
Both are shit.
The DnD definition of dragon vs wyvern is only for that system and only they give a shit.
Dragons don't have to be realistic. They didn't evolve on Earth or evolve at all. So they can have as many limbs as I say they have.
I prefer the 4 limbs and wings setup. But I'm not going to go full autist and complain about dragons looking like bats in hollywood. Hollywood has been shit for decades anyway, dragons having the bat set up is the least of their sins.
I like the movies, like when Smaugh is flying around and he's like "how now bowman is that your child I'm gonna fricking eat you" and then he dies.
Oh but I guess the part where all the people in town were southlings (Black folk) was unfortunately a fast forward 10 years later to the rings of Black.
>rings of Black
You mean "we wuz rangs."
As others have said both are dumb for different reasons it entirely depends on setting. That said I do want to call bullshit on anons that are insisting the distinction between wyvern and dragon is only a recent thing that appears in D&D. Wyverns specifically denoting 2 legged dragons has been a thing since the 16th century.
>Dragon: from Ancient Greek drakon (snake)
>Wyvern: from Latin vipera (viper)
By pedant logic they all could have 0 legs so to care is to fail
>Dragon: from Ancient Greek drakon (snake)
Although drakon(δράκων) was used to describe any big serpent it didn't actually mean serpent(ερπετό, "to crawl") but it actually meant "to see" or "the one who sees", "the one with piercing gaze". Implying that a dragon has a magical gaze, like a basilisk, and not a magical breath. Wyvern on the other hand, clearly implies that the creature is venomous, has a venomous bite.
They're both annoying, but
>>"uhuhu, actually, thats a WYVERN, not a dragon..."
annoys me more. It's pedantic and what's worse projects shitty D&D ideas as the standard for all settings.
It's like a player that gets upset when the dragon that is described as being green breathing fire instead of poison, in a non-DnD game.
That and there being so many dragons around that they can be broken into distinct categories kind sucks the magic out of them. It makes them more like dog breeds than fantastic kingdom threatening monsters.
>It makes them more like dog breeds than fantastic kingdom threatening monsters.
Never thought of it like that, but that's probably been a stone in my shoe for years.
The feathered/anti-feathered dinosaur thing reads the same as "Tigers are gay because they are fluffy and I saw a gay man in a tiger striped thong once". Fricking homos stealing bright colours and sweet drinks/food is the worse demoralization program. "Men may only like greys and browns and things that taste like shit" Frick that.
Black Coffee has been manly longer than you have been alive, and fru fru tasty sippies of sugar for fairy boys like you have existed that long too. Demoralization campaign my ass you lazy homosexual, shut up and have another cup
Acting like this won’t stop you from being a closeted gay or undo the molestation you probably suffered as a child
I don't get this mindset. It's like being upset at someone specifying an axe or a scimitar instead of "bladed weapon". Or the even more idiotic, "magic needs to be poorly understood and basically unusably worthless" in order to be magical.
>specifying an axe or a scimitar
It's not the same thing because "wyverns" ARE dragons. It's like having two swords and someone says
>one of these is a sword and the other one... Well when I read one specific piece of media it said all swords look the same so that's not a sword!!
No, they tend to function quite differently in actual application and in combat. They are vaguely similar in aesthetic but not identical. Having usable arms and trending toward different levels of intelligence is important.
I have heard someone unironically say "thats not a sword, its a saber"
I feel like this is the same ballpark as the topic at hand
>It makes them more like dog breeds than fantastic kingdom threatening monsters.
Now THAT is true projecting of shitty D&D as the standard for all fantasy. In real legends, dragons were usually a threat to a village or a town at most, and killed by a single guy. Western dragons, that is to say, let's not even touch all the cultures where the dragons aren't threatening in the first place.
The first is more obnoxious because there used to exist vertebrates with over four limbs.
Dragons with forelimbs are sexier, simple as.
The first is more obnoxious because it's the sort of attitude that inevitably ends up affecting a whole lot more than just dragons in the quest to achieve "realism" in their fantasy game. The second one is just regular everyday autist nitpicking.
>which of these trains of thought is more insufferable?
Both camps belong against the wall equally.
The gigabrain answer is that dragons aren't vertebrates
that raises far more questions
Having separate names for different types of dragons is convenient. I don't get the seethe at wyvern vs true dragon dichotomy.
why would i care about realism?