I'm just going to say dnd has ships that go into space. Space. the whole no oxygen place? And you get there with a spellcaster? A spellcaster has enough energy to make that trip out of the world's gravitational pull? And your issue is lizards with boobs? I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm just comparing the "controversial topic" to similar "controversial topics" in relation. My point is this is all fantasy. A fantasy world as in not real. You can have boobs on lizards, bird humans, Robots, and pirate ships going into space. Or not. Go nuts. If you don't like it run a campaign without lizard boobs. If you like it what's the problem? Not everything has to be based in reality that's the beauty of imagination and ttrpgs. Go nuts. Have fun! :)
I'm just going to say dnd has ships that go into space. Space. the whole no oxygen place? And you get there with a spellcaster? A spellcaster has enough energy to make that trip out of the world's gravitational pull? And your issue is lizards with boobs? I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm just comparing the "controversial topic" to similar "controversial topics" in relation. My point is this is all fantasy. A fantasy world as in not real. You can have boobs on lizards, bird humans, Robots, and pirate ships going into space. Or not. Go nuts. If you don't like it run a campaign without lizard boobs. If you like it what's the problem? Not everything has to be based in reality that's the beauty of imagination and ttrpgs. Go nuts. Have fun! :)
Yes, I would possibly take issue with a player insisting on their dragonborn having breasts. It is not at all about suspension of disbelief, it is a matter of boundaries and the comfort of the players at my table. I do not run games for people to find... release of a specific type and I really don't think my players want to sit next to the guy who has drool collecting at the corners of their mouth as he describes 'supple' this or that. As a DM, it is my duty to be cognizant of the needs of my players, but it is also my duty to be equally cognizant of their boundaries and to ensure that they are being respected. A player who insists on having breasts on a dragonborn is not a red flag by default, but I do immediately look for red flags when they raise issues like that. As I said, I would want to know why it is important to the player to have it. There may be a good personal reason for the ask.
You misunderstand my point. The topic is frivolous. If you want lizard boobs in your setting fine. If you want space pirate ships fine. Its....trivial. Especially as a DM. The world is fantasy. If you do or don't that is your choice to make. Especially as a DM. Do players drool over elf boobs or dwarf boobs or human boobs ect? Personally the topic never comes up in the games I played. I always play a half elf. Personally this is because I like some of the racial feats. Also in some cases I am mixed myself so it adds to the character when my half elf (or at times half orc) has to deal with a dual heritage in RP. We also had a player who lost her breasts to cancer. She played as a busty Taxabi to cope with what she lost. We also had another who made a meme character based on the Argonian Maid. They both wrote their appearances down but it was rarely mentioned by them, the DM, or players. Breasts are part of the female anatomy. If the player makes it weird, its, in my opinion, up to the table to tell the player to dial it back. If they won't its up to the DM to write them out of the session. DnD is a collaborative game. I don't kink shame, but I also know its not real life. Not every table is compatible with every player. The question about lizard boobs shouldn't be a defining matter on whether a player can be a female lizard or play a setting. To me it means people have way too much free time on their hands and needs something constructive to do. Dragonborn females have boobs in dnd depictions. big deal. So do Aarakocra last I checked. Like any other humanoid race. the males have well male organs. Fantasy doesnt always makes sense. The DM can make a world of boobless humanoids the player can make a humanoid with boobs. Both have to come to an understanding or one has to respectfully find another table. Does that clarify things?
Honestly, while I know it’s becoming somewhat trendy to overtly throw out D&D canon just for the sake of it, the fact is that I really cannot see a reason to make this change besides titillation factor, regardless of how it’s framed. And where exactly have you seen them with curves in official D&D material?
Pyrathas, I did not misunderstand your point, I considered it and dismissed it with a not-unheard of explanation why it might be an issue at my table. Now you have given me more information to feel confident in my dismissal. You believe that because you have never encountered an issue before, it must not be an issue worth discussing. Your experience is not universal. Things exist outside your field of view. The topic is not 'frivolous' by any definition of the word. You ironically misunderstand the gravity, scope, and implications of the topic, which would be obvious even if you did not admit to it.
Also, I am not really sure what your intention was when inviting a comparison of playing mixed races to address my raised concern about fetishization, but it is a bit baffling. What do you think is the value-add for a dragonborn to 'deal' with having breasts in RP that parallels your experience in RPing a half-elf as a real life person of mixed race? In my mind, they are in no way similar or linked. To answer your question though, I am sure some players do drool over elven or dwarven breasts, but it is not something I want to introduce at my table.
No one... literally no one has said the question of breast should bar someone from playing a female dragonborn or lizardfolk. Some have said they would not allow breasts, not that they would not allow a female dragonborn to be played. I have only said that I would want to know why having them is important to their enjoyment of the game. Lastly, I have not seen all dragonborn art but to my knowledge, chasm-like cleavage is not something that has ever been shown in official art. What depictions are you referring to?
Honestly, while I know it’s becoming somewhat trendy to overtly throw out D&D canon just for the sake of it, the fact is that I really cannot see a reason to make this change besides titillation factor, regardless of how it’s framed. And where exactly have you seen them with curves in official D&D material?
Google: "Player's handbook, 4e, page 34" Art by William O'Connor Or if you have the PHB 4e turn to that page. I do.
Pyrathas, I did not misunderstand your point, I considered it and dismissed it with a not-unheard of explanation why it might be an issue at my table. Now you have given me more information to feel confident in my dismissal. You believe that because you have never encountered an issue before, it must not be an issue worth discussing. Your experience is not universal. Things exist outside your field of view. The topic is not 'frivolous' by any definition of the word. You ironically misunderstand the gravity, scope, and implications of the topic, which would be obvious even if you did not admit to it.
Also, I am not really sure what your intention was when inviting a comparison of playing mixed races to address my raised concern about fetishization, but it is a bit baffling. What do you think is the value-add for a dragonborn to 'deal' with having breasts in RP that parallels your experience in RPing a half-elf as a real life person of mixed race? In my mind, they are in no way similar or linked. To answer your question though, I am sure some players do drool over elven or dwarven breasts, but it is not something I want to introduce at my table.
No one... literally no one has said the question of breast should bar someone from playing a female dragonborn or lizardfolk. Some have said they would not allow breasts, not that they would not allow a female dragonborn to be played. I have only said that I would want to know why having them is important to their enjoyment of the game. Lastly, I have not seen all dragonborn art but to my knowledge, chasm-like cleavage is not something that has ever been shown in official art. What depictions are you referring to?
My point is women have boobs, big deal its natural DnD has lizards with boobs big deal its natural. DM and Player can interpret it as with or without boobs. Who cares? Thats the Beauty of DnD, there are rules and canon and there is homebrew. Just because a player wants their character wants boobs on their character isnt always a fetish. Hence the analogy of my mix race characters and the breast cancer survivor with the Tabaxi and the player with a "meme" character suffering from Chronic depression. If the first thing you think of is fetishes when it comes to a character's bust or chest size, to me, that says more on you than them. I never assume at the table. We are all there to have fun. If it doesn't matter if Dwarves and elves have breasts, it doesnt matter Dragonborn or other humanoids do. It is as I have stated rather trivial.
My point is women have boobs, big deal its natural DnD has lizards with boobs big deal its natural. DM and Player can interpret it as with or without boobs. Who cares? Thats the Beauty of DnD, there are rules and canon and there is homebrew. Just because a player wants their character wants boobs on their character isnt always a fetish. Hence the analogy of my mix race characters and the breast cancer survivor with the Tabaxi and the player with a "meme" character suffering from Chronic depression. If the first thing you think of is fetishes when it comes to a character's bust or chest size, to me, that says more on you than them. I never assume at the table. We are all there to have fun. If it doesn't matter if Dwarves and elves have breasts, it doesnt matter Dragonborn or other humanoids do. It is as I have stated rather trivial.
Can you indicate in my posts where I said that a player who wants 'boobs' on their dragonborn is automatically dragging their fetishes into the game?
Honestly, while I know it’s becoming somewhat trendy to overtly throw out D&D canon just for the sake of it, the fact is that I really cannot see a reason to make this change besides titillation factor, regardless of how it’s framed. And where exactly have you seen them with curves in official D&D material?
Google: "Player's handbook, 4e, page 34" Art by William O'Connor Or if you have the PHB 4e turn to that page. I do.
Let me reiterate: do you have an official and current source? Design standards change between editions, and frankly 4e was phoning in everything that wasn’t combat based. And, again, what narrative value does adding this feature serve, aside from making the mental image more attractive to adolescent males?
Honestly, while I know it’s becoming somewhat trendy to overtly throw out D&D canon just for the sake of it, the fact is that I really cannot see a reason to make this change besides titillation factor, regardless of how it’s framed. And where exactly have you seen them with curves in official D&D material?
Google: "Player's handbook, 4e, page 34" Art by William O'Connor Or if you have the PHB 4e turn to that page. I do.
Let me reiterate: do you have an official and current source? Design standards change between editions, and frankly 4e was phoning in everything that wasn’t combat based. And, again, what narrative value does adding this feature serve, aside from making the mental image more attractive to adolescent males?
First let me point out you did not specify "current source", you said "official D&D material". So you can't "reiterate" what you didn't specify. Reiterate means "say something again" You can clarify what you meant by adding to your original question, sure. But then you should be saying "Let me clarify...."
Now To clarify, and forgive the Long post but I will clarify since it is my fault I assumed people actually read articles tweets and blogs as well as sourcebooks, WOTC still owns the rights to that artwork and many others. If you tried to use the previous art for resale you would get in trouble with WOTC. Chris Perkins stated two things on Twitter and DnD Beyond:
"The current edition of the D&D roleplaying game has its own canon, as does every other expression of D&D. For example, what is canonical in fifth edition is not necessarily canonical in a novel, video game, movie, or comic book, and vice versa. This is true not only for lore but art as well.
This approach allows R.A. Salvatore to write Drizzt novels without having to worry if his version of the Forgotten Realms perfectly matches what we do in the roleplaying game. It means that a D&D video game can take elements from a series of novels and present them in a way that serves the game’s needs, rather than adhering to the sequence of events chronicled in the novels. Creatively, it’s liberating. This approach also acknowledges that different media have unique challenges and requirements."
In addressing the tweet from a fan he also writes: "Short answer: to visually distinguish females from males in 4th edition art. We removed the breasts in 5th edition."
Simply put, 4E is still cannon of its own, 3.5E is canon of its own, 5E is canon of its own. According to a tweet, 5e Dragonborn art has the breasts removed. There is no official text stating they have or have no breasts still, just they removed breasts from the art. This is left to reader and player interpretation. But come one do you really need to know if lizards have boobs or not? If so you need to look deep in yourself. These are still official. Books and games can draw from each edition as they need. This creates homebrew. And this is allowed in the Dungeon Master's Guide Chapter 1
"Your world is the setting for your campaign, the place where adventures happen. Even if you use an existing setting, such as the Forgotten Realms, it becomes yours as you set your adventures there, create characters to inhabit it, and make changes to it over the course of your campaign. This chapter is all about building your world and then creating a campaign to take place in it."
This means the moment you change a monster's stat block, alter an encounter, change a script, add to a campaign, it is no longer official lore but YOUR world. In example Giving a Young Red Dragon Legendary Resistance to increase the challenge for the players. Red Dragons, at least in the Monster Manual (I do not own Fizban's Treasury of Dragons yet) does not have this ability, Adult Reds do.
Which supports my original statement. Both of them. In 4e cannon they have boobs. In 5e they do not, but you are free to change this. To quote Chris Perkins "Creatively, it’s liberating."
Let me ask you your own question How does that affect the game other than you assuming they are horny adolescent males? What about lesbians? What about cancer survivors? what about female players? What narrative value doe a lizard having or not having breasts matter? Its up to personal taste. And if you have an issue with this, it says more about your ability to separate Fantasy from reality, and women's anatomy, than a player who wants lizards with boobs simply because they want it be it a coping mechanism for cancer, depression, trauma, immersion, or whatever. never assume the reason is adult themed without evidence. Lets try to be more accepting by cherishing the diversity of our fellow players and DMs by being inclusive and granting equity in their tastes boobs or not. In other words lets all have fun together and not deal with such trivial nonsense.
Trying to turn accusations around on me is not a strong argument. The crux of my point is that the current model of this race does not have these particular physical features, and given that they don’t particularly resemble humans, you’re really stretching to say that an individual could be reclaiming something about their irl image by adding them. The only reason to add them is personal aesthetic appeal, and frankly in this case it’s so blatantly incongruous as to be rather gauche imo. If a DM is willing to humor it that’s their business, but they are well within their rights to nix it without being accused of “stifling creative expression” or whatever.
Trying to turn accusations around on me is not a strong argument. The crux of my point is that the current model of this race does not have these particular physical features, and given that they don’t particularly resemble humans, you’re really stretching to say that an individual could be reclaiming something about their irl image by adding them. The only reason to add them is personal aesthetic appeal, and frankly in this case it’s so blatantly incongruous as to be rather gauche imo. If a DM is willing to humor it that’s their business, but they are well within their rights to nix it without being accused of “stifling creative expression” or whatever.
I never accused you of anything, I said "if you have". Not "you have". That's more on you to answer. If you don't what's the issue? And I argue Dragonborn do "particularly resemble humans" hence
"shaped by draconic gods or the dragons themselves, dragonborn originally hatched from dragon eggs as a unique race, combining the best attributes of dragons and humanoids."
humanoid: having an appearance or character resembling that of a human.
And why does it have to be so "so blatantly incongruous as to be rather gauche " to you? why does it matter? Does it affect your game? your life? no? Then its trivial.
I can post more. But if it helps that breast cancer survivor cope, if it gives that depressed player a reason to live till the next session and each session after and studies show it helps them, how is that "so blatantly incongruous as to be rather gauche "? THAT statement sounds like a bit of a stretch. Breast cancer is not "so blatantly incongruous as to be rather gauche "Depression is not so "so blatantly incongruous as to be rather gauche ". Your statement however that only adolescence males want boobs is "so blatantly incongruous as to be rather gauche ". I will not be THAT player to refuse a breast cancer survivor or a depressed player the option to do so. I don't want them on my conscience because I want to be adamant on female body parts. Ill homebrew it in 6E if it means they can get better and continue seeking treatment so long as it helps their mental health. But luckily WOTC leaves it to interpretation so I don't have to concern myself with the triviality of anatomy in a fantasy world
The only 5e artwork that I believe is intended to be a female dragonborn is this great bard image:
Of course I've completely forgotten where it's actually from (Fizban's Treasury of Dragons or Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants maybe? I only have parts of the digital books and no physical ones to hand right now) but I'm pretty sure the character is supposed to be female. I suspect that lute placement isn't entirely unintentional.
A lot of other dragonborn artwork I can think of I seem to remember mostly being a bit vague with fairly athletic builds that could be any gender, aside from a few that are muscular in a more classically (human) male way. And I think that ambiguity in the artwork is intentional.
Ambiguity is something I've had fun playing with in the past as well; I played an Aarakocra in a Frostmaiden campaign and decided it would probably be very hard for anyone unfamiliar with the race to tell the genders apart, so I introduced the character as they/them, and they avoided questions about their gender, since it was something that to them was an irrelevant question to ask (they were not a small talker, and they were literally facing a god that was trying to freeze the entire world to death).
It was also a good exercise in trying to keep pronouns correct; turns out I'm absolutely terrible at it and very much needed (and still need) the practice. But it's also just kind of fun to play a character who doesn't have time for silly personal questions.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The only 5e artwork that I believe is intended to be a female dragonborn is this great bard image:
Of course I've completely forgotten where it's actually from (Fizban's Treasury of Dragons or Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants maybe? I only have parts of the digital books and no physical ones to hand right now) but I'm pretty sure the character is supposed to be female. I suspect that lute placement isn't entirely unintentional.
A lot of other dragonborn artwork I can think of I seem to remember mostly being a bit vague with fairly athletic builds that could be any gender, aside from a few that are muscular in a more classically (human) male way. And I think that ambiguity in the artwork is intentional.
Ambiguity is something I've had fun playing with in the past as well; I played an Aarakocra in a Frostmaiden campaign and decided it would probably be very hard for anyone unfamiliar with the race to tell the genders apart, so I introduced the character as they/them, and they avoided questions about their gender, since it was something that to them was an irrelevant question to ask (they were not a small talker, and they were literally facing a god that was trying to freeze the entire world to death).
It was also a good exercise in trying to keep pronouns correct; turns out I'm absolutely terrible at it and very much needed (and still need) the practice. But it's also just kind of fun to play a character who doesn't have time for silly personal questions.
Oh yes I don't have those copies either. But exactly I totally agree. Its up to interpretation and totally fun to practice things like that. I find it helps gain a perspective on things you don't experience irl. And if everyone is having fun what does it matter if its they/them, he/she, boobless or boobs? like you said its silly personal questions. :)
Oh yes I don't have those copies either. But exactly I totally agree. Its up to interpretation and totally fun to practice things like that. I find it helps gain a perspective on things you don't experience irl. And if everyone is having fun what does it matter if its they/them, he/she, boobless or boobs? like you said its silly personal questions. :)
I'm not sure you understood my anecdote, or I've not explained it very well; the character in question would hardly have been ambiguous if they'd had obvious female characteristics (or not, if female Aarakocra normally having them). Having species with that kind of ambiguity gives opportunities you don't get with others that don't have it.
Personally I see that dragonborn picture as flat-chested, but I said earlier I'm in the "no boobs" camp. I didn't even realise it was the canonical state in 5e, I just prefer races/species to be more distinct, so avian races should be more bird-like, reptilian more reptile-like etc., because otherwise why be an avian or reptilian just to treat it like any other?
The lute placement in the artwork may or may not actually be intentional, which does leave it ambiguous, but I also don't really see it hiding much.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Oh yes I don't have those copies either. But exactly I totally agree. Its up to interpretation and totally fun to practice things like that. I find it helps gain a perspective on things you don't experience irl. And if everyone is having fun what does it matter if its they/them, he/she, boobless or boobs? like you said its silly personal questions. :)
I'm not sure you understood my anecdote, or I've not explained it very well; the character in question would hardly have been ambiguous if they'd had obvious female characteristics (or not, with the females normally having them). Having species with that kind of ambiguity gives opportunities you don't get with others that don't have it.
Personally I see that dragonborn picture as flat-chested, but I said earlier I'm in the "no boobs" camp. I didn't even realise it was the canonical state in 5e, I just prefer races/species to be more distinct, so avian races should be more bird-like, reptilian more reptile-like etc., because otherwise why be an avian or reptilian just to treat it like any other?
The lute placement in the artwork may or may not actually be intentional, which does leave it ambiguous, but I also don't really see it hiding much.
Oh no I did in fact you gave an excellent example of my earlier statement of personal interpretation:
"I suspect that lute placement isn't entirely unintentional"
"I played an Aarakocra in a Frostmaiden campaign and decided it would probably be very hard for anyone unfamiliar with the race to tell the genders apart, so I introduced the character as they/them, and they avoided questions about their gender, since it was something that to them was an irrelevant question to ask"
"Personally I see that dragonborn picture as flat-chested"
"The lute placement in the artwork may or may not actually be intentional, which does leave it ambiguous, but I also don't really see it hiding much."
"Since the Text does not, and I declare, needs not, specify female or male anatomy as it does nothing for the narrative or lore, this is led to player and reader interpretation."
These are specific interpretations of the race from images and text.
As for the picture, A picture is worth a thousand words as the old saying goes. There are flat chested women irl. One could argue as well based on the placement and size of the lute she has small breasts based on how she holds it and it would hint her body or chest is supporting it. Like I said Player interpretation.
As for boobs no boobs camps I'm on neither. All I care about is are the players having fun? Then who am I to dictate the anatomy of their character. I am not a narcistic control freak seeking to dictate my views on Dragonborn anatomy on players. That's rather toxic. I don't see myself playing Dragonborn in the near future. But I also don't see whether a Dragonborn has boobs or not matters. Its for player interpretation until WOTC flat out says in 6E lore, One, or whatever they want to call it that "Dragonborn do not have boobs." Which a normal reader or sane player will be like "ok why does that matter?" But then, again to quote Chris Perkins: "The current edition of the D&D roleplaying game has its own canon, as does every other expression of D&D."
And we can all respectfully agree to disagree while coming to the table with one thing in common: A love for D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm just going to say dnd has ships that go into space. Space. the whole no oxygen place? And you get there with a spellcaster? A spellcaster has enough energy to make that trip out of the world's gravitational pull? And your issue is lizards with boobs? I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm just comparing the "controversial topic" to similar "controversial topics" in relation. My point is this is all fantasy. A fantasy world as in not real. You can have boobs on lizards, bird humans, Robots, and pirate ships going into space. Or not. Go nuts. If you don't like it run a campaign without lizard boobs. If you like it what's the problem? Not everything has to be based in reality that's the beauty of imagination and ttrpgs. Go nuts. Have fun! :)
Yes, I would possibly take issue with a player insisting on their dragonborn having breasts. It is not at all about suspension of disbelief, it is a matter of boundaries and the comfort of the players at my table. I do not run games for people to find... release of a specific type and I really don't think my players want to sit next to the guy who has drool collecting at the corners of their mouth as he describes 'supple' this or that. As a DM, it is my duty to be cognizant of the needs of my players, but it is also my duty to be equally cognizant of their boundaries and to ensure that they are being respected. A player who insists on having breasts on a dragonborn is not a red flag by default, but I do immediately look for red flags when they raise issues like that. As I said, I would want to know why it is important to the player to have it. There may be a good personal reason for the ask.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
You misunderstand my point. The topic is frivolous. If you want lizard boobs in your setting fine. If you want space pirate ships fine. Its....trivial. Especially as a DM. The world is fantasy. If you do or don't that is your choice to make. Especially as a DM. Do players drool over elf boobs or dwarf boobs or human boobs ect? Personally the topic never comes up in the games I played. I always play a half elf. Personally this is because I like some of the racial feats. Also in some cases I am mixed myself so it adds to the character when my half elf (or at times half orc) has to deal with a dual heritage in RP. We also had a player who lost her breasts to cancer. She played as a busty Taxabi to cope with what she lost. We also had another who made a meme character based on the Argonian Maid. They both wrote their appearances down but it was rarely mentioned by them, the DM, or players. Breasts are part of the female anatomy. If the player makes it weird, its, in my opinion, up to the table to tell the player to dial it back. If they won't its up to the DM to write them out of the session. DnD is a collaborative game. I don't kink shame, but I also know its not real life. Not every table is compatible with every player. The question about lizard boobs shouldn't be a defining matter on whether a player can be a female lizard or play a setting. To me it means people have way too much free time on their hands and needs something constructive to do. Dragonborn females have boobs in dnd depictions. big deal. So do Aarakocra last I checked. Like any other humanoid race. the males have well male organs. Fantasy doesnt always makes sense. The DM can make a world of boobless humanoids the player can make a humanoid with boobs. Both have to come to an understanding or one has to respectfully find another table. Does that clarify things?
Honestly, while I know it’s becoming somewhat trendy to overtly throw out D&D canon just for the sake of it, the fact is that I really cannot see a reason to make this change besides titillation factor, regardless of how it’s framed. And where exactly have you seen them with curves in official D&D material?
Pyrathas, I did not misunderstand your point, I considered it and dismissed it with a not-unheard of explanation why it might be an issue at my table. Now you have given me more information to feel confident in my dismissal. You believe that because you have never encountered an issue before, it must not be an issue worth discussing. Your experience is not universal. Things exist outside your field of view. The topic is not 'frivolous' by any definition of the word. You ironically misunderstand the gravity, scope, and implications of the topic, which would be obvious even if you did not admit to it.
Also, I am not really sure what your intention was when inviting a comparison of playing mixed races to address my raised concern about fetishization, but it is a bit baffling. What do you think is the value-add for a dragonborn to 'deal' with having breasts in RP that parallels your experience in RPing a half-elf as a real life person of mixed race? In my mind, they are in no way similar or linked. To answer your question though, I am sure some players do drool over elven or dwarven breasts, but it is not something I want to introduce at my table.
No one... literally no one has said the question of breast should bar someone from playing a female dragonborn or lizardfolk. Some have said they would not allow breasts, not that they would not allow a female dragonborn to be played. I have only said that I would want to know why having them is important to their enjoyment of the game. Lastly, I have not seen all dragonborn art but to my knowledge, chasm-like cleavage is not something that has ever been shown in official art. What depictions are you referring to?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Google: "Player's handbook, 4e, page 34" Art by William O'Connor Or if you have the PHB 4e turn to that page. I do.
My point is women have boobs, big deal its natural DnD has lizards with boobs big deal its natural. DM and Player can interpret it as with or without boobs. Who cares? Thats the Beauty of DnD, there are rules and canon and there is homebrew. Just because a player wants their character wants boobs on their character isnt always a fetish. Hence the analogy of my mix race characters and the breast cancer survivor with the Tabaxi and the player with a "meme" character suffering from Chronic depression. If the first thing you think of is fetishes when it comes to a character's bust or chest size, to me, that says more on you than them. I never assume at the table. We are all there to have fun. If it doesn't matter if Dwarves and elves have breasts, it doesnt matter Dragonborn or other humanoids do. It is as I have stated rather trivial.
Can you indicate in my posts where I said that a player who wants 'boobs' on their dragonborn is automatically dragging their fetishes into the game?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Let me reiterate: do you have an official and current source? Design standards change between editions, and frankly 4e was phoning in everything that wasn’t combat based. And, again, what narrative value does adding this feature serve, aside from making the mental image more attractive to adolescent males?
First let me point out you did not specify "current source", you said "official D&D material". So you can't "reiterate" what you didn't specify. Reiterate means "say something again" You can clarify what you meant by adding to your original question, sure. But then you should be saying "Let me clarify...."
Now To clarify, and forgive the Long post but I will clarify since it is my fault I assumed people actually read articles tweets and blogs as well as sourcebooks, WOTC still owns the rights to that artwork and many others. If you tried to use the previous art for resale you would get in trouble with WOTC. Chris Perkins stated two things on Twitter and DnD Beyond:
"The current edition of the D&D roleplaying game has its own canon, as does every other expression of D&D. For example, what is canonical in fifth edition is not necessarily canonical in a novel, video game, movie, or comic book, and vice versa. This is true not only for lore but art as well.
This approach allows R.A. Salvatore to write Drizzt novels without having to worry if his version of the Forgotten Realms perfectly matches what we do in the roleplaying game. It means that a D&D video game can take elements from a series of novels and present them in a way that serves the game’s needs, rather than adhering to the sequence of events chronicled in the novels. Creatively, it’s liberating. This approach also acknowledges that different media have unique challenges and requirements."
In addressing the tweet from a fan he also writes: "Short answer: to visually distinguish females from males in 4th edition art. We removed the breasts in 5th edition."
Simply put, 4E is still cannon of its own, 3.5E is canon of its own, 5E is canon of its own. According to a tweet, 5e Dragonborn art has the breasts removed. There is no official text stating they have or have no breasts still, just they removed breasts from the art. This is left to reader and player interpretation. But come one do you really need to know if lizards have boobs or not? If so you need to look deep in yourself. These are still official. Books and games can draw from each edition as they need. This creates homebrew. And this is allowed in the Dungeon Master's Guide Chapter 1
"Your world is the setting for your campaign, the place where adventures happen. Even if you use an existing setting, such as the Forgotten Realms, it becomes yours as you set your adventures there, create characters to inhabit it, and make changes to it over the course of your campaign. This chapter is all about building your world and then creating a campaign to take place in it."
This means the moment you change a monster's stat block, alter an encounter, change a script, add to a campaign, it is no longer official lore but YOUR world. In example Giving a Young Red Dragon Legendary Resistance to increase the challenge for the players. Red Dragons, at least in the Monster Manual (I do not own Fizban's Treasury of Dragons yet) does not have this ability, Adult Reds do.
Which supports my original statement. Both of them. In 4e cannon they have boobs. In 5e they do not, but you are free to change this. To quote Chris Perkins "Creatively, it’s liberating."
Let me ask you your own question How does that affect the game other than you assuming they are horny adolescent males? What about lesbians? What about cancer survivors? what about female players? What narrative value doe a lizard having or not having breasts matter? Its up to personal taste. And if you have an issue with this, it says more about your ability to separate Fantasy from reality, and women's anatomy, than a player who wants lizards with boobs simply because they want it be it a coping mechanism for cancer, depression, trauma, immersion, or whatever. never assume the reason is adult themed without evidence. Lets try to be more accepting by cherishing the diversity of our fellow players and DMs by being inclusive and granting equity in their tastes boobs or not. In other words lets all have fun together and not deal with such trivial nonsense.
Trying to turn accusations around on me is not a strong argument. The crux of my point is that the current model of this race does not have these particular physical features, and given that they don’t particularly resemble humans, you’re really stretching to say that an individual could be reclaiming something about their irl image by adding them. The only reason to add them is personal aesthetic appeal, and frankly in this case it’s so blatantly incongruous as to be rather gauche imo. If a DM is willing to humor it that’s their business, but they are well within their rights to nix it without being accused of “stifling creative expression” or whatever.
I never accused you of anything, I said "if you have". Not "you have". That's more on you to answer. If you don't what's the issue? And I argue Dragonborn do "particularly resemble humans" hence
"shaped by draconic gods or the dragons themselves, dragonborn originally hatched from dragon eggs as a unique race, combining the best attributes of dragons and humanoids."
humanoid: having an appearance or character resembling that of a human.
And why does it have to be so "so blatantly incongruous as to be rather gauche " to you? why does it matter? Does it affect your game? your life? no? Then its trivial.
As for a bit of a stretch, that's not a strong argument:
Facing the demons: can Dungeons & Dragons therapy heal real-life trauma?
Can Playing Dungeons & Dragons Be a Trauma Treatment Tool That Bridges the Victim-Offender Overlap?
How Therapists Are Using Tabletop Games to Help People
Let Your Clients Fight Dragons: A Rapid Evidence Assessment regarding the Therapeutic Utility of ‘Dungeons & Dragons’
Role-play Games (RPGs) for Mental Health (Why Not?): Roll for Initiative
I can post more. But if it helps that breast cancer survivor cope, if it gives that depressed player a reason to live till the next session and each session after and studies show it helps them, how is that "so blatantly incongruous as to be rather gauche "? THAT statement sounds like a bit of a stretch. Breast cancer is not "so blatantly incongruous as to be rather gauche "Depression is not so "so blatantly incongruous as to be rather gauche ". Your statement however that only adolescence males want boobs is "so blatantly incongruous as to be rather gauche ". I will not be THAT player to refuse a breast cancer survivor or a depressed player the option to do so. I don't want them on my conscience because I want to be adamant on female body parts. Ill homebrew it in 6E if it means they can get better and continue seeking treatment so long as it helps their mental health. But luckily WOTC leaves it to interpretation so I don't have to concern myself with the triviality of anatomy in a fantasy world
The only 5e artwork that I believe is intended to be a female dragonborn is this great bard image:
Of course I've completely forgotten where it's actually from (Fizban's Treasury of Dragons or Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants maybe? I only have parts of the digital books and no physical ones to hand right now) but I'm pretty sure the character is supposed to be female. I suspect that lute placement isn't entirely unintentional.
A lot of other dragonborn artwork I can think of I seem to remember mostly being a bit vague with fairly athletic builds that could be any gender, aside from a few that are muscular in a more classically (human) male way. And I think that ambiguity in the artwork is intentional.
Ambiguity is something I've had fun playing with in the past as well; I played an Aarakocra in a Frostmaiden campaign and decided it would probably be very hard for anyone unfamiliar with the race to tell the genders apart, so I introduced the character as they/them, and they avoided questions about their gender, since it was something that to them was an irrelevant question to ask (they were not a small talker, and they were literally facing a god that was trying to freeze the entire world to death).
It was also a good exercise in trying to keep pronouns correct; turns out I'm absolutely terrible at it and very much needed (and still need) the practice. But it's also just kind of fun to play a character who doesn't have time for silly personal questions.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Oh yes I don't have those copies either. But exactly I totally agree. Its up to interpretation and totally fun to practice things like that. I find it helps gain a perspective on things you don't experience irl. And if everyone is having fun what does it matter if its they/them, he/she, boobless or boobs? like you said its silly personal questions. :)
I'm not sure you understood my anecdote, or I've not explained it very well; the character in question would hardly have been ambiguous if they'd had obvious female characteristics (or not, if female Aarakocra normally having them). Having species with that kind of ambiguity gives opportunities you don't get with others that don't have it.
Personally I see that dragonborn picture as flat-chested, but I said earlier I'm in the "no boobs" camp. I didn't even realise it was the canonical state in 5e, I just prefer races/species to be more distinct, so avian races should be more bird-like, reptilian more reptile-like etc., because otherwise why be an avian or reptilian just to treat it like any other?
The lute placement in the artwork may or may not actually be intentional, which does leave it ambiguous, but I also don't really see it hiding much.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Oh no I did in fact you gave an excellent example of my earlier statement of personal interpretation:
"I suspect that lute placement isn't entirely unintentional"
"I played an Aarakocra in a Frostmaiden campaign and decided it would probably be very hard for anyone unfamiliar with the race to tell the genders apart, so I introduced the character as they/them, and they avoided questions about their gender, since it was something that to them was an irrelevant question to ask"
"Personally I see that dragonborn picture as flat-chested"
"The lute placement in the artwork may or may not actually be intentional, which does leave it ambiguous, but I also don't really see it hiding much."
"Since the Text does not, and I declare, needs not, specify female or male anatomy as it does nothing for the narrative or lore, this is led to player and reader interpretation."
These are specific interpretations of the race from images and text.
As for the picture, A picture is worth a thousand words as the old saying goes. There are flat chested women irl. One could argue as well based on the placement and size of the lute she has small breasts based on how she holds it and it would hint her body or chest is supporting it. Like I said Player interpretation.
As for boobs no boobs camps I'm on neither. All I care about is are the players having fun? Then who am I to dictate the anatomy of their character. I am not a narcistic control freak seeking to dictate my views on Dragonborn anatomy on players. That's rather toxic. I don't see myself playing Dragonborn in the near future. But I also don't see whether a Dragonborn has boobs or not matters. Its for player interpretation until WOTC flat out says in 6E lore, One, or whatever they want to call it that "Dragonborn do not have boobs." Which a normal reader or sane player will be like "ok why does that matter?" But then, again to quote Chris Perkins: "The current edition of the D&D roleplaying game has its own canon, as does every other expression of D&D."
And we can all respectfully agree to disagree while coming to the table with one thing in common: A love for D&D.