So I've been playing 5e D&D with a friend of mine. We both know how the game works and most of the lore but sometimes he makes these crazy claims about race lore and anatomy. Like one time we were talking about dragons and out of nowhere he says that dragonborn have no relation to dragons, I ask him where he heard that and he says Volo's Guide to Monsters.. He doesn't have that book but I do, I found nothing in there that supported this claim. He also claimed that dragonborn aren't physically capable of reproduction, I ignored the obvious logical problems with that statement and continued treating dragonborn as a dragon-related that can reproduce. Another time he said its official canon that if a tiefling reproduces with a human the human becomes a tiefling... I didn't want to look up if that was true or not. He keeps making these crazy claims and I want to know if this is all actually official. and I know that its his worlds and stuff, but he keeps saying these things like they're WOTC official, does anyone know where this lore is coming from?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
my name is not Bryce
Actor
Certified Dark Sun enjoyer
usually on forum games and not contributing to conversations ¯\_ (ツ)_/
For every user who writes 5 paragraph essays as each of their posts: Remember to touch grass occasionally
Some of this is semi-offical or from past editions (mostly the dragon born stuff) but their still liars you no reputable source.I would give them a talking to at some point
I'm pretty sure he's just wrong and/or making at least some of it up...kinda reminds me of an ex-girlfriend who was a pathological liar and would often, without even thinking about it, just make stuff up off the top of her head rather than admit she didn't know the answer/subject.
He keeps making these crazy claims and I want to know if this is all actually official. and I know that its his worlds and stuff, but he keeps saying these things like they're WOTC official, does anyone know where this lore is coming from?
Agree with comments about possibly confusing lore of previous editions. I believe that the draconian race from older Dragonlance setting(s) were created versus being born, so he might be applying that concept to the 5E dragonborn race. Concerning the tiefling comment, I am not aware of any edition that states such a fact. Maybe confusing the concept that tieflings produce tiefling children despite the other parent being human (i.e., child becomes a tiefling versus the other parent being transformed).
That being said, is your friend the DM or just another player? If he's the DM, then the only lore that matters is what he wants his world/campaign to have. If he says that dragonborn in his world cannot reproduce naturally, then that's how it works in his world. However, if he's a player in the game, then he might need to verify his facts better to support his claims.
Yeah, the only lore that really matters is the lore at the table. A player just isn't in the position to say "this can't happen because of lore."
The Tieflings thing, in my interpretation/extrapolation Tieflings aren't a "race" but sort of pop up in infernally touched blood lines. More often than not there was no "mating" between the Infernal and the human, but a Tieflings showing up on a family tree reveals the fact that the family has infernal dealings in its history. Depending on community values this could be a disgrace or worse for the family, or it could be a mark of pride and elevate the family's standing, or could just be shrugged off as something that happens in the world. I also don't play it that once a Tieflings presents in a family tree, the Tieflings descendants have to be Tieflings. Maybe that's an old edition thing, it's not explicitly stated either way in any official 5e sources.
Dragonborn in 5e are organized into clans. That presumes they've got a generational birthing structure and familial ties, not a bunch of Dragonborn bumped into each other randomly and decided to form an intentional community. I mean, your game could have that, but it's not reflective of established lore. And yes, the friend may be confusing Dragonborn with Draconians. There's rumors that Draconians could become a sub race of Dragonborn in a future product, but there's been no UA or official word from the D&D design team confirming or correcting that rumor.
Some folks like to speak authoritatively, or more usually authoritarian-ly, on stuff they actually don't know on a basic factual level. Since you're arguing D&D its a small potatoes thing, though I imagine in the game as the friends claims become more easily rebuffed by say checking what Mord's says via the DDB app, the player starts suffering on the credibility front in long lasting groups. If the conduct doesn't actually break or harm your game, I'd just let it go. Sometimes as a DM I have a new player excited about some homebrew I've never heard of, or some old lore that got retconned, and excitement as these "facts" are unloaded at the table when an encounter is adjacent to this knowledge. I usually explain something to the effect of "well, there's almost a literal multiverse of stories as far as the workings and natures of magic and creatures in D&D. Finding stories and lore out of game can be entertaining, but if you haven't seen it at this table, don't trust it as an official word for what could or will happen in our game."
Usually in the last few minutes of our sessions we sort of debrief and if we're not in a cliff hanger I'll put my cards on the table and talk about how something in the game either fits into the rules or established lore or whether I've pulled something completely out of thin air but like it enough that I"m going to keep running with it. My most recent session I actually created a story that Mithril and adamantine were seeded in the prime material plane by celestial weapon smiths working covertly to give mortals the weapons they'd need to contend with threats from the Hells and Abyss (this ties into the story of Zariel in my game, her weapon smith now a fallen celestial and incognito NPC presence was instrumental in this. I actually have no idea about the actual lore origins of either metal but this fits into the game we're playing. But I told them "Yeah, I guess I'm sticking with that, I mean it's in one of the books you found in game, and I could always play it as apocrypha or a bad translation on your end; but you all seemed to like going through the books "Brutus" was reading instead of discovering the ship captains gun collection, so we'll probably just see where it goes).
That reminds me, lore can be mercurial. "What everyone knows" especially regarding sort of world pre history and nature of magic and stuff could always be overwritten by talking about how the story was a faulty translation or even an outright falsehood.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Draconians were created (as i recall) on Krynn (Dragonlance setting) through ritual corrupting metallic dragon eggs. I recall them as being unable to reproduce but memory is fuzzy on that.
Dragonborn (i think) originated in 3.5 edition. Originally they were another race that followers of Bahamut rebirthed through a ritual into a dragonborn. No clue what they did with them in 4th. My impression and assumption is now regular race in 5th.
According to 5th monster manual entry for half-dragons says something about them not being able to reproduce.
As mentioned, world lore even in official settings is up to DM and can vary from official lore if desired.
I assume your friend is mixing up facts. Probably simplest way to deal with it is the DM explain that not how their world/campaign is. I personally would just ask them to find where in whatever book/source they found it so DM can decide if using official lore or their own variation.
Disclaimer: any above "facts" are subject to my spotty reading of D&D manuals and possible memory errors 😀.
Dragonborn originated, as far as I remember, from some other plane where they were in fact slaves of dragons. Because of big events in the worlds these planes clashed and thus dragonborn, a few of them at least, ended up inside of our plane. I can't recall any information about them not being able to reproduce though. In addition, being slaves to dragon, most of them didn't believe in any good gods, especially not dragongods so more or less no clerics.. Though there came to be some exceptions in the world after a few started following the good dragons. They were outcasts of their society though.
The biggest issue in some of these cases is basically that while it might have been "canon" at one time, it's not anymore. With new editions there's not always a 100% canon follow-up which means while some things might have been true before they might not be now. And of course the DM makes their own version of the world anyways.
There's also some cool lore on why elves meditate + why they are good at what they do + why they like pretty things ;) Basically they lived happily ever after in their heaven with corellon laretian (or the other guy? ) but got tricked by... IIRC what became Lolth later, so that correllon lost his ability to shapeshift at will and forced him into his more solid form, so he cast them out into the world. This also gives a cool inside into what makes an elf "adult" or not. So basically the elves when they die come back to heaven cause he's not a complete prick (and needs followers to have power as well I guess) and when they eventually are reborn, they are essentially cast out of heaven. At first they dream a lot about their heaven, but the more time that passes the more they forget. Eventually they no longer get glimpses of heaven and then they are counted as adults. Because they stop seeing the peaceful beauty of their heaven they progress into becoming master crafters and similar, study flowers and so on, to find beauty in other things. When they become adult they celebrate it, but lets face it, its just a way to hide the sad fact they can no longer glimpse heaven. Also the really old elves start seing past, and perhaps future lives and have a sense of foreboding of when they are about to die (of old age that is). But honestly, before I found this out I didn't really like the elves but I kinda like the idea of these tragic lost souls wandering the earth trying to pretend like they arent as miserable as they are, living in some constant purgatory pretending they are fine ;)
But like I said, while this might have been true once there's not really any "new" lore that suggests this is the case.. But in my mind it explains the meditation (which is basically them just sitting around remembering pretty things, resting by thinking about beautiful things as a sort of way to almost, just almost, remember the feeling of heaven) and their craftsmanship and so on. It also gives a much more tragic and nuanced way of thinking about them. But while this lore is out there from different old dragon magazines or different editions of books, it isn't necessarily true today.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I've been playing 5e D&D with a friend of mine. We both know how the game works and most of the lore but sometimes he makes these crazy claims about race lore and anatomy. Like one time we were talking about dragons and out of nowhere he says that dragonborn have no relation to dragons, I ask him where he heard that and he says Volo's Guide to Monsters.. He doesn't have that book but I do, I found nothing in there that supported this claim. He also claimed that dragonborn aren't physically capable of reproduction, I ignored the obvious logical problems with that statement and continued treating dragonborn as a dragon-related that can reproduce. Another time he said its official canon that if a tiefling reproduces with a human the human becomes a tiefling... I didn't want to look up if that was true or not. He keeps making these crazy claims and I want to know if this is all actually official. and I know that its his worlds and stuff, but he keeps saying these things like they're WOTC official, does anyone know where this lore is coming from?
my name is not Bryce
Actor
Certified Dark Sun enjoyer
usually on forum games and not contributing to conversations ¯\_ (ツ)_/
For every user who writes 5 paragraph essays as each of their posts: Remember to touch grass occasionally
Some of this is semi-offical or from past editions (mostly the dragon born stuff) but their still liars you no reputable source.I would give them a talking to at some point
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
Oh, I should have thought about the possibility of getting editions mixed up. Thanks for the clarification
my name is not Bryce
Actor
Certified Dark Sun enjoyer
usually on forum games and not contributing to conversations ¯\_ (ツ)_/
For every user who writes 5 paragraph essays as each of their posts: Remember to touch grass occasionally
I'm pretty sure he's just wrong and/or making at least some of it up...kinda reminds me of an ex-girlfriend who was a pathological liar and would often, without even thinking about it, just make stuff up off the top of her head rather than admit she didn't know the answer/subject.
Agree with comments about possibly confusing lore of previous editions. I believe that the draconian race from older Dragonlance setting(s) were created versus being born, so he might be applying that concept to the 5E dragonborn race. Concerning the tiefling comment, I am not aware of any edition that states such a fact. Maybe confusing the concept that tieflings produce tiefling children despite the other parent being human (i.e., child becomes a tiefling versus the other parent being transformed).
That being said, is your friend the DM or just another player? If he's the DM, then the only lore that matters is what he wants his world/campaign to have. If he says that dragonborn in his world cannot reproduce naturally, then that's how it works in his world. However, if he's a player in the game, then he might need to verify his facts better to support his claims.
Yeah, the only lore that really matters is the lore at the table. A player just isn't in the position to say "this can't happen because of lore."
The Tieflings thing, in my interpretation/extrapolation Tieflings aren't a "race" but sort of pop up in infernally touched blood lines. More often than not there was no "mating" between the Infernal and the human, but a Tieflings showing up on a family tree reveals the fact that the family has infernal dealings in its history. Depending on community values this could be a disgrace or worse for the family, or it could be a mark of pride and elevate the family's standing, or could just be shrugged off as something that happens in the world. I also don't play it that once a Tieflings presents in a family tree, the Tieflings descendants have to be Tieflings. Maybe that's an old edition thing, it's not explicitly stated either way in any official 5e sources.
Dragonborn in 5e are organized into clans. That presumes they've got a generational birthing structure and familial ties, not a bunch of Dragonborn bumped into each other randomly and decided to form an intentional community. I mean, your game could have that, but it's not reflective of established lore. And yes, the friend may be confusing Dragonborn with Draconians. There's rumors that Draconians could become a sub race of Dragonborn in a future product, but there's been no UA or official word from the D&D design team confirming or correcting that rumor.
Some folks like to speak authoritatively, or more usually authoritarian-ly, on stuff they actually don't know on a basic factual level. Since you're arguing D&D its a small potatoes thing, though I imagine in the game as the friends claims become more easily rebuffed by say checking what Mord's says via the DDB app, the player starts suffering on the credibility front in long lasting groups. If the conduct doesn't actually break or harm your game, I'd just let it go. Sometimes as a DM I have a new player excited about some homebrew I've never heard of, or some old lore that got retconned, and excitement as these "facts" are unloaded at the table when an encounter is adjacent to this knowledge. I usually explain something to the effect of "well, there's almost a literal multiverse of stories as far as the workings and natures of magic and creatures in D&D. Finding stories and lore out of game can be entertaining, but if you haven't seen it at this table, don't trust it as an official word for what could or will happen in our game."
Usually in the last few minutes of our sessions we sort of debrief and if we're not in a cliff hanger I'll put my cards on the table and talk about how something in the game either fits into the rules or established lore or whether I've pulled something completely out of thin air but like it enough that I"m going to keep running with it. My most recent session I actually created a story that Mithril and adamantine were seeded in the prime material plane by celestial weapon smiths working covertly to give mortals the weapons they'd need to contend with threats from the Hells and Abyss (this ties into the story of Zariel in my game, her weapon smith now a fallen celestial and incognito NPC presence was instrumental in this. I actually have no idea about the actual lore origins of either metal but this fits into the game we're playing. But I told them "Yeah, I guess I'm sticking with that, I mean it's in one of the books you found in game, and I could always play it as apocrypha or a bad translation on your end; but you all seemed to like going through the books "Brutus" was reading instead of discovering the ship captains gun collection, so we'll probably just see where it goes).
That reminds me, lore can be mercurial. "What everyone knows" especially regarding sort of world pre history and nature of magic and stuff could always be overwritten by talking about how the story was a faulty translation or even an outright falsehood.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm fine with it being his worlds lore and stuff, I was just not sure if it was actually 5e official like he says it is
my name is not Bryce
Actor
Certified Dark Sun enjoyer
usually on forum games and not contributing to conversations ¯\_ (ツ)_/
For every user who writes 5 paragraph essays as each of their posts: Remember to touch grass occasionally
Draconians were created (as i recall) on Krynn (Dragonlance setting) through ritual corrupting metallic dragon eggs. I recall them as being unable to reproduce but memory is fuzzy on that.
Dragonborn (i think) originated in 3.5 edition. Originally they were another race that followers of Bahamut rebirthed through a ritual into a dragonborn. No clue what they did with them in 4th. My impression and assumption is now regular race in 5th.
According to 5th monster manual entry for half-dragons says something about them not being able to reproduce.
As mentioned, world lore even in official settings is up to DM and can vary from official lore if desired.
I assume your friend is mixing up facts. Probably simplest way to deal with it is the DM explain that not how their world/campaign is. I personally would just ask them to find where in whatever book/source they found it so DM can decide if using official lore or their own variation.
Disclaimer: any above "facts" are subject to my spotty reading of D&D manuals and possible memory errors 😀.
Sounds like your mate is getting his sources from bits of youtube videos without actually looking things up.
Dragonborn originated, as far as I remember, from some other plane where they were in fact slaves of dragons. Because of big events in the worlds these planes clashed and thus dragonborn, a few of them at least, ended up inside of our plane. I can't recall any information about them not being able to reproduce though. In addition, being slaves to dragon, most of them didn't believe in any good gods, especially not dragongods so more or less no clerics.. Though there came to be some exceptions in the world after a few started following the good dragons. They were outcasts of their society though.
The biggest issue in some of these cases is basically that while it might have been "canon" at one time, it's not anymore. With new editions there's not always a 100% canon follow-up which means while some things might have been true before they might not be now. And of course the DM makes their own version of the world anyways.
There's also some cool lore on why elves meditate + why they are good at what they do + why they like pretty things ;) Basically they lived happily ever after in their heaven with corellon laretian (or the other guy? ) but got tricked by... IIRC what became Lolth later, so that correllon lost his ability to shapeshift at will and forced him into his more solid form, so he cast them out into the world. This also gives a cool inside into what makes an elf "adult" or not. So basically the elves when they die come back to heaven cause he's not a complete prick (and needs followers to have power as well I guess) and when they eventually are reborn, they are essentially cast out of heaven. At first they dream a lot about their heaven, but the more time that passes the more they forget. Eventually they no longer get glimpses of heaven and then they are counted as adults. Because they stop seeing the peaceful beauty of their heaven they progress into becoming master crafters and similar, study flowers and so on, to find beauty in other things. When they become adult they celebrate it, but lets face it, its just a way to hide the sad fact they can no longer glimpse heaven.
Also the really old elves start seing past, and perhaps future lives and have a sense of foreboding of when they are about to die (of old age that is).
But honestly, before I found this out I didn't really like the elves but I kinda like the idea of these tragic lost souls wandering the earth trying to pretend like they arent as miserable as they are, living in some constant purgatory pretending they are fine ;)
But like I said, while this might have been true once there's not really any "new" lore that suggests this is the case.. But in my mind it explains the meditation (which is basically them just sitting around remembering pretty things, resting by thinking about beautiful things as a sort of way to almost, just almost, remember the feeling of heaven) and their craftsmanship and so on. It also gives a much more tragic and nuanced way of thinking about them. But while this lore is out there from different old dragon magazines or different editions of books, it isn't necessarily true today.