Differentiate between Draks and Drakes

[Syphoneira]

Drake: Drakes are a species created by Dovealove. They have a certain set of characteristics and can only breed with other drakes.

Drakes always...

 

Example: Orchedrake by Dovealove and Pokemonfan13.

 

 

Couldn't this be resolved simply by altering the definition to specify that Ochre Drakes ... are a species created by Dovealove. ... ?

 

 

Reposting this to ask again - why can't the definition of our current Ochre/Glorydrakes simply be made to specifically define the description as applying to Dovealove's Drakes, as in starting the description with Ochredrakes/Glorydrakes are, etc., so that the entire Drake classification isn't restricted to that?

 

Because it would indeed cause no end of confusion to alter the names of existing dragons, but then the general Drake classification could be used without a lot of complex stuff.

 

Occam's Razor gives a better, cleaner shave! lol

 

 

 

 

Re-edit: going by the full definition, it seemed evident that simply specifying Dovealove's Drakes by name would solve the issue without any other changes being required.

 

 

Found the full quote, and adding what I mean to suggest in brackets;

 

Drake: (Ochre/Glory)Drakes are (within) a species created by Dovealove. They have a certain set of characteristics and can only breed with other drakes.

(Ochre/Glory)Drakes always:

1. Possess no opposable digits on any limb (no thumbs)

2. Have antlers which are shed bi-annually

3. Are extremely good natured, obedient and eager to please

4. Are no smarter than your average dog, have short attention spans and tend to never forget training, despite the fact that it takes a long time to cement it in their minds.

5. Are small, ranging in size between the size of a cat and as big as a husky.

6. Are found in the same basic body plan as the ocredrake varieties, which are the most basal forms.

Drakes usually:

1. Have branched antlers.

2. Have only one wing finger and a sail of struts that make the membrane of the wing follow along the tail

3. Have black eyes.

4. Have three toes.

Example: Orchedrake by Dovealove and Pokemonfan13.

 

 

 

Isn't that a whole lot simpler than worrying about name changes or abandoning the use of Drake for all other potential sprites?

Edited March 18, 2013 by Syphoneira

[TJ09]

 

Reposting this to ask again - why can't the definition of  our current Ochre/Glorydrakes simply be made to specifically define the description as applying to Dovealove's Drakes, as in starting the description with Ochredrakes/Glorydrakes are, etc., so that the entire Drake classification isn't restricted to that?

 

Because it would indeed cause no end of confusion to alter the names of existing dragons, but then the general Drake classification could be used without a lot of complex stuff.

 

Occam's Razor gives a better, cleaner shave! lol

 

 

 

 

Edit: the full definition previously provided seems to have been removed but, going by that, it seemed evident that simply specifying Dovealove's Drakes by name would solve the issue without any other changes being required.

That doesn't work because of the claim here that the "traditional" drakes are wingless.

 

So you can't have ochredrakes as winged, no opposable thumbs, and antlers, yet say drakes are wingless.

 

Of course, I have found no evidence that "traditional drakes" are wingless, despite multiple claims in this thread. Trying to look it up myself, all I can find is more evidence that drake is not standardized in any way (and thus doesn't make sense to clear up the name for a specific wingless species).

 

• For example, I found that in MTG, drakes are actually wyverns (two-legged winged dragon-relatives), and the term "wyvern" doesn't exist there.

• Dragon Age has an interesting usage, as well. In their universe, it appears that females grow up to be dragons, while males (called drakes) are lesser beings that simply defend the female (and fight for the right to breed).

• I also found a thread that says that "Drakes share the same build as dragons, except they always have wings," which is the exact opposite of the label as people are trying to use here.

• And then, I saw the definition, "Drake: A younger dragon."

 

What I have not found in any of my searching is a definition that states that drakes must be wingless.

 

I am fine with relaxing the definition of drake to be more flexible (perhaps just leaving it as a smaller, less intelligent cousin species).

[skauble]

I'm kind of neutral on this, but don't we already have "traditional" drakes in the cave? So there's nothing that's actually keeping us from creating and adding more, right?

[Nine]

And if we rename the ochredrakes and glorydrakes to something else (which I am still against), what do we do with the dragons that currently fit the description of a drake?

 

It doesn't quite make sense to have drakes as a small, wingless, species similar to--but separate from--dragons, then have small, wingless, dragons that are indistinguishable from drakes in every way (or, as Kila puts it, "fit the classical definition to a T").

Just leave them be. The main benefit of getting rid of this "Dove's drakes = all drakes" kind of thing is to open up creativity with people making drake requests and stop holding them to narrow description rules. The current dragons that have drake-qualities can stay as dragons, since it's not a purely "every wingless dragon is a drake" kind of thing. Ducks all have feathers, bills, and webbed feet, but not everything with feathers, bills, and webbed feet is a duck. Drakes are traditionally wingless, medium sized, and have limited intelligence, but not all wingless, medium, dumb dragons are drakes.

 

Dove's Drakes can still be Dove's Drakes, and anyone who wants to make one of those specific types can do so. You just can't have it so every "drake" has to be a Dove's drake, which is what is currently enforced.

[Syphoneira]

Thanks, TJ!

 

 

Edit: and thanks to Nine for the above comment!

 

Not that TJ's needed reinforcement, as I assume that's pretty much what he meant.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Syphoneira

[KageSora]

I'm kind of neutral on this, but don't we already have "traditional" drakes in the cave?  So there's nothing that's actually keeping us from creating and adding more, right?

The problem, though, from what I can tell, is when somebody creates a "traditional" drake and calls it a drake--then people come in and go "You can't call it a drake, it doesn't have [insert things for Dove's Drakes here]!"

 

 

Personally, I'm all for allowing Dove's Drakes to be "drakes" in name, as long as in the guidelines for the requests forum it's clear that there are "traditional drakes" and then the specific type of "Dove's Drakes"--nothing on-site needs to change, IMO, just something specific needs to be said in the suggestions stuff to make sure that people know there are "traditional drakes" and "Dove's Drakes".

 

Perhaps just a little something extra could be added to the breed descriptions clarifying that they're the "Dove's Drakes" rather than "traditional drakes", if people are worried that if a "traditional drake" gets in-cave people will be all "HEY WHY CAN'T I BREED MY [traditional drake species] WITH MY [Dove's Drake species]?! THEY'RE BOTH DRAKES WHAT GIVES?!"

 

I mean, if people are worried about that, it could be explained away that they're more closely related to traditional drakes than other types of dragons, despite the vast difference in appearance--because that does happen in reality. There's a critter called a hyrax that looks kinda like it'd be a rodent-type thing, but is more closely related to the elephant, far as I can remember/find with a quick google search.

 

So it's not unheard of for critters to have very different appearances but to be more closely related than other critters they look more like.

 

 

So, in the guidelines for "drake" it could be broken down like:

 

There are two types of dragon that "drake" can refer to.  There are the "traditional drakes" [insert description here], and there are "Dove's Drakes", a type created by Dovealove and [insert description here]

[Pokemonfan13]

If TJ can't find any consistent definition for drake, and none that include the "classic" definition, why not make a new name for the wingless kind? There's no reason why DC has to use a "classic" definition, especially when the term "drake" is not a clearly defined term anyways. The ones in cave are already in cave using the term "drake". It seems to me that an unnecessary amount of confusion would be caused if that was changed. There are no "classic" drakes named so in DC right now. If dumb wingless dragons have to have a special term [the current wingless dragons are just called dragons] why can't they have a new one?

[TJ09]

Or, as I said, just relax the definition of drake to be smaller, dumb dragons. Presence of wings wouldn't matter.

[Pokemonfan13]

But the awesome special wing type is what makes drakes so special! I'd be OK if it was either that type or wingless, but allowing anything to be a drake.......

[Cori]

The definition for 'drake' that the OP posted:

small, wingless, dumber relatives of true dragons

 

Is a creature that I have always known as a 'wyrm'.

 

I think different societies and cultures have different set characteristics for their fantastical creatures, and that it's not really a big deal that DragonCave drakes don't fit one single definition of the word 'Drake'.

[Completely Different]

Personally, I feel like going with “Dove’s Drakes” is probably the best way.

 

I’ll admit, I’ve never really seen the term “drake” apply to a wingless western dragon, but a lot of people clearly have. Even if we can’t seem to trace why, it seems a bit of a hassle to deny it. While I’ll admit that I don’t see much reason why we couldn’t keep referring to wingless westerns as general dragons (such as the Magmas), having various sub-categories like wyverns which don’t have breeding restrictions make descriptions a little more interesting. I feel changing it to “Dove’s Drakes” clearly differentiates them, makes sense from a RP stand-point, and doesn’t seem like a typo. It feels like a fairly simple change that will get rid of a lot of confusion.

 

 

I don’t really like the idea of making “drake” refer to a “dumber, more animal like dragon” since a) I feel like the special wings and antler stuff made Dove’s Drakes special and cool and I don’t think that a lot/all of the wingless western drakes in the Requests are more animal-like.

 

I wouldn’t mind thinking up an alternate term for wingless westerns, either, though.

 

[skauble]

The problem, though, from what I can tell, is when somebody creates a "traditional" drake and calls it a drake--then people come in and go "You can't call it a drake, it doesn't have [insert things for Dove's Drakes here]!"

Yes, but what I meant was that we have the type of dragon in question in the cave. So someone can make as many as they want and that's fine. The only difference seems to be that they can't call it a "Drake" in the DC world. But seeing as we already manage to include them without the "Drake" reference right now, that doesn't seem to be a prohibitive problem.

 

What I mean is that the only thing this seems to be affecting is that if someone says, "I want to make a "Something-or-other Drake" they would just have to leave "Drake" off the name.

 

I just wondered if I was missing something and it was causing more of an issue than that.

[Pokemonfan13]

The definition for 'drake' that the OP posted:

 

 

Is a creature that I have always known as a 'wyrm'.

 

I think different societies and cultures have different set characteristics for their fantastical creatures, and that it's not really a big deal that DragonCave drakes don't fit one single definition of the word 'Drake'.

In DC those are legless serpentine dragons.

 

 

 

 

 

If a change must be made, and it can't be the wingless dragon, I guess "Dove's Drakes" is ok, but it is still annoyingly similar. If I'm looking for drakes in the completed list I'd still have to pick through all the wingless ones, since it would be called "Dove's rainbow drake" or whatever, not something I'd be able to qualify in my search.

 

But really, I agree with Kage. Why do they even need to be called anything at all? The dragons that fit the "drake" definition already in cave are called dragons. Why can't new ones made be called dragons too?

Edited March 18, 2013 by Pokemonfan13

[angelicdragonpuppy]

But really, I agree with Kage.  Why do they even need to be called anything at all?  The dragons that fit the "drake" definition already in cave are called dragons.  Why can't new ones made be called dragons too?

They could be simply called dragons, yes, but the forced deference of a staple type of dragon in fantasy to a single person's DC-only invention irks me. Speaking of Kage again, I think they said it best:

 

That'd be like having a 4-winged, 4 legged dragon appropriate the term "wyvern" and then everybody insisting traditional wyvern a be forced to have a new name because this new species stole it.

 

Can you imagine if the term sea serpent could no longer be used for general aquatic, serpentine dragons because a single spriter on DC had decided to define all sea serpents as anglerfish-teethed, glowing, massive dragons with the males decidedly smaller than the females? Or if someone had decided that all wyrms had to possess six legs and short tails? Even if the term drake isn't as solidified in definition as the other things mentioned (although, again, almost all the books I've seen have it pretty nailed down as a wingless western...), I still don't like seeing it being shoved out of general use by someone else's very specific breed specifications.

 

I want the word drake to be open for general use again. But I also feel there'd be too much confusion if we had drakes-that-breed-with-drakes-only (Dove's) as well as drakes-that-breed-with-everything. Which is why I think a slight wording change is best... although, I guess TJ's "define drakes as small and slightly dumber dragons" definition works, too, I'd just have to give up hopes of drakes that could breed outside a limited breeding pool.

Edited March 18, 2013 by angelicdragonpuppy

[Daypaw]

Perhaps just define "drake" as a "cousin to true dragons" without implying that they have any specific characteristics or are necessarily dumb.

[Syphoneira]

Lol, I've read a lot of books where drake and dragon are used interchangeably to mean the same dragon - and was Smaug referred to as a drake/firedrake by some in The Hobbit, or is my memory failing me yet again? (Been a long time since I've read the book.)

 

All of these different definitions of 'drake' floating around...

 

My OchreDrakes, btw, have a remarkably high intelligence level, although I can't speak for the others in the Cave.

[skauble]

Can you imagine if the term sea serpent could no longer be used for general aquatic, serpentine dragons because a single spriter on DC had decided to define all sea serpents as anglerfish-teethed, glowing, massive dragons with the males decidedly smaller than the females? Or if someone had decided that all wyrms had to possess six legs and short tails? Even if the term drake isn't as solidified in definition as the other things mentioned (although, again, almost all the books I've seen have it pretty nailed down as a wingless western...), I still don't like seeing it being shoved out of general use by someone else's very specific breed specifications.

Yes, I can imagine it. I imagine people thinking of a new name for it and it being something inherent only to the DC universe.

 

Honestly, I don't mine if it's changed. If Ochredrakes were changed to Ochre-something else I'd be A-OK with that. But I also don't think that it's absolutely necessary that DC be bound by things outside of this particular world. Dragons are fantasy creatures and many an artist or writer has taken liberties with them to make them unique to suit their needs. I don't see that as necessarily a negative.

 

Having said that, the one reason I can see as arguing for a change is that I know that a lot of people who play this game also role play, and that many times that involves role plays that combine many sources. In that respect I can see where it might be a bit difficult to merge something, if it does frequently conform to one standard representation (which I'm sensing some confusion on), with another thing of the same name that is largely different.

[KageSora]

Like I said, no need to re-name every in-cave dragon (that'd be stupid--if we did it for them, we'd be forced to do it for every dragon that doesn't mention it's breed name. We'd rename Nebulas to Nebula Wyverns, and Coastal Waverunners would have to be Coastal Waverunner Wyverns, etc.). But it would be nice to be able to make a concept that uses the word "drake" and not have it shot down for not following one person's vision.

 

Like I said, just apply the term to the requests rules, so that people know that there are Dove's Drakes which have to follow a specific set of rules, and drakes which is a more broad category.

 

No need to edit what's in the cave, or current requests--it would just allow for more naming creativity.

 

Or, if you want to argue that drake is just another term for dragon, then mention that in the rules and that "Dove's Drakes" are a very specific type of dragon, so that people aren't disallowed from using the word "drake" because another species appropriated it.

 

My OchreDrakes, btw, have a remarkably high intelligence level, although I can't speak for the others in the Cave.

Breed description says they're not bright, though.

[Syphoneira]

 

... Breed description says they're not bright, though.

 

 

(I got mine a tutor.)

[Wookieinmashoo]

Whose definition are we going off of? There is going to be a person out there who doesn't think wingless dragons should be called drakes. On the same note, it seems people think that wyverns turn into lindoarms if they have their legs in the front while every dictionary I've seen does not say where those legs are on a wyvern and lindworms are wingless dragons

 

It's because of these definitions that people think it's necessary to convince people in a dragon request thread to change the name of their dragon. I've seen this done before and it irritates me. Let people use the names they want for dragons, leave drakes as drakes. It's just a word used on DC. Leave the dragon names alone and leave people alone who do not want to conform to another person's idea of what X dragon is.

 

• For example, I found that in MTG, drakes are actually wyverns (two-legged winged dragon-relatives), and the term "wyvern" doesn't exist there.

 

Actually the word "wyvern" was and is still used on some of the cards.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Wookieinmashoo

[skauble]

Like I said, no need to re-name every in-cave dragon (that'd be stupid--if we did it for them, we'd be forced to do it for every dragon that doesn't mention it's breed name. We'd rename Nebulas to Nebula Wyverns, and Coastal Waverunners would have to be Coastal Waverunner Wyverns, etc.). But it would be nice to be able to make a concept that uses the word "drake" and not have it shot down for not following one person's vision.

Yeah, this is the part I'm not getting:

 

Person A: I have this great idea for a dragon! It's a drake and it's...

 

Person B: On DC drakes mean X.

 

Person A: Okay, I'll leave that word out.

 

Like I said, I don't have a pony in this race, either way is fine with me, but I don't see why ideas are getting completely shot down when all that would need to happen is changing that one word and then they'd be square with the DC 'verse as it currently stands.

 

No need to edit what's in the cave, or current requests--it would just allow for more naming creativity.

I admit, while I see the appeal in using "Drake" in a name, I'm not sure I'd necessarily mark tagging "Drake" onto the name of dozens of dragons as all that creative.

[ParticleSoup]

I don't think concepts are getting shot down, but it's the users who are going around to drake(either usage) concepts and are complaining when they aren't the same kind of drake as Dove's drakes. This is the behavior that annoys me(I've been guilty of it in the past), and I agree with everything Wook said. IMO, other users should just back off until the OP makes it known which drake they want to make, which should be obvious enough in the concept's first post.

 

The only reason those concept guidelines are there is because those drakes all belong to their own group. They need closer defining features than regular dragons have. Dragons have a much wider range of visual flexibility, so they shouldn't really be compared to drakes.

I like the guidelines because they keep them looking similar, like they should belong in the same group together.

 

I can compare the list for drakes to.. lets say one for bats:

Must have:

leathery wings with 5 fingers(four long digits and a thumb)

furry body

Optional:

big ears

small eyes

large leaf nose

 

The optional section of the drake's guidelines leaves plenty of room for straying, but still keeping the animal as a drake.

 

I honestly don't think any names need to change. It's not actually hindering anything either. Nothing said that people who want to call a wingless dragon a drake can't have 'drake' in its name and it still be a dragon, while Dove's drakes are still called drakes, too. Dove's drakes fit more closely in with the term I am used to; smaller, less intelligent cousin. It makes sense to me that they cannot breed with other dragons. In the past I've fought for calling them 'draks' simply because I like the way the word looks and sounds.

Edited March 18, 2013 by ParticleSoup

[KageSora]

Yeah, this is the part I'm not getting:

 

Person A: I have this great idea for a dragon! It's a drake and it's...

 

Person B: On DC drakes mean X.

 

Person A: Okay, I'll leave that word out.

 

Like I said, I don't have a pony in this race, either way is fine with me, but I don't see why ideas are getting completely shot down when all that would need to happen is changing that one word and then they'd be square with the DC 'verse as it currently stands.

 

 

I admit, while I see the appeal in using "Drake" in a name, I'm not sure I'd necessarily mark tagging "Drake" onto the name of dozens of dragons as all that creative.

I just don't like the idea of not being allowed to use it in a name because one person decided to appropriate an existing term for their own vision. THAT is what I don't like.

 

Like I said, I think that the differentiation between "normal drakes" and "Dove's Drakes" should mostly be in the guidelines section so that users who want to make a "Dove's Drake" know what to do for it, and users who want to use the word drake but not make a "Dove's Drake" can do that and know what to do for a "normal drake".

 

Don't make it so that nobody can make a "Dove's Drake" and call it a drake--they should totally be allowed to do that!

 

But other people should be allowed to use the word drake even if they're not making a "Dove's Drake".

[Shadowdrake]

How would that work incave, though? Do all Dove's drakes get "Dove's" attached before their name (Dove's Ochredrakes, Dove's Night/Dayglorydrakes)?

 

I kind of want to call Dove's drakes faedrakes now.

[Vhale]

I find this entire thread fascinating in a purely Orwellian sense.

/always thought of drake as a young male dragon