Differentiate between Draks and Drakes

[whitebaron]

what irks me the most is not whether something is called a drake or not - it's that people who want to use the meaning drake are getting forced/pestered to change the name into something different because of the very specific meaning of drake used here.

 

its a definition that applies ONLY to DC Dragon Requests. and thats definitely not something good. I never thought of DCs drakes to be drakes, either.

 

but thats my roleyplaying roots there, D&D does drakes not like Dove. Actually, thinking of it, noone does drakes like Dove did.

[Pixxelation]

I think Dovealove's type of drakes should be called Ochredrakes, as I remember seeing sketches linked somewhere (I think PF13 posted them) that Dove had done of other drakes in which they were all referred to as Breed Ochredrake, with Breed being whatever the species/breed of Ochredrake was called. Also, the Ochredrake description implies that the other drakes are descendents of the original ones, as it says that many variations/mutations of them exist. If this were to happen, I'd suggest renaming the original Ochredrake to Plain Ochredrake, or something of the like, to signify it being the simplest version.

[Fiona]

I think you guys are making it more complicated than it needs to be. Why should what things are called elsewhere be allowed to dictate here? I haven't seen much in the way of questions in help, or questions from newer people here, so it looks to me like the people who have the most issue with the current state of affairs is you guys talking about it here. In my opinion lengthening the name or changing it to something else will cause more confusion that it's worth, and all the proposals to here are just inelegant.

[whitebaron]

I think you guys are making it more complicated than it needs to be. Why should what things are called elsewhere be allowed to dictate here? I haven't seen much in the way of questions in help, or questions from newer people here, so it looks to me like the people who have the most issue with the current state of affairs is you guys talking about it here. In my opinion lengthening the name or changing it to something else will cause more confusion that it's worth, and all the proposals to here are just inelegant.

So. One spriters opressive opinion should be allowed to dictate what anyone else can do? Because thats what I read when I see the very restrictive "drake" definition here.

[Sextonator]

Mmm I think it's fine the way it is.

 

DC is a game, and it's built it's own definitions on dragons and their legends. Some of them may be a little more traditional, while others bend away from that and create something new. Our drakes might not be "traditional" but it really only seems to be a problem when making requests.

 

Since dragons seem to have such flexible terminology towards what's called what, why don't we just find a new name for the more "traditional" drakes instead of trying to rename something that's been a part of the site for years.

 

Or, you know, we can ask for a relaxation of the definition of drake, like TJ mentioned. It'd be a little more fun to play with drakes if we could have more variety in what's "mandatory" for their design. (Because honestly, I forget sometimes what drakes have to have and not having to be so strict would be easier and allow for a wider variety of designs while still fitting into a certain specification.)

 

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

[Fuzzbucket]

So. One spriters opressive opinion should be allowed to dictate what anyone else can do? Because thats what I read when I see the very restrictive "drake" definition here.

One spriter CAN do that if it is HER dragon, YES. (And I hardly think dove is "oppressive".)

 

How would you feel if you created a dragon with the name you wanted and a few years down the road someone (even a lot of people) decided to change its name without your permission, never mind approval ?

 

That's a quick way to lose good spriters, IMHO.

 

I'm with Sextonator.

Edited April 11, 2014 by fuzzbucket

[whitebaron]

One spriter CAN do that if it is HER dragon, YES. (And I hardly think dove is "oppressive".

 

How would you feel if you created a dragon with the name you wanted and a few years down the road someone (even a lot of people) decided to change its name without your permission, never mind approval ?

 

That's a quick way to lose good spriters, IMHO.

 

I'm with Sextonator.

@sextonator: i'm all for that solution, but obviously there are others like fuzz who believe just because dove created the first drake on dc, she should hold the whole species to her standards.

 

@fuzz: bad example. what is done here is to say something akin to "because blusang lindwurms are blue, any lindwurm needs to have blue scales on a part of his body."

 

btw: dove is not the oppresive one, its the believe that her definition of drakes should be held as absolutes.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

The thing is, they weren't even meant to be drakes, if I remember correctly. They were "draks" but the name looked too much like a typo and was changed. So they really shouldn't be drakes...

 

Also, Fuzz, that's like the person who created Sunsongs demanding every other Amphiptere on DC have color reflective abilities and green eyes. One person making a unique species is fine; one person stealing a typical draconic name for their very specific breed and making everyone else follow those rules to use a generic dragon word is not.

[Sextonator]

There is a level of what's canon and what's headcanon when it comes to the dragons of DC.

 

What TJ decides is canon. What an artist thinks is headcanon. Meaning, ultimately if TJ decides that the definition of drake means a lesser creature, then that's what's canon. Even though Dove has her list of requirements, it's technically all just strictly headcanon, and everyone can have their own headcanon, so we can bend it to mean that we don't have to really follow her rules to the T. We can have our own headcanons and TJ can decide if they fit into canon.

 

...I guess that wouldn't make sense if you're not big into fandom speech...

 

But basically, it's TJ's site and TJ's rules, so while Dove might have her own rules, TJ's trumps hers.

[lightningsky]

I totally agree with angelicdragonpuppy here.

I guess the only problem is, is what are we going to call these 'special' dumber dragons if they aren't going to be "drakes" anymore?

 

Honestly I like "Drak" even if it looks typo-ish. So we could have Drakes and Draks; Draks being their own sub-species which only breed amongst themselves. And Drakes can breed with all the other dragons. IDK lol

 

Whatever name they get, I would like to see these "dove drakes" to be separated from the term drake and have their own term.

[Obscure_Trash]

The thing is, they weren't even meant to be drakes, if I remember correctly. They were "draks" but the name looked too much like a typo and was changed. So they really shouldn't be drakes...

As I quoted above:

 

The first post about the drakes, from May 15, 2008, calls them the "Single-stripe Ocre Drake." The obvious "Ochre" typo was corrected, but the entire thread in which the Ochres were created (32 pages) does not mention "Drak" once.

 

As I said, Dove only changed to "Drak" when people thought "Drake" couldn't be used, but the original intention is clearly "Drake."

 

I'll verify this. I just spent quite a while looking through to see these. They were originally "Single-stripe ocre drakes". Dove does mention making more "ocre drakes"*. TJ calls "ocre" a typo so they were named "ochredrakes". "Ochre"/ocher (ochre being BE and ocher being AE, if I'm not mistaken) specifically means earthy colors, so I don't think one of the proposed solutions to just calling all drakes "ochredrakes" makes much sense, since clearly not all drakes are ocher in coloring.

*Other "ocre drakes" Dove did are called x Ocredrakes, similar to how ochredrakes were first "single-stripe ocre drakes". Ocredrakes were so named as a 'subset of the drake family due to the fact they are mostly yellow' and from what I can see her other proposed drakes were mostly yellow. Current drakes are clearly not all yellow, so I'm left with two conclusions:

1) "Ocre" was a typo for ochre/ocher.

2) Since not all drakes are mostly yellow (or other earthy colors), as I said earlier, just naming them all ochredrakes no longer makes sense.

 

And since it seems like it was possibly missed, I quoted two things by TJ here: http://forums.dragcave.net/index.php?showt...dpost&p=8173058 and the second is pointing towards "where is it stated that drake means wingless dragon?" because drake is used differently in tons of stuff. I have never seen drake to mean wingless dragon until I found conversation here. When I first posted I actually tried to wiki the word, as well, and found a variety of different means, such as some of those TJ posted.

 

~

 

Again, if we must change, "dovedrakes" or "lesser drakes" would probably be my choice.

Edited April 11, 2014 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Obscure_Trash]

Let's get out of the realm of "elitist artists" and other such snobbery. I see some posts trying to blame artists for... what, having ideas?

 

This is not an "artists vs. non-artists" debate or fight and I'm not going to tolerate such posts. Any further posts like this will be removed and the user given a warning. You can disagree with calling drake's drakes and still have respectful posts.

 

Yes, final say is worked out between the artist/s and TJ with TJ having the ultimate say. That doesn't mean users aren't allowed an opinion, but we can have one without sniping at each other.

[Sextonator]

So after thinking about this... I remembered that the list came out around the time the Glories were released, and since the Glories don't follow the rules that Dove listed, they can't be considered "real" drakes. Or maybe the list came out because the Glories were released, and Dove had specific ideas about what a drake was, and made the list... anyway, it shows that there originally was a larger scope for what a drake was before Dove posted the list. So, really, even though Dove has a specific idea for what a drake is, TJ obviously seems a little looser on the standards, and is willing to loosen them even more.

 

It just... thinking about the Glories and the list, it makes sense to ask for what constitutes a drake be widened so we can have a little more freedom, and so that everyone can be happy. (Though, we can try to respect Dove by using the list as guidelines rather than absolute rules, but they wouldn't have to be followed. I think/guess.)

[Fiona]

Frankly, I like TJ's comment that the restrictions for drakes could be relaxed. Dove had a specific vision for her drakes, but she's gone and we don't have to be confined to such narrow rules.

 

As I said, I think it would be more confusing to rename our drakes than anything. And despite people here thinking drake is supposed to mean a wingless western, I've been reading books and playing games involving dragons for nearly 40 years. It was only here that I found the idea that "wingless westerns are always called drakes."

 

-edited to remove the quote. Wasn't needed.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Fiona BlueFire

[angelicdragonpuppy]

The thing is... what would the new definition of drake be, then? Just a "stupider dragon?" That would be really hard to distinguish visually.

 

I don't mind "drakes" keeping their narrow list of traits--indeed, I think such specific appearances are the best way to make it clear why some large, otherwise fairly normal looking dragons can't breed with other ones, the antler / fancy wing combo helps make them distinct--I just want the name "drake" freed up again.

[MissNoShame]

I only read two pages of this and I feel like it got off the rail a lot with people feeling like there's personal attacks (and maybe there is, idk) going on.

From what I read and understood it's that people are upset by how specific the definition is for Drakes. Honestly, as an extreme dragon lover I have been under the impression a Drake was a much younger dragon, as said in one of the posts that Sock quoted.

 

Personally, on behalf of the artists who are striving to make 'Drakes', it would be cool to see the "specifics" loosened a bit, and it will be interesting to see what TJ comes up with, if he does change it.

 

But, I also think that if he doesn't change it then "oh well", because I don't really personally care what dragon is called what. You could call an amphithere 'lindwurms' for all I care, as long as the dragon sprites still stay the same and people continue to throw out really awesome designs and ideas.

Edited April 12, 2014 by MissNoShame

[Nectaris]

If the restrictions are relaxed, then how do you know what is a drake and what isn't? IF you went solely by inteligence and size, then I strongly suspect there would be some regular dragons that would already fit that description. To me, that would make things even more confusing than they already are.

 

I have never liked them being called drakes, from day one, to be honest. I'm not entirely sure why, I think it is that I never liked the idea of using a common term for dragon for a unique species. I think changing the name would be easier and better than loosening the restrictions.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Nectaris

[KageSora]

It was only here that I found the idea that "wingless westerns are always called drakes."

Same on that. Elsewhere, in various games/books/movies/other websites/etc., I've basically seen "drake" being used interchangeably with "dragon".

 

I've never seen it used to describe solely one specific type of dragon.

 

On DC, we have "DC Drakes", which are a specific type. Much like how to call something a "wyvern" you need to have it follow the specifications of a wyvern, or for a western dragon to follow a specific style. On DC, "drake" is simply more restrictive than the other categories.

 

I get that people want to use "drake" for a variety of things, so a re-name doesn't seem too bad to me, but I do think that it'll cause confusion. However I'd think the confusion would mostly be at the onset of the change, rather than a large, on-going thing.

 

Especially if we broaden the definition too much--then you might find some dragons currently existing or to be released that fit the new specs. And if it was never intended to have the restricted breeding... Either they need to be the "Exceptions" even though they fit the classification, or they'd be re-assigned and suddenly have more restricted breeding.

[MissNoShame]

Especially if we broaden the definition too much--then you might find some dragons currently existing or to be released that fit the new specs. And if it was never intended to have the restricted breeding... Either they need to be the "Exceptions" even though they fit the classification, or they'd be re-assigned and suddenly have more restricted breeding.

I would like to believe that TJ has a handle on things.

If he chose to loosen the specifications for drakes I don't think he'd just randomly go "oh well this sounds cool" and just throw it on there. I'd think he would actually put thought into what he was doing and how it would affect everything else.

[Sextonator]

I don't think a relaxation of the drake definition would mean that onsite dragons could suddenly count as drakes.

 

As TJ put it, drakes would be/are a cousin species... similar in ways, but still visually different. Well, in order for there to be a noticeable difference, there would probably be a wider/more dramatic visual difference between drakes and dragons. Actually, leaving the list dove made as guidelines that can be loosely followed could help keep a sort of visual connection between drakes without leaving a fuzzy line between drakes and dragons. Breeding categories would also help to establish differences.

 

I just really don't think a species name change is exactly necessary, especially considering how long drakes have been a part of the site, and how the very definition of drake seems to vary widely. Plus, the fact that DC has it's own rules and standards for it's species, suddenly changing them so they conform to outside rules that the site owner might not agree with/accept would be weird. TJ has his own ideas... even with the scope of the drake definition loosened, he'd still have his own personal standards that would be just as hard to guess as it is with dragons.

[olympe]

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

I think that would be the ideal way to go about it. Maybe say that, if they have wings, these wings need to be one-fingered (pterodactyl-like) wings. Even so, this gives you a number of options to "play" with the drakes: membranous wings, feathered wings (birds, anyone?), no wings, several sets of wings... It's all possible.

 

Opposable thumbs are pretty easy to ignore, as they can't be displayed properly anyway.

 

Antlers are a nice touch, but not needed IMHO. After all, why not have some neotenous drakes that don't develop antlers at all?

 

Then there's the membrane running down the sides from the wings to the tip of the tail. Maybe let people play with that, too. Let them experiment with nearly indistinguishable bit of skin to wings that are reminiscent of the ridgewings. Like the wings of the newly released Howler Drakes.

[Ashywolf]

There was an old D&D manual that had drakes which were wingless. But other than that, I'm not sure what other source lists them that way.

 

Some places refer to drakes as younger dragons.

[edwardelricfreak]

I'd like to see them called Dovedrakes. I don't particularly like Lesser Drake. Lesser just adds one-too-many syllables and seems weird when inserted into names. Maybe it wouldn't be inserted into the actual names, but it might cause some confusion that way.

 

Lesser Ochredrake? Ochre Lesser Drake. It just doesn't sound good at all. Dovedrake at least sounds better when inserted into the names, and it's a nod to Dovealove.

 

If they're not renamed, though, I guess that's fine. I won't personally think they're actual drakes, just differently-defined drakes in one specific fantasy world, but that's fine since I've been doing it all this time.

 

As far as the definition of drake, I WOULD like to see it relaxed. However, I believe the wings and antlers are the most important distinguishing features of drakes, so I think they should be mandatory. The wings could change a little, though. If anyone wants to know my opinion on it, I posted everything over here.

[Mysthunter]

I guess it is me, but I just see this opening Pandora's box. If we are going to start going back to clean up this or that we are going to find more "mistakes" that we will want to change...where would it stop?

 

I tend to think DC is in its own little place...where rules are relaxed and everything is fluid. Like TJ was saying there is no set rules...just accept Dove's rule and then do what you wish after that. You want to break her rules go for it, it is DC the only rules are the limits to your own imagination.

 

[Naruhina_94]

Actually we have "DC Drakes" or Drak that are Dayglory, Nightglory, Orchedrake, Glaucus and Howler and "Drakes" who are the normal dragons with 4 legs but none wings (like Magma and Water Walker, Mint and Sweetling). It bothers me to have so similar names, and it's a pity that the normal meaning of "drake" has been confused with the introduction of "DC drakes."

Maybe the Encyclopedia will solve this little problem, but I don't know it, so I propose to find a new offcial way to call the "normal Drakes".

http://dragcave.wikia.com/wiki/Dragon_Sub-Types

DC Drakes couldn't be called in any other way. In this game the name "drake" its fixed to them more than to the "real Drakes".

 

It could be a totally new one or something that remind the "drake" sound, However I would very like to don't have to specify the difference between them everytime, even because these two breeds are very different from each other.

 

EDIT: tahnks very much to the mod who moved my post and sorry for the trouble.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Naruhina_94