Jump to content
Malurosa

Why are DC morphologies?

Recommended Posts

DC dragons come in 8 distinct shapes:

  • Amphipteres
  • Eastern Dragons
  • Lindwyrms
  • Sea Serpents
  • Western Dragons
  • Wingless Dragons
  • Wyrms
  • Wyverns

Let's look at these groups' definitions outside of DC:

  • Amphipteres are bird-snake hybrids with precisely 2 wings, hence the name
  • Eastern Dragons are dragons from eastern cultures
  • Lindwyrms are snake-bodies dragons, often with taloned arms
  • Sea Serpents are wyrms but in the sea
  • Western Dragons are dragons from western cultures
  • Wingless Dragons are dragons without wings
  • Wyrms are dragons that are actually snakes
  • Wyverns are winged dragons with 2 legs

Now let's compare to DC's definitions:

  • DC Amphipteres are any winged dragon without legs, even if it is nothing like a snake or a bird, or has more than 2 wings
  • DC Eastern Dragons are serpentine dragons with 4 legs, which I guess is a type of eastern dragon, but it's still vague
  • DC Lindwyrms are just wyverns with forelegs instead, not lindworms
  • DC Sea Serpents are dragons with fins, which is pretty close to the definition in practise
  • DC Western Dragons are dragons with 4 legs and wings, which I guess is a type of western dragon, but it's still vague
  • DC Wingless Dragons are DC western dragons without wings, which do count as wingless dragons
  • DC Wyrms are pretty spot on for what they're categorizing
  • DC Wyverns, while they do count as wyverns, are defined too strictly

If I could change things, here's what I'd do:

  • Amphipteres → Winged Wyrms
  • Eastern Dragons → Long
  • Lindwyrms → Snake Wyverns
  • Sea Serpents → Finned Dragons
  • Western Dragons → Winged Dragons
  • Wingless Dragons → Standard Dragons
  • Wyrms → Wyrms
  • Wyverns → Bat Wyverns

Share this post


Link to post

Because the definitions given are from other sources, not from dragon cave. Terms like "wyrm", "lindwyrm", "wyvern", "dragon", "serpent", etc. are all pretty much synonymous in folklore/art history/etc. The separation of these into various "species" is just a fun bit of worldbuilding that's common in modern fantasy settings. 

It's a little like asking why Warcraft's fantasy races don't follow the lore of Dungeons and Dragon's or Tolkien's fantasy races of the same names.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Moondragon55 said:

Because the definitions given are from other sources, not from dragon cave. Terms like "wyrm", "lindwyrm", "wyvern", "dragon", "serpent", etc. are all pretty much synonymous in folklore/art history/etc. The separation of these into various "species" is just a fun bit of worldbuilding that's common in modern fantasy settings. 

It's a little like asking why Warcraft's fantasy races don't follow the lore of Dungeons and Dragon's or Tolkien's fantasy races of the same names.

 

This is a good way of explaining it. 

 

I've poked around the internet in the past for different dragon body-type definitions and it honestly does vary, the 'group's definitions outside of DC' listed are not at all set in stone. We are talking about mythical/fantasy animals that don't actually exist but have existed in *some* form in many cultures over time. There is bound to be some differences in what some define certain 'types' as, and none of it can really be wrong (or right) since they are fantasy animals shaped by historical culture (and the overreaching genre of fantasy) and not anything actually scientific.

Edited by HeatherMarie

Share this post


Link to post

The only thing I don't really like about how the morphologies are designed is that lindwyrms are always winged on this site, whereas in mythology and heraldry they don't have to be.

Share this post


Link to post

Is this a question or a suggestion? Or a discussion? If anything, DC's definitions are more specific, not less? 

 

At the end of the day, dragons are not real, so DC can classify them however it wants to in its own universe? 

 

I'm leaving this thread open for now as it seems to be an open discussion, or until OP clarifies. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Kaini said:

If anything, DC's definitions are more specific, not less? 

Yes, but they still aren't accurate to how these terms are normally used outside of DC

 

Also, this is just supposed to be a discussion on DC morphologies being poorly named. The definitions have already stuck, so there's no point in trying to suggest a change

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/28/2021 at 7:51 AM, Malurosa said:

Yes, but they still aren't accurate to how these terms are normally used outside of DC

personally i think that DC is it's individual game, and can use the morphology names however it wants. Plus, as Moondragon55 said, dragons aren't real (even if we'd like them to be), so the definitions will always be a little fuzzy.

Share this post


Link to post

The DC morphologies "are" for the exact same reason Drakes on DC are are referred to as "DC Drakes"; they're DC's version of the mentioned morphology. We just don't usually prepend "DC" to them because we all know what we mean within this context.
The definitions come about because the original artists of the original instance of that breed wanted them to be named a certain way. If anyone can really answer your question, it's them.

 

Edited by _Charky

Share this post


Link to post

O boy o boy, my favorite little topic of mine. 💖 I apologize in advance if something sounds harsh and it is not intended as such. I'm just very passionate about this topic. Also apologizes for the length.

 

On 10/27/2021 at 12:24 AM, Malurosa said:

Amphipteres are bird-snake hybrids with precisely 2 wings, hence the name

On 10/27/2021 at 12:24 AM, Malurosa said:

DC Amphipteres are any winged dragon without legs, even if it is nothing like a snake or a bird, or has more than 2 wings

Amphipteres are indeed hybrids of bird-snakes, but they are depicted not only with fully feathered wings, but also with more bat-like wings with feathered wing fingers in heralds. While DC Amphipteres do have more prominent dragon heads, they still have the signature body shape of amphiptere, being serpentine. The finest sample one can provide in this regard would be Sunsong Amphiptere.

The second pair of wings is more of a thought in anatomical sense, just so DC amphipteres do not have remaining tail hanging down while on flight. It would be harder to achieve elegant flight patterns with big amount of mass just hanging there in the end. Or magical assistance.

 

On 10/27/2021 at 12:24 AM, Malurosa said:

Eastern Dragons are dragons from eastern cultures

On 10/27/2021 at 12:24 AM, Malurosa said:

DC Eastern Dragons are serpentine dragons with 4 legs, which I guess is a type of eastern dragon, but it's still vague

Most prominently, when talking about Eastern Dragon, they refer to Chinese dragon. Both Chinese dragons and DC Eastern dragons are serpentine dragons with 4 legs. You, my friend, are contradicting yourself heavily about vagueness. You are giving no examples about body type of "dragon from eastern culture", thus not saying if you are speaking of Dragon Turtle, Qilin or the Chinese dragon people are most familiar familiar with. In Dragon Cave, there is only the definition of serpentine dragon with 4 legs for body type. Thus when talking about vague description of "dragons from eastern cultures", your explanation about dragons is vague as heck compared to Valkemarean lore.

 

On 10/27/2021 at 12:24 AM, Malurosa said:

Lindwyrms are snake-bodies dragons, often with taloned arms

On 10/27/2021 at 12:24 AM, Malurosa said:

DC Lindwyrms are just wyverns with forelegs instead, not lindworms

This is matter of poorly constructed wording. Taloned arms = forelimbs. Forelegs = forelimbs. It doesn't really matter if they are legs or arms when talking about forelimbs that are meant to help with movement on terrain. Also, all the DC Lindwyrms have the serpentine body of a lindwyrm, so I am not sure what you are jabbering about when it comes to them being "wyverns".

Also... lindwyrm having wings is nothing new. In fact, Lindwurm Fountain in Klagenfurt (Austria) has wings and it was built late-1500s.

 

On 10/27/2021 at 12:24 AM, Malurosa said:

Sea Serpents are wyrms but in the sea

On 10/27/2021 at 12:24 AM, Malurosa said:

DC Sea Serpents are dragons with fins, which is pretty close to the definition in practise

With this one, I can actually agree. I never really understood why exactly Sapo or Shallow Water were considered as Sea Serpents. If you were to ask me, I'd rename the group as Leviathan Dragons.

 

On 10/27/2021 at 12:24 AM, Malurosa said:

Western Dragons are dragons from western cultures

On 10/27/2021 at 12:24 AM, Malurosa said:

DC Western Dragons are dragons with 4 legs and wings, which I guess is a type of western dragon, but it's still vague

Western Dragons usually are in reference to European dragons.

Again, contradiction of "dragons from western cultures" in matter of vagueness. Please provide an example what you are referring to body-type wise. Otherwise DC Western Dragon is far more well defined than your poorly depicted group of dragons that can be reference to Quetzalcoatl (some believe it to be dragon, some to be snake), Dacian Draco (wyrm) or any other dragon that is from Europe that definitely don't have 4 legs and two wings. Heck, you could very well be talking from Hydra as well as far as one would know.

 

On 10/27/2021 at 12:24 AM, Malurosa said:

Wingless Dragons are dragons without wings

On 10/27/2021 at 12:24 AM, Malurosa said:

DC Wingless Dragons are DC western dragons without wings, which do count as wingless dragons

On 10/27/2021 at 12:24 AM, Malurosa said:

Wingless Dragons → Standard Dragons

Wouldn't this make Eastern Dragon also as "standard dragon" while keeping in mind that you ignored to elaborate on body-type of Eastern dragon previously? And while keeping in mind the argument of "dragon from eastern culture", Dragon Turtle and Qilin would also fall to "standard dragon" category. Even further elaboration... given that you said "dragons from western cultures" previously, any dragon like Dacian Draco that was previously mentioned aas wyrm would also be defined as "standard dragon". A moment to rethink the wording or to provide examples, my friend?

Though personally I always found myself calling these types of dragons as "drake", until DC Draks happened.

 

On 10/27/2021 at 12:24 AM, Malurosa said:

Wyrms are dragons that are actually snakes

On 10/27/2021 at 12:24 AM, Malurosa said:

DC Wyrms are pretty spot on for what they're categorizing

Personally I would love them to be renamed as "noodles" 😍

Though when thinking about it, Sea Serpents are also Wyrms, technically speaking.

 

On 10/27/2021 at 12:24 AM, Malurosa said:

Wyverns are winged dragons with 2 legs

On 10/27/2021 at 12:24 AM, Malurosa said:

DC Wyverns, while they do count as wyverns, are defined too strictly

But... first you complained about DC definitions being too vague... now the definition is too strict when it is as they should be, winged dragons with 2 legs? This is heaviest contradiction on your part when it comes to desire of outside DC definitions to be as accurate to DC definitions. Did you want them to be as accurate as outside of DC or not? You wanted 2 legs and wings, you got 2 legs and wings, what more can you ask for? Otherwise you can have almost anything from leather, fur or feathers for all one would care.

 

 

Ultimately though, given that we are in entirely different dimension/universe called Valkemare, so lore-wise the denizens of that world would most likely be very confused about why some of the dragons have snake-head or what on earth would be Chinese dragon. Or Dragon turtle for the matter.

But I am genuinely curious where exactly you are pulling these definitions outside of DC from? What prompts one to dictate the rules of morphology on a fantasy creature?

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Moonlightelf said:

a large amount of talking

This was super interesting to read! Dont worry, there is no problem with the length :D 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Moonlightelf said:

Amphipteres are indeed hybrids of bird-snakes, but they are depicted not only with fully feathered wings, but also with more bat-like wings with feathered wing fingers in heralds. While DC Amphipteres do have more prominent dragon heads, they still have the signature body shape of amphiptere, being serpentine. The finest sample one can provide in this regard would be Sunsong Amphiptere.

The second pair of wings is more of a thought in anatomical sense, just so DC amphipteres do not have remaining tail hanging down while on flight. It would be harder to achieve elegant flight patterns with big amount of mass just hanging there in the end. Or magical assistance.

The term amphiptere has always referred specifically to bird-snakes, rather than just winged serpentines. And having many-winged dragons in the category that is quite literally called 'two wings' is a little annoying to me

1 hour ago, Moonlightelf said:

Most prominently, when talking about Eastern Dragon, they refer to Chinese dragon. Both Chinese dragons and DC Eastern dragons are serpentine dragons with 4 legs. You, my friend, are contradicting yourself heavily about vagueness. You are giving no examples about body type of "dragon from eastern culture", thus not saying if you are speaking of Dragon Turtle, Qilin or the Chinese dragon people are most familiar familiar with. In Dragon Cave, there is only the definition of serpentine dragon with 4 legs for body type. Thus when talking about vague description of "dragons from eastern cultures", your explanation about dragons is vague as heck compared to Valkemarean lore.

My point was that there are other dragons in eastern cultures which do not fit the mold of a serpentine quadruped, and so the name doesn't fit the definition 

1 hour ago, Moonlightelf said:

This is matter of poorly constructed wording. Taloned arms = forelimbs. Forelegs = forelimbs. It doesn't really matter if they are legs or arms when talking about forelimbs that are meant to help with movement on terrain. Also, all the DC Lindwyrms have the serpentine body of a lindwyrm, so I am not sure what you are jabbering about when it comes to them being "wyverns".

Also... lindwyrm having wings is nothing new. In fact, Lindwurm Fountain in Klagenfurt (Austria) has wings and it was built late-1500s.

A wyvern is a bipedal dragon with wings, which is a definition that DC lindwyrms adhere to. Hence, they are wyverns. While there are winger lindwyrms, they seem to be the exception rather than the rule

1 hour ago, Moonlightelf said:

Western Dragons usually are in reference to European dragons.

Again, contradiction of "dragons from western cultures" in matter of vagueness. Please provide an example what you are referring to body-type wise. Otherwise DC Western Dragon is far more well defined than your poorly depicted group of dragons that can be reference to Quetzalcoatl (some believe it to be dragon, some to be snake), Dacian Draco (wyrm) or any other dragon that is from Europe that definitely don't have 4 legs and two wings. Heck, you could very well be talking from Hydra as well as far as one would know.

My point here is that the term 'western dragon' encompasses many dragons that aren't DC western dragons

1 hour ago, Moonlightelf said:

Wouldn't this make Eastern Dragon also as "standard dragon" while keeping in mind that you ignored to elaborate on body-type of Eastern dragon previously? And while keeping in mind the argument of "dragon from eastern culture", Dragon Turtle and Qilin would also fall to "standard dragon" category. Even further elaboration... given that you said "dragons from western cultures" previously, any dragon like Dacian Draco that was previously mentioned as wyrm would also be defined as "standard dragon". A moment to rethink the wording or to provide examples, my friend?

Though personally I always found myself calling these types of dragons as "drake", until DC Draks happened.

The term 'Wingless dragon' includes wyrms, sea serpents, and other distinct morphological, and so the name doesn't fit

1 hour ago, Moonlightelf said:

But... first you complained about DC definitions being too vague... now the definition is too strict when it is as they should be, winged dragons with 2 legs? This is heaviest contradiction on your part when it comes to desire of outside DC definitions to be as accurate to DC definitions. Did you want them to be as accurate as outside of DC or not? You wanted 2 legs and wings, you got 2 legs and wings, what more can you ask for? Otherwise you can have almost anything from leather, fur or feathers for all one would care.

The criteria of two legs and wings also includes DC lindwyrms, as mentioned above. Hence, the name 'wyvern', when referring only to the bird/bat form of dragon, is too strictly defined for me

1 hour ago, Moonlightelf said:

Ultimately though, given that we are in entirely different dimension/universe called Valkemare, so lore-wise the denizens of that world would most likely be very confused about why some of the dragons have snake-head or what on earth would be Chinese dragon. Or Dragon turtle for the matter.

These definitions (or the names at least) don't seem to be an in-universe thing, so I don't see how this is much relevant

1 hour ago, Moonlightelf said:

But I am genuinely curious where exactly you are pulling these definitions outside of DC from? What prompts one to dictate the rules of morphology on a fantasy creature?

I learned these definitions from some research, mainly on Wikipedia

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Malurosa said:

The term amphiptere has always referred specifically to bird-snakes, rather than just winged serpentines. And having many-winged dragons in the category that is quite literally called 'two wings' is a little annoying to me

And I would find it more annoying if the dragon wasn't able to support itself or over-exerts itself to the point that it wouldn't be able to fly in the first place. Plus, Quetzalcoatl would still be considered as amphiptere even without wings (and has been depicted as such in Aztec culture), given that the mythical creature itself has the bird-like feathers instead of scales, hence fulfills the criteria of bird-snake even without the wings that modern day art puts on it. Thus literal "two wings" is moot point to that Aztec god.

 

39 minutes ago, Malurosa said:

A wyvern is a bipedal dragon with wings, which is a definition that DC lindwyrms adhere to. Hence, they are wyverns. While there are winger lindwyrms, they seem to be the exception rather than the rule

1 hour ago, Malurosa said:

The criteria of two legs and wings also includes DC lindwyrms, as mentioned above. Hence, the name 'wyvern', when referring only to the bird/bat form of dragon, is too strictly defined for me

Lindwyrms also adhere to rule of having a snake-like body, which is why they have the word "wyrm" attached to them. As far as I see it, you are essentially trying to change the entire behavior pattern of lindwyrm just because DC Lindwyrms tend to have wings to make them more likely to be included into Cave. Lindwyrms also tend to have forelimbs, not back-limbs (unless on very rare case).

 

Wyverns move around with their hind-legs, sometimes even with assistance of their wings with body fully supported by their limbs. They are not dragging their entire bodies against ground like lindwyrms do. Even none of the currently classified DC Wyvern wouldn't be dragging themselves by their stomachs on the ground, and huge majority of them have hind-legs.

 

Big difference, and hence why they are called lindwyrms, not lindwyverns. Amount of limbs or wings doesn't change the body type that defines the very core of the morphology in question, which dictates how it behaves as it is moving. Therefore, when you think about it bit more, lindwyrms are even more restricted, given that they have to have the serpentine body, while wyvern still allows some room to be played with.

 

58 minutes ago, Malurosa said:

My point was that there are other dragons in eastern cultures which do not fit the mold of a serpentine quadruped, and so the name doesn't fit the definition

58 minutes ago, Malurosa said:

My point here is that the term 'western dragon' encompasses many dragons that aren't DC western dragons

And somehow "standard" dragon would achieve this? What would be set as the "standard"? Because Wingless certainly are not the "standard" if majority of the quadrupedal dragons have wings in DC. In fact, DC Western Dragon would be far more of a standard than what you suggested. And Wingless most likely "deviation" because they have no wings.

 

My point, however, still stands in regards of your lack of supportive information and examples in what you meant in the first place. You made a claim that DC morphologies of Western and Eastern was more vague when in reality, your example was taking into account far wider amount of dragons types and being much more vague about what you meant in the first place. Thus, your off-site definitions were much more vague than what DC definitions were.

 

28 minutes ago, Malurosa said:

These definitions (or the names at least) don't seem to be an in-universe thing, so I don't see how this is much relevant

It is quite relevant actually. If you indeed were referring mostly to Chinese Dragon that is the "Loong/Long/Lung", there isn't much of "China" in Valkemare to talk about, given that we can't use real world places. The closest we can get is "Eastern Dragon" that is more widely accepted and more generally known to mean wingless quadrupedal dragon with a long body (in Valkemare itself the morphology would be classified differently, we just don't know what). In the end, in our world term "Eastern dragon" nearly automatically brings into mind the classical Chinese dragon when brought up as a topic generally. Even Wikipedia redirects to that page when searching for Eastern Dragon. So either we would need more convoluted name that may drive people away or make them confused, or stick to what majority is familiar with.

 

48 minutes ago, Malurosa said:

I learned these definitions from some research, mainly on Wikipedia

So did I, along with more links and examples provided as support and evidence, which I had to dig on your behalf. You're welcome. 💖

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Moonlightelf said:

 

Ultimately though, given that we are in entirely different dimension/universe called Valkemare, so lore-wise the denizens of that world would most likely be very confused about why some of the dragons have snake-head or what on earth would be Chinese dragon. Or Dragon turtle for the matter.

 

 

Love this entire post (and learned a lot, thanks!), but yeah it basically boils down to this. This is a fantasy game set in a place that is not Earth with characters that are not going to have *our* understanding of Chinese/Western/etc culture or traditions. DC dragons don't *have* to follow the exact definition of what some other source says a term means (on Earth, in our own cultures) because it's just.... Not real. It doesn't follow our own world and doesn't need to.  (And, again, these so-called definitions differ even among internet sources and our own cultures, so....)

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Moonlightelf said:

And I would find it more annoying if the dragon wasn't able to support itself or over-exerts itself to the point that it wouldn't be able to fly in the first place. Plus, Quetzalcoatl would still be considered as amphiptere even without wings (and has been depicted as such in Aztec culture), given that the mythical creature itself has the bird-like feathers instead of scales, hence fulfills the criteria of bird-snake even without the wings that modern day art puts on it. Thus literal "two wings" is moot point to that Aztec god.

An amphiptere is, based on outside definitons, an avian snake with 2 wings and feathers. If it doesn't follow this plan, it isn't an amphiptere. And I ever said to change dragons to fit with the name of their morphology

6 hours ago, Moonlightelf said:

Lindwyrms also adhere to rule of having a snake-like body, which is why they have the word "wyrm" attached to them. As far as I see it, you are essentially trying to change the entire behavior pattern of lindwyrm just because DC Lindwyrms tend to have wings to make them more likely to be included into Cave. Lindwyrms also tend to have forelimbs, not back-limbs (unless on very rare case).

 

Wyverns move around with their hind-legs, sometimes even with assistance of their wings with body fully supported by their limbs. They are not dragging their entire bodies against ground like lindwyrms do. Even none of the currently classified DC Wyvern wouldn't be dragging themselves by their stomachs on the ground, and huge majority of them have hind-legs.

 

Big difference, and hence why they are called lindwyrms, not lindwyverns. Amount of limbs or wings doesn't change the body type that defines the very core of the morphology in question, which dictates how it behaves as it is moving. Therefore, when you think about it bit more, lindwyrms are even more restricted, given that they have to have the serpentine body, while wyvern still allows some room to be played with.

A wyvern is quite explicitly any bipedal dragon with wings. If you look at older depictions, you will find that the DC lindwyrm form is quite well represented among the wyverns, and I'd be willing to bet that this is how most historical dragons of this shape are named

6 hours ago, Moonlightelf said:

And somehow "standard" dragon would achieve this? What would be set as the "standard"? Because Wingless certainly are not the "standard" if majority of the quadrupedal dragons have wings in DC. In fact, DC Western Dragon would be far more of a standard than what you suggested. And Wingless most likely "deviation" because they have no wings.

They are standard for tetrapods, which seems like a useful place to base our classification on

6 hours ago, Moonlightelf said:

My point, however, still stands in regards of your lack of supportive information and examples in what you meant in the first place. You made a claim that DC morphologies of Western and Eastern was more vague when in reality, your example was taking into account far wider amount of dragons types and being much more vague about what you meant in the first place. Thus, your off-site definitions were much more vague than what DC definitions were.

My claim was that the names, with the outside definition, are too vague compared to the DC definitons

6 hours ago, Moonlightelf said:

It is quite relevant actually. If you indeed were referring mostly to Chinese Dragon that is the "Loong/Long/Lung", there isn't much of "China" in Valkemare to talk about, given that we can't use real world places. The closest we can get is "Eastern Dragon" that is more widely accepted and more generally known to mean wingless quadrupedal dragon with a long body (in Valkemare itself the morphology would be classified differently, we just don't know what). In the end, in our world term "Eastern dragon" nearly automatically brings into mind the classical Chinese dragon when brought up as a topic generally. Even Wikipedia redirects to that page when searching for Eastern Dragon. So either we would need more convoluted name that may drive people away or make them confused, or stick to what majority is familiar with.

We could also call eastern dragons 'serpentine dragons' for my alternate system. And perhaps replace 'dragon', in morphology names, with 'quadruped' for the purposes of specificity. So we'd get:

  • Amphipteres → Winged Wyrms
  • Eastern Dragons → Serpentine Quadrupeds
  • Lindwyrms → Snake Wyverns
  • Sea Serpents → Finned Wyrms
  • Western Dragons → Winged Quadrupeds
  • Wingless Dragons → Quadrupeds
  • Wyrms → Wyrms
  • Wyverns → Bat Wyverns
Edited by Malurosa

Share this post


Link to post

The terms used here are the terms used here. They work just fine, and don't have to be referenced from other places - "real" or otherwise. Almost all of us know what we mean by each of them and changing anything would be a real pain in the butt.

Share this post


Link to post

Considering how often people get tripped up by them anyway, changing the name of easterns and westerns to your suggestions extends the occasional wingless/eastern confusion that already happens to hit basically every dragon with four limbs, and would probably be worse considering that people would *not* be using the full names of any of these in casual conversation. And having multiple kinds of dragon labelled wyvern/wyrm would also be confusing--people get tripped up enough over dragon shapes without having duplicated names adding to it.

 

This really feels like an extension of the complaints that drake on DC is used to refer to DC's drakes rather than whatever the person speaking thinks it should mean.

Edited by Guillotine

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Guillotine said:

And having multiple kinds of dragon labelled wyvern/wyrm would also be confusing--people get tripped up enough over dragon shapes without having duplicated names adding to it.

Perhaps we could devise a system without duplicate names? For example: 

  • Amphipteres → Winged Serpents
  • Eastern Dragons → Longs
  • Lindwyrms → Wyverns
  • Sea Serpents → Aquatic
  • Western Dragons → Winged Quadrupeds
  • Wingless Dragons → Tetrapodal
  • Wyrms → Wyrms
  • Wyverns → Avian

Share this post


Link to post

Why do we need a new system at all? None of the proposed changes/names so far seem any better or less confusing to the casual-player than what we have now. 'Longs', really? That is the most vague and confusing morphology I've ever seen. Most casual-users aren't going to understand 'Tetrapodal' is the same as 'Wingless'. "Avian' could apply to a *ton* of different DC dragons, 'avian' literally means 'relating to birds' so you could easily say that any and all dragons that have any bird-like features should be labeled 'avian'.   Most casual users aren't going to be *any* less confused or understand the body-types any better at all by changing to even more vague names like the ones suggested. 

Share this post


Link to post

The site has been running 15+ years, and this just seems like confusing the issue. They're all dragons and that is what I call them, regardless of sub-types.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

'Longs', really?

It's at least a bit more specific

4 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

Most casual-users aren't going to understand 'Tetrapodal' is the same as 'Wingless'.

Why not? It seems like a reasonable conclusion; that morphology is the closest one to regular tetrapods, and it is four-footed (tetra-podal)

4 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

"Avian' could apply to a *ton* of different DC dragons, 'avian' literally means 'relating to birds' so you could easily say that any and all dragons that have any bird-like features should be labeled 'avian'. 

But only DC wyverns are avian in their overall morphology, and so it would be pretty unambiguos

4 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

Most casual users aren't going to be *any* less confused or understand the body-types any better at all by changing to even more vague names like the ones suggested. 

I don't see how my ideas are any vaguer than the original names

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Malurosa said:

It's at least a bit more specific

Why not? It seems like a reasonable conclusion; that morphology is the closest one to regular tetrapods, and it is four-footed (tetra-podal)

But only DC wyverns are avian in their overall morphology, and so it would be pretty unambiguos

I don't see how my ideas are any vaguer than the original names

 

Try to look at this from the perspective of someone who doesn't know outside-definitions of different types of dragons, or any type of scientific classifications in general. For the regular, every-day user playing a pixel dragon game, "Tetrapodal" is a completely foreign word. What does it mean, who knows. It's definitely not synonymous with "Wingless". If a casual users were to look up the term, they would see things like 

Definition of tetrapod
: a vertebrate (such as an amphibian, a bird, or a mammal) with two pairs of limbs

(from merriam-webster)

 

which can apply to a *lot* more dragons on DC than just the Wingless ones. 

 

Avian, again, literally means "relating to birds", not "overall morphology like birds".  Take the actual definition in that sense and your categorization is too limiting, the only other way to define "Avian" is "everything scientifically categorized as birds" which also would not fit DC dragons. 

 

You seem to try to be pushing science/Earth-based categories even though this game does *not* take place on Earth, and even your proposed categories are not concrete and wouldn't even apply to DC dragons the same.   I don't want to argue about this, but it really comes down to the wrong mindset. DC is not Real Life. DC does not *need* to be Real Life.  Trying to force already-established DC categories into 'real word' categories' just doesn't make sense and really isn't something the game needs. 

Share this post


Link to post

Love me some dragon lore and etymology, but I agree that these name changes wouldn't really help in terms of making the morphology/classification of DC dragons any easier to understand. You're welcome to refer to dragons however you want, but it doesn't mean they should be changed to fit your understanding of dragon mythos. 

 

Long/Lung refers to dragons in a specific culture.

 

To me, snake wyverns and winged wyms sound like synonyms. A wyrm is a snake. 

 

Not all western DC dragons have wings (magma, for example).

 

Standard dragons lack contextual clues. For example, the red dragon is depicted as a typical ("standard") storybook dragon and it has wings. As such, I'd assume standard dragons have wings.

 

Some non-sea serpent dragons have fins. Like stratos dragons. 

 

And wyverns are already an easily understood term. Bats are mammals, anyway. I don't understand why you'd use one term to classify a wyvern by body shape (snake) and another by wing shape (bat). 

Edited by Jazeki

Share this post


Link to post

I am closing this, because it seems less like a positive discussion of site lore and more like OP arguing for the sake of arguing. 

 

There is no right and wrong when it comes to fictional creatures. 'Outside definitions' are no more valid than DC definitions. Both are fine and both are correct considering dragons do not actually exist. 

 

As this is not a suggestion, I see no reason to argue the point further. Closed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.