Dragons and dragonborns

DragonKing

So this one goes out to all you tabletop DnD players at there who have 6000 DnD hand books including 3.5 and 4th edition.

A while before 4th edition came out (I think at least), I remember reading something about dragons and dragonborns, I even remember seeing a debate behind it as well. The thing I read was in dungeons and dragons, dragons and Dragonborn are in fact actually mammal and not reptilian, and they get mistaken for reptiles due to the similarities they share; is this true? Dragonborns in general have a extremely high body temperature which people who usually would mistake for them having a fever or such.

Personally I would find this awesome. You can't honestly tell me that every single Dragon, a creature that usually is designed by meshing together different species of creatures which are both reptilian and mammalian, are 1 species.

There was a debate I saw that seperate Dragon and dragonborn due to the idea db was mammal but dragons were reptilian, meaning db and Dragon didn't share a common ancestor or common creator, Lo.

Dee

I wouldn't say they're mammals; warm-blooded reptiles, though? Absolutely.

As for their origins, the 3.5e explanation (Races of the Dragon, I want to say the book was called) was that Bahamut would allow a human (or other race) to undergo a ritual to become a dragonborn, taking on dragon-like characteristics to better pursue Bahamut's goals.

It seems like 4e and 5e deviate from that explanation by saying that no one really knows how they came about. It still seems like they're related to dragons, whether it's more like half-elves or more like monkeys and chimpanzees.

Lord_Tansheron

It's an interesting question whether a warm-blooded "reptile" would actually be a reptile. It's a bit tricky because it's difficult to actually define what a "reptile" is, and most definitions invariably rely on established terrestrial taxonomies. Since we're not talking about earth here, who knows what the correct terminology should be.

I suppose since you're already way outside "real world" evolutionary systems, you can make dragons anything you like. Just a matter of definition. If you define "reptile" in DnD as cold-blooded, that's an issue; if you don't, you're a-okay. Considering that depending on definition in real life taxonomy birds may also be reptiles (and are most certainly warm-blooded), it's really just what you want it to be :P

DragonKing

@Lord_Tansheron
Now I won't pretend to be expert on evolution, but to my understanding. It was deduced that birds evolved from dinosaurs and while modern day birds are Endothermic, most dinosaurs were Ectothermic or Poikilothermic. Now I'm not saying that there aren't Endothermic Dinosaurs, I'm just saying that I'm too lazy to actually google it and read the scientific journals on it right now, so in fact I don't currently know.

Lord_Tansheron

You're correct, but that doesn't provide a reliable definition for "reptile". There are many ways to define it, and some run into the "problem" of including birds (others do not). Just being cold-blooded is obviously not enough for a definition because there are other ectothermic animals (e.g. amphibians).

ralamil

D&D 3rd edition book Draconomicon actually has a lot of info on this kind of thing!

Page 5 claims that at first glance they look like reptiles, but then states that it will show you that first glances can be deceiving.

The following pages describe them as having cat-like musculature and strong, but hollow, bones. Perhaps most telling, page 9 explicitly states that they are endothermic creatures. It then goes on to detail temperature differences between the types of dragon (based on element, basically Fire > Electricity > Acid > Cold) and that excess body heat gets converted into energy to fuel their breath weapons (rather than being shed by sweating or panting, for example).

It also claims they can literally eat rock and dirt and survive, so... I guess ultimately the answer is that they're dragons. Not reptiles, and not mammals. Something unique. And trying to logic in real-world evolution-based info is probably not going to work too well/lead to a lot of contradictions/confusion.

As @Dee stated, Races of the Dragon details Dragonborn as being blessed by Bahamut. They're not born, they're reborn in a ritual. I don't recall what it says about any of their offspring... if they even can have offspring. I'd have to look it up. That book doesn't go into the detail Draconomicon does, but you can assume that they are also neither mammal nor reptile, now, but would be similar in some ways to a true dragon. That probably depends on how they're blessed (ones that can fly might have lighter-but-still-strong bones).

DragonKing

@Lord_Tansheron
Oh no no, you miss understand me, I wasn't using it as a way to define reptiles. I was showing that the the connection between Ectothermic and Endothermic is...well basically what you said I guess lol. So the idea of db being warm blooded and still reptilian or even a dragons being mammal doesn't seem so far fetched. Plus there are mammals that lay eggs which is a argument people try to use in the argument stating that dragons are reptiles and not mammals.

@ralamil
I think that was the book I first actually read it in!

lroumen

My answer to these type of discussions is always: platypus

Aren't dragons and dragonborn perchance creatures that just have the appearance of reptiles then and have no early common ancestor with real reptiles? Kind of how the red panda is not actually a bear?

ralamil

A quote from the book, which is talking about how reptiles have legs splayed out to the side rather than underneath them: "[...] offering much less support and mobility than a dragon or mammal enjoys."

Since it calls out mammals and dragons separately, I stand by my earlier statement that dragons are distinct, and are neither reptiles nor mammals, although they do share features of both (egg-births, warm-blooded, yada yada).

Kamigoroshi

Personally... I always was under the impression that Dragonborns are, in fact, the very same species which are known as Draconians in the Dragonlance campaign setting. Their outer appearances seem to match in any case. Them both being the "bad eggs" of the dragon animal kingdom only strenghtens my assumption as well. Only difference is their new re-introdution got a fancier name that *always* makes me think of the Elder Scrolls.

One peculiar thing I noticed about D&D's dragons is that they're basically oversized felines with scales. Whenever it's their movement, personality, or posture; everything about them screams "cat" to me. Wouldn't surprise me if white and silver were the only two cold blooded true dragon subspecies.

ralamil

@Kamigoroshi They're not "bad eggs," though? They're literally champions of Bahamut, a Lawful Good dragon-god. Who I am pretty sure can take the blessing away from them if they turn into, as you say, "bad eggs." Unless you're talking about Dragonborn from editions after 3.5e, in which case ignore everything I just said. I don't know anything about later editions. I dislike 4e and haven't had a chance to try/read 5e stuff.

Also, at least according to the one book I know of, all dragons are allegedly endothermic, even the ones with the Cold subtype. I assume they can just survive significantly lower body temperatures, but they do in fact still generate their own heat.