Troll Lord Games

I was reading an interesting article about Guillermo del Toro today and in it he discussed his conception of Smaug (back when he was going to direct the Hobbit movies). Among the tidbits was something I'd never thought about. Most fantasy art and rpgs depict dragons with 6 appendages: 4 legs and 2 wings. As del Toro noted (I paraphrase), "There've never been any large creatures on earth with six legs/appendages." He also noted that sometimes artists/designers will attach wings to a pair of legs (thereby strangely combining functions - legs that walk and fly), apparently in an effort to confront this issue. A quick look at the original MM shows all dragons save the Oriental with, as it turns out, 6 legs. Pete's art in M&T also seems to depict 6-appendaged dragons.

I realize that one reaction to this might be "Who cares? it's fantasy, right? If I want my dragons to be six-legged, so be it"

I'll confess that this was not my reaction, however. I was sort of shocked. Anyone else thought about this before?

Four legs, two wings.

Well, funny enough, I've actually been ruminating on dragon design myself recently. Its more of a "why are dragons of a specific colour a specific alignment" but that's straying from the point.

First, I did the dragons in the M&T a specific way because that was what was called for. I wandered a bit off the reservation with dragon design when Steve asked for some different looks for his new M&T of Airhde book. As an artist, wanting to explore various possibilities, especially on the range of mythological creatures, I have no problem colouring outside the lines in this matter.

Why you always see a certain short list of types of dragon in most fantasy is very simple. That's what the general public expects to see. So, creative design is funnelled to cater to that crowd.

Now, considering what I somewhat alluded to in my first sentence, I actually have it in mind to put together various types of dragon designs and perhaps they will see publication in a, short, dragon book somewhat akin to the ones Steve's been putting out before.

I'd actually want to do it a bit differently though. One dragon monster entry, with a variety of custom options where the CK (game master, or whatever you want to call it) can stick bits together and create the type of dragon they want. Whether its small or large, flying or non, serpentine, two limbs or six. Intelligent or beastly. Granted, there's really nothing preventing anyone from doing just that with the entries in any of the monster manuals. If you want a dragon with a different set of appendages, make one.

For me, I'm putting this together in more of the spirit of a personal project. Who knows, some folks might be interested in the result?

I would think a dragon would have as many legs as it bloody well wants!! It's a dragon dontcha know!

well without forelegs it doesn't get a claw/claw/bite routine unless flying, that must be it.

thanks for the reply, Peter. I hope I don't have to say that I like your images - I do, and a great deal. You are certainly right that you drew/painted them in the way in which the public expects to see dragons these days.

what del Toro's comment did, however, was to make me think about the unusualness - at least according to earth norms (which are still the basic blueprint for D&D/C&C animals) - of having a six-appendaged large animal.

and although I like the joke about legs vs wings, it is true of course that in every winged creature on earth the wings replace or stand in place of legs. Can anyone think of a six-appendaged creature that is not an insect? I can't.

There are other fantasy worlds in which the basic quadrupedal assumption does not hold true - Talislanta, Tekumel, the Avatar world - but it strikes me that C&C (and D&D) share a basic assumption of quadrupedal development. If that's the case then six-appendaged dragons are pretty unusual!

Anyway, I don't plan to change my dragons any time soon. I just found myself shocked out of my complacency in this one case and wondered if anyone else thought it was a little strange how dragons have evolved in modern fantasy.

this question got me thinking about ancient depictions of dragons (not artistic, but textual). I wondered if perhaps there had been a trope of seeing dragons more as terrestrial than as fliers (i.e., the 'worm' trope). But a quick look at Beowulf shows us that the dragon which Beowulf kills (and is killed by) was thought to fly about at midnight and torch villages. So clearly in the early middle ages at least one tradition has dragons as fliers. Oh well. so much for that theory.

Just from a fantasy prespective, different types of dragons may have a differing number of limbs. So there is no set "correct" value or depiction.

42.

serleran wrote:42.

But what is the question?

serleran wrote:42.

ahh, the secret to the universe. very nice!

So I guess Smaug will kind of look like the dragons in Reign of Fire? (see 3:20)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8mnHTz0PqE

It works, although it makes them kind of bat-like.

Ancient Greek "Dragons" were essentially giant snakes. They are depicted on ancient vases as either wholly serpentine, or with a mixture of serpentine and human parts. Sometimes they had feathered wings, but usually they were considered terrestrial and aquatic in nature.

Germanic (and English) "Worms" were also mostly serpentine and aquatic in nature, sometimes with fins or a pair a legs. The form with two legs (and no wings) was called a "Lindworm". The overall conception was still serpentine. There is occasionally mention of a flying dragon, but the impression is usually that of a flying snake.

The dragons of the medieval bestiaries had two legs and long, serpentine bodies. The texts state that they fly by means of a luminous, buoyant gas that comes out of their mouths. The pictures of such dragons do occasionally depict small wings, but since the texts do not say that dragons are winged, the inclusion of wings in the illustrations may simply have been meant to convey the idea that the creature could fly.

The dragons of heraldry are indeed both four-legged and winged. The overall anatomy of such dragons seems to been actually based on that of dogs, with the obvious addition of bat-like wings, a tail, and horns.

An interesting facet of ancient and medieval dragon lore is that dragons are likely to be depicted as having a poisonous bite or sting, in addition to (or in place of) fiery breath. In fact, the originally conception of "burning breath" or "fiery bite" may have simply been a poetic way of indicating a snakelike venom. This is especially interesting in view of the fact that some species of snake can actually shoot their venom from their mouths.

It's not until the Victorian age that the now accepted dragon image became standard. The modern dragon's aesthetics seems to be based on reconstructed dinosaurs, combined with lizards and crocodiles. This contrasts with the serpentine and canine inspired dragons of previous times. Most modern fantasy artists depict dragons in a way that is clearly influenced by older depictions of dinosaurs, before we understood that dinosaurs weren't truly reptiles (being more like giant proto-birds than huge lizards). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the popular conception of dragons started moving towards a feathered, quasi-avian aesthetic. We might see depictions of two-legged, feathered dragons with bird-like wings becoming more common.

I have complete writeups for Lindworms, the Germanic "Worms", the "Serpentine Dragon" of the bestiaries, and the "Fire-Breathing Dragon" of heraldry in my "Book of Wondrous Beasts"

Don't forget the oriental draconic forms. Also mainly serpentine.

As for Dragon designs. The move Dragonslayer had a lizard glider concept (four limbs ) and Privateer Press' dragon army, Everblight, has draconian monsters with all numbers of limbs and wings, from two legs only Shredder beasts to the "6-wings on a snake body" Angelus.

Geleg wrote:it strikes me that C&C (and D&D) share a basic assumption of fantasy development. If that's the case then six-appendaged dragons are pretty unusual!

Corrected your quote.

The whole idea of monster ecology/evolution is an later invention that made for fun Dragon articles.

IMHO D&D Dragons were six "limbed" because those are the images EEG and the crew liked when they designed their puzzle/encounter style dugeons. And C&C naturally followed suit.

The focus back then was engaging combat encounters. A hydra was a next door neighbor to giants and beholders. It was up to the GM to explain any sort of ecology, if that question was even asked.

Course, there is a bonus to having a dragon with 6 or more legs. There's some epic sized drumstick potential there, and everyone can have a leg.

gideon_thorne wrote:Course, there is a bonus to having a dragon with 6 or more legs. There's some epic sized drumstick potential there, and everyone can have a leg.

Mmmmmm, Dragon Drumsticks! One of those will feed a family for a month. Longer, if they don't like their kids too well.

@Clavis. Thanks for the comprehensive reply on this matter. I had suspected the worm-like nature of antique dragons, but found a lot to learn in your comments.

I guess my initial surprise in thinking about this comes from that part of me that wants to embrace a 'realistic' fantasy ecology (silly, eh?). I like to think that my fantasy setting is logical and internally consistent (if nonetheless fantastic and cool), and short of aberrations, most fantasy settings presuppose a tetrapodal evolution/ecology. But as Clavis points out, there's a long tradition in real earth that ignores this fact. Oh well.

I admit I have enjoyed thinking about these things, even if it probably won't change my game a bit.

anglefish wrote:

Geleg wrote:it strikes me that C&C (and D&D) share a basic assumption of fantasy development. If that's the case then six-appendaged dragons are pretty unusual!

Corrected your quote.

Fair enough!

anglefish wrote: The whole idea of monster ecology/evolution is an later invention that made for fun Dragon articles.

IMHO D&D Dragons were six "limbed" because those are the images EEG and the crew liked when they designed their puzzle/encounter style dugeons. And C&C naturally followed suit.

The focus back then was engaging combat encounters. A hydra was a next door neighbor to giants and beholders. It was up to the GM to explain any sort of ecology, if that question was even asked.

Undoubtedly. I remember filling in B1 (which came with my copy of Holmes) with all the monsters living next to each other. Good times, good times.

I have no confusion about where Gygax and Co got the idea for dragons. The trope was already well-established. My slightly philosophical puzzlement lay in two things: 1) realizing the dragons I've always known were in fact six-limbed; 2) realizing that put the kaibosh on my own tendency to impose a consistent evolution on even fantasy worlds! Go figure, eh?

what del Toro's comment did, however, was to make me think about the unusualness - at least according to earth norms (which are still the basic blueprint for D&D/C&C animals) - of having a six-appendaged large animal.

ettins and hydra must really upset your apple cart. :p

four legs and wings is a dragon
two legs and wings is a wyvern
four legs and no wings is a wyrm.

[edited for a petty and disappointed comment]

I'm abandoning this thread. Enjoy!

concobar wrote:

what del Toro's comment did, however, was to make me think about the unusualness - at least according to earth norms (which are still the basic blueprint for D&D/C&C animals) - of having a six-appendaged large animal.

ettins and hydra must really upset your apple cart. :p

four legs and wings is a dragon
two legs and wings is a wyvern
four legs and no wings is a wyrm.

Well...generally that is the etimology of draconic species. However, 1e, the gold dragon had no wings, being modeled more on the chinese dragons...which by such limited etimology would make them a wyrm, not a dragon, yet the book clearly called them a dragon. There were also several other dragons put forth in Dragon mag for 1e and 2e that had no wings, yet were also clearly designated as dragons.

This would lead to the conclusion that the limited etimology proposed is not 100% defining.

I think the bigger question is . . how many heads does a dragon have?

I've only skimmed this thread, but a pegasus has 4 legs and 2 wings.... I think there's a precedent that fantasy critters will have fantastic limbs. Check out chimera, hippogriff, griffon... all 4 legs, 2 wings (one or more heads)

or something.

Like Peter said, part of it is what is expected must be delivered. In M&T of Airhde, I was pleasantly surprized to see "new" / "other" types of dragons, for example.

AD&D does not assume 2 claws. It assumes two claw attacks in the attack routine. It could be the same claw attacking twice each round. Same as a higher-level fighter with "sword/sword." Sure, he could fight off-hand, but he doesn't have to. But, that's just saying that assumptions are great but its more fun, to me, to decide things on my own... regardless of the intent of the "creator."

I like some dragons to have no legs, no wings, but not be serpentine otherwise (no coiling around, no scales, no sharp teeth, or heck, even no breath weapon.) I like other dragons to be monstrously monstrous, having 6 or more legs, possibly even 4 front legs for slashing or climbing, and a huge gaping mouth that swallows things... or, maybe I want this "breed" to be like a dinosaur. T-Rex perhaps.

I think having a plethora of descriptions of dragons helps keep them mysterious, even when the same type comes in a variety. All reds don't need to be the same. Change them up. Use them more often. Heck, you can even have a humanoid dragon lizardman-like thing if you want.

In the end, I suppose it comes down to campaigns and expectations. Then, I imagine the more common "European dragon" would be ideal... the stuff one sees in movies.

Rhuvein wrote:I think the bigger question is . . how many heads does a dragon have?

Sometimes, more than one (if its an Eastern European dragon):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_dragon

I' haven't done any real personal research on Eastern European dragon lore, so I'll simply direct you to the article. It's interesting to note, in a game context, that the article states that the type of dragon called a Zmej can shape shift into human form, uses magic, and takes human lovers.