Dragons that don't look like the standard DnD dragon

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

I really love Dragons with tiny arms like this. I rarely see designs like these.

...

He's my favorite.

...

This is how a dragon looks like according to Final Fantasy 9

Some of these seems to be pushing the definition a bit. At what point does it stop being a dragon?

>At what point does it stop being a dragon?

When it stops feeling like a dragon.

youtu.be/eAGw7uczY2k

I miss the hideous, bestial little fuckers of renaissance art.

Are you sure that's not a hydra?

>"and you're ugly too"

These guys are easily the best. I like my dragons dog to horse sized and dumb and mean as hell.

...

One of my issues with so much of modern monster art is that everything tries to be biologically sound(however fantastic) instead of just being a abominable affront against God's creation.

Just popping in the thread to make sure this was posted.

user what the fuck are you on? That's clearly a man... A some sort of dragon man... Oh wait, no it is a dragon.

Agreed, dragons today tend to be stupidly gigantic wizards thanks to DnD influences. Sure, there were some legends about really huge dragons, or clever ones, but nothing like what we see today. Even Fafnir was really a greedy little bastard polymorphed into a dragon. I want more of the old, reasonably sized dragons that are scary because they have claws and scales, breath fire and act like super murderous magpies.

animals.sandiegozoo.org/sites/default/files/juicebox_slides/island_indonesia_komodo_03.jpg

...

...

...

...

Underrated post.

>act like super murderous magpies.

Genuinely a horrifying prospect.

...

So if it doesn't look like a dragon, act like a dragon, or fight like a dragon, what's the point of calling it a dragon?

evocative power

dragons are just big chtonian monsters in western culture, they could be anything that looks subterranean and nasty.

combine with hammerspace dragons for amazing lewd. tube shaped for easier grip

...

...

...

Best posted

...

Just checking

...

...

That's a nice one,

define standard DnD dragon

...

...

...

...

>Remotely resembles a dragon
>In fact,is just reptiloid in aspect and shows around six limbs
>Still call it "dragon"

Well,I'm a lazy motherfucker too,so I can relate.

Not that user. Strictly speaking yes,it's and hydra,since that picture represents the fight between Heracles and the Laernean Hydra, but in the Renaissance art all reptilian monsters look more or less alike. The most common variation is the number of heads.

>Rodan
>Western

Hey guys,I spoted the newfag.

...

To be fair, various monsters have historically been called dragon without particularly resembling the modern standard dragon. In fact, there being some sort of "right" way for dragons to look seems to be a bit of a new concept.

...

>"right" way for dragons to look seems to be a bit of a new concept.

Ok,that's what you posted

>Dragons that don't look like the standard DnD dragon.

This is what OP posted

Do you understand know what I meant with my post?

...

I thought you meant why-call-it-a-dragon-if-it-doesn't-resemble-a-dragon but now I'm not sure what you meant at all.

...

Here's a tolkien classic.

...

...

I like the idea of T Rex/raptor dragons.

...

OP's thumbnail reminded me of Trogdor. I had a feeling someone would post him.

OP asked about dragons that don't resemble the standard dragon anatomy in DnD; that to say, big ass reptilian creatures with two wings and four legs, with scales,horns on their heads and an arrowhead shaped thingy in the tip of their tails.

So yeah,that standard might be a relatively new concept (which has been common in Western art for the last two hundred years or so), but in DnD it's the cannonical shape for dragons,which is the topic of this thread. So, in my opinion, if a creature just resembles a dragon (because it's a reptile,because it flies,because it's a fire breathing reptile,etc.) but is not a dragon by the book,then why call it a dragon and not giving it another name?

Pic not related to writing; just contributin'

...

If there's only some minor deviance from a "standard dragon", such as the (for some reason) highly controversial and hotly debated two-legged variant, I'd say "If it's so much like a dragon, you might as well call it a dragon". When stuff gets really weird, because the word "Dragon" carries a certain weight and meaning that one wants to utilize, maybe? I'm honestly not rightly sure.

...

...

...

...

...

...

Beware the true horror..

...

...

...

>Gargillian, macrobe human (3036 Hit dice)

Again; if this thread is about DnD dragons, then anything that deviates from the standard (long necked,two wings,four legs reptiles with varying breath weapons from one species to another) shouldn't be considered a dragon; there are names for the two legged varieties,and those are wyverns or drakes,depending on other factors.

Now,if we're talking about fantasy dragons in general,then I consider only drastic deviations from the DnD standard should be considered not dragons, and as such should have other names. There some good examples of this in this thread.

>if this thread is about DnD dragons

It is explicitly about any dragon except DnD-dragons.

Ok,I formulated that incorrectly; I meant that if we're taking DnD dragons as the standard of how a dragon should look (as stated in the first post), then anything different than that standard is not a dragon,but another kind of creature that should take other name.

I want it to be cannon that dragons will always agree to duel you with a rapier at sunset

I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make. OP referenced DnD-dragons as one popular design amongst many, not a definition of the word dragon.

fluffy tail

Read,you knabe.

My point is people shouldn't call every fucking deformed thing they come up with "dragon", because is lazy and stupid. If they're so creative to invent a creature with a widely different physic form than that of a standard dragon, I can't see why they just stick with the name.

...

When you say "anything different than that standard", implying missing/changing even one aspect makes it not a dragon. That's an entirely different point to "if it got little to nothing in common to what is usually considered a dragon, why call it one", which I totally agree with by the way.

>Thread about not D&D Dragons. Uses a actual D&D dragon.
Good job M8.

...

Here you go, one dragon.