>dude when it has two legs then it's not a dragon, it's a wyvern xD
what spawned this dumb fucking meme? In medieval art dragons ofteh had two legs. Also what the fuck is going on in this picture? She has him on a leash so he clearly is under control yet saint Peter still kills him? What is this animal abuse sick fuckery?
*saint George I don't know why I wrote Peter
Just because you had a thought spark between your two solitary brain cells doesn't mean you should act on it, or post it on the internet.
Because the chick = BBEG urging them to fight
Why'd you start a dragon thread with a picture of a wyrm, OP?
Instead of replying to threads that you dislike, try ignoring them and making threads about topics that you enjoy.
Then what's the difference between a dragon and wyvern then, OP?
>In medieval art dragons ofteh had two legs.
No more often than they had four legs.
Next thread!
A traditional (that is, non-D&D) wyvern is basically a snake with arms and wings and a dragon's head.
A dragon is a scaly dog-lizard with wings and a penchant for rape.
...
Dragons look so cool right?
Lol jk that's how medieval artists portrayed them.
Another fucking disaster. For scally monsters they surely often were portrayed as weird Chernobyl dogs.
I never understood why D&D made Wyverns dumb animals while dragons were the human intelligent ones that could talk etc.
Why was a lack of legs equal to a lack of intelligence?
It was meant to mock invalids.
Because nobody gave a wet shit about how many limbs a dragon was supposed to have until RPGs came along. Until then,it if was baguely reptilian and ugly enough,it could perfectly count as a dragon. In medieval heraldry,the number of limbs only determined WHAT kind of dragon it was, not IF it was a dragon.
Don't want to be a smartss dick,but this a XVII-XVIIIth century work,though based on Swiss engravings from the early XVIth (made a sick lot of research about this).
Dragon taxonomy 101:
>dragon: arms, legs, wings, generally intelligent. hoards things
>wyvern: legs and wings, nonsapient, possibly evolved from a saurian or reptilian ancestor, may or may not have a breath weapon
>wyrm: four legs, no wings, reptilian-serpentine body, often venomous, commonly makes its home in swamps
>lung or eastern dragon: four legs, serpentine body, often with a fin along the back, commonly depicted with antlers and a horse-like or camel-like face. Highly intelligent and powerful in magic, no breath weapon
Don't give a shit what some neckbeard who ropleplayed a knight wrote.
>In medieval heraldry,the number of limbs only determined WHAT kind of dragon it was, not IF it was a dragon
That's how it works in D&D. Wyverns and linnorms and such are still dragons. They're just not "true dragons" which are the 4 limbs + wings + smart + spellcasting types.
You know that the difference between an aligator and a crocodile (in terms of physiology) is almost entirely related to how their teeth are formed, right?
And that has anything to do with anything how? Kill yourself.
But that's already a huge difference user. Heraldry didn't make a difference between "true dragons" and "other dragons"; they were all dragons. The variable number of limbs was employed by Gygax and co. so they could have a wider range of draconic foes. In fact,in the OD&D there weren't even wyverns or linnorms or shit, there were only five kinds of "true dragons" (like the heads of Tiamat minus blue and plus golden),and they were all quite shitty back then. From then on it just kept on changing.
The point is, the "traditional" differentiation of dragons,wyverns,etc. like in is not even traditional,it's barely 35 years old.
>what spawned this dumb fucking meme?
D&D, I think.
There is no real difference. People used the names interchangeably.
You completely missed the point of this thread.
I heard it was because medieval thought had evil (and their representations, dragons -- and the devil) as weak, and infinitely inferior to goodness and godliness. Hence, dragons were depicted as pathetic creatures unable to match good ol' saint whatever.
Yet another proof people in the middle ages were dumb fucking apes just like everyone pre 20th century. It would be more dramatic if the dragons were fucking huge so it would show that with God's help you can overcome even mountain sized monstrosities.
True dragons is just a fancy name, not an implication that the rest are "fake". D&D is a game that thrives on categorization; what you get is a case of "we want to represent all kinds of mythological/heraldic/bullshit fantasy dragons, and because a naming structure that differentiates them does not exist, we'll invent our own". It's a matter of convenience, so we have an idea of what the fuck anyone is talking about when they say "dragon".
what spawned this dumb fucking meme?
/tv/ went nuts with it when Smaug turned out to be a wyvern, so probably them
Maybe he has her on the leash.
No shit.
It was that, and people hating on Skyrim years earlier for having "wyvern" dragons.
>True dragons is just a fancy name
Thank you,captain obvious. I just used it because it was convenient and already present in the argument.
I just hate Wyverns because they are always used to be "more realistic" in fiction, most notable in the Hobbit and Skyrim. Why are you complaining about fantasy phylogeny though? Have you ever questioned why we have draw a distinction at Toads and Salamanders? or Snakes and limbless Lizards? of course their are going to be different classifications for different creatures, especially one that has some much history and art associated with it. Complaining about people making a point to categorize Wryms, Wyverns, Drakes, and True Dragons, is like someone getting upset that people correct you when you call a Caiman a Crocodile or an Alligator.
Depends on the setting
No, dragons did not always have to have four limbs, but yes, wyverns always did have just two. This is the real answer.
The issue is that people are trying to smugly correct other people without actually being correct.
If Smaug was a wyvern, then where was his stinger?
Checkmate atheists.
It is pretty annoying. It's like people are literally afraid to portray fantasy.
I blame humanism and secularity. This would never have happened if we'd all just stayed quasi-theocratic.
Fantasy is meant to be realer than real. Grigori is objectively Best Dragon, and it's all because of the hideously unrealistic human-like features.