Idea for dragons: Display gender

[Silverblaze]

for the purposes of my post it doesnt matter.

For the record I've been playing a dragon as long as the game has been out, I did know that, and I still maintain that gender appearance shouldnt matter on a reptile very much.

Unless of course we're talking pink for little girl dragons and baby blue for boys.... cuz that'd have me tickled pink....reallly...

seriously though why bother worrying about that now with so many other issues at present?

[Steelclaw]

Well, I suppose a dragon can be a neuter quite easily, you know, with those powerful, shorter mobs and lack of armor.... back... there.

As for 'worrying' about gender, it's something that will keep coming up. Even if the devs say "Nope! Nuh-uh! Not gonna do it! Naa-aaah-uhhh! Not gonna do it! Naa-aaah-uhhh! Naa-aaah-uhh!" Treat it like a discussion -- a sign of a healthy forum, and not something that's going to get serious dev time and you'll feel better.

Of course, it's always a good idea to watch what gets said anyway. Be careful what you wish for, lad.

[Frith-Rae]

I AM NOT A REPTILE!! There is nothing in Istarian lore that indicates I'm a reptile - as a matter of fact - it seems to indicate warm-bloodedness (I.e. we're not stuck in Dralk 24/7 - we can go to Mahagra just fine and even live there - which indicates that we're not dependent on climates). There are also no Lizards anywhere else in Istaria - I ain't no LIZARD either! I'm a Dragon! Hehe thank you - move along.

Though I personally would like some way for someone to tell I"m a female (I.e in the character screen information or something), I"m not really for altering graphics at this point either. But even if the option to "display" in character information "male/female" it shoudl still be allowed to put "not displayed" or "neutral" or whatever it says now - for those who'd rather not display it that way .

But the sheer fact it keeps coming up over and over again tells me that enough pepole are preferring the option to display sex that it IS thought about. And that perhaps the significance of new players not realizing that we're not really "Its" is a concern ...or..something.

[Silverblaze]

steelclaw: I dont mind being pink and baby blue I play in first person mode 90% of the time.

There are reptiles that live in cold climes btw firth.

I treated it like a discussion. made perfectly good suggestions, especially the color coding.

and thanks for the advice steel, I'll be sure to watch what i say from now on, wouldnt wanna hurt someones feelings in regard to their pixel based character.

[Frith-Rae]

*snorts* don't care...I still ain' no reptile!

[Goriax]

As one dragon to another I don't see the big deal about being catagorized as a reptile. At least to the extent that dinosaurs would be catagorized as reptiles. Dragons are as intelligent as any other race, can fly, are quite lively, and show all the signs of having a uniform body temperature. They DON'T have hair, suckle their young, etc so they certainly aren't mammals.

Ugh, the mere thought makes me ill, who'd want to be one of those messy smelly mammals anyway? Who'd want to actually be categorized with them?

Mammals are well represnted in this game in the form of monkeys and cats. Reptiles are also represented by the Sslik. Heh, in other worlds there's even frogs and things which aren't even alive.

You can call me a lizard if I can call you a monkey.

I'm a reptile and proud of it.

[Vaz]

Mammals are well represnted in this game in the form of monkeys and cats.

Correct me if I'm wrong:
Interestingly, while there are Humans, Saris, etc., there are no wild primates or felines.

[Goriax]

humans, dwarves, gnomes, elves, half giants are monkeys

saris are cats.

But if you're point to the fact that there are no basic monkeys or cats in the world, well neither are there lizards.

[Vaz]

But if you're point to the fact that there are no basic monkeys or cats in the world, well neither are there lizards.

Exactly; also true...except, what are Ruxus? Amphibians perhaps?

[Dremora]

*snorts* don't care...I still ain' no reptile!

You're right.. dragons can't be reptiles; at least not really (that is if you're still referring to lizards). As far as my understanding goes, lizards have bent legs whereas dragons (in Horizons anyway) don't; they stand upright on straight legs. This is also why dinosaurs aren't normally classified as lizards.

If you want to get all technical, dinosaurs were Archosaurs which includes birds and crocodiles today.

[Goriax]

Exactly; also true...except, what are Ruxus? Amphibians perhaps?

LOL who knows. I'd say they are part garbage disposal.

[Zexoin]

You're right.. dragons can't be reptiles; at least not really (that is if you're still referring to lizards). As far as my understanding goes, lizards have bent legs whereas dragons (in Horizons anyway) don't; they stand upright on straight legs. This is also why dinosaurs aren't normally classified as lizards.

If you want to get all technical, dinosaurs were Archosaurs which includes birds and crocodiles today.

Kay let's do some biology.
Here's the classification of the most evoluated vertebrates.

• Tetrapoda (four-limbed vertebrates)

• Amphibia (amphibians)

• Amniota (amniotic embryo)

• Sauropsida (reptiles)
  • Anapsida (turtles)
  • Diapsida
  • • Squamata (lizards and snakes)
  • • Archosauromorpha (dinosaures)
  • • • Crocodylia
        
  • • • Aves (birds)
• Synapsida (mammal-like reptiles)
  • Mammalia (mammals)

I'd say, if dragons exist, they'd be cousin of Crocodiles and birds, and descendants of Dinosaures.

[tramsan]

I'd say, if dragons exist, they'd be cousin of Crocodiles and birds, and descendants of Dinosaures.

See? Evolved from highly intelligent chicken (relatively speaking.)

[Hraefn]

Heheh.. I wasn't going to get in this, but what the heck.

I personally /hate/ when dragons are called lizards or reptiles. That's not to say I consider them mammals either. They share too many distinctions between the species to be grouped with one or the other. Dragons are a family all their own, a creature all their own. They are not mammals. They are not reptiles.

Getting scientific and categorizing dragons in a magical world seems almost goofy in my opinion. I mean... its magic. You can't explain that scientifically. Dragons are magical; there's no way around that and therefore - I say again - cannot be classified with other animals.

This is all my personal opinion by the way, so take it as you will. :P

Now, If we wanted to classify dragons in the real world, the magic that they are always so intimately shown with in stories and games would have to be explained somehow, and being as it's in human nature to classify things, we'd also jam them into stereotypical groups.

If all the different sorts of dragons that are in myths and legends were to exist, the term 'dragon' would cover a nigh infinite amount of creatures. Often times, dragons are depicted with fur. Fur and scales. Fur and feathers. Feathers and scales ( though feathers are just a variation of scale, really ). Heck, there've even been fleshy dragons. All this having been said it would be clear that dragons would be their own class/family/insertproperscientifictermhere.

One can't group dragons with lizards. Nor can they group them with mammals. It just doesn't work.

Again, all that is just my opinion and my outlook. :B I respect that everyone has their own way of viewing this.

[Dremora]

I personally like to think of dragons as a sort of bipedal reptile with bat-like wings in place of forelimbs, if they were really to exist. I like to draw them this way. But in the world of Horizons, of course it has to be magic.. otherwise such a bulky thing would never be able to lift off the ground, let alone have four legs in addition to functional wings.

And I agree, it is a silly thing to be trying to categorize a mythical animal.

Also, thread derails ftw

[Goriax]

Kay let's do some biology.
Here's the classification of the most evoluated vertebrates.

• Tetrapoda (four-limbed vertebrates)

• Amphibia (amphibians)

• Amniota (amniotic embryo)

• Sauropsida (reptiles)
  • Anapsida (turtles)
  • Diapsida
  • • Squamata (lizards and snakes)
  
  
  • • Archosauromorpha (dinosaures)
  
  
  • • • Crocodylia

• 
  

  • • • Aves (birds)
• Synapsida (mammal-like reptiles)
  
  • Mammalia (mammals)

[Pharcellus]

Kay let's do some biology.
Here's the classification of the most evoluated vertebrates.

• Tetrapoda (four-limbed vertebrates)

• Amphibia (amphibians)

• Amniota (amniotic embryo)

• Sauropsida (reptiles)
  • Anapsida (turtles)
  • Diapsida
  • • Squamata (lizards and snakes)
  • • Archosauromorpha (dinosaures)
  • • • Crocodylia
        
  • • • Aves (birds)
• Synapsida (mammal-like reptiles)
  • Mammalia (mammals)

I'd say, if dragons exist, they'd be cousin of Crocodiles and birds, and descendants of Dinosaures.

I'd say, if Dragons exist, they are probably descended from a vastly different, even alien, taxonomy. In traditional cladistic taxonomy, one has to make the assumption that Dragons are descendants of reptiles in order to place them in the same general classes. If they are descendants of a completely different, though facially similar, set of organisms, then they would be on a completely different part of the tree, if not on their own tree.

At the very minimum, they would have diverged after vertebrata into hexapoda, instead of tetrapoda, since they have *six* limbs, not four.

[Zexoin]

Actually, they don't belong anywhere on that map. They are not four limbed vertebrates. They're six limbed vertebrates..

Aye I've noticed my mistake after I could edit my post XD but well 6-limbed vertebrae could have branched off some specific reptiles. New characterstics can randomly appear at any moment of the evolution (if you belive in Darwin :P).

I agree with others that you can't delve too deeply into a fantasy. Any fantasy. Getting too serious about where dragons fit in the evolutionary hierarchy makes about as much sense as demanding that magic obey all the laws of physics

Why couldn't I ? McCaffrey did it in her books. Still, they are great books.

On the other hand, thinking about the science of the world DOES make for a more consistent and believable world I think, so some of this is good stuff

Depends on how you imagine dragon. I am scientific-minded. And I'm studying biology ; that's why I tried to imagine a classification.
But well ; dragons would hardly ever appear on Earth ; Four limbs are far enough to adapt in any ecosystems, and they couldn't lift their heavy weight with such weak wings (that's were the use of magic is inevitable). Also, if we don't care about those "details", I'd also add that they would more likely have feathered wings ; indeed, feathers are much more efficient in flight than bat-like wings (but I don't like that kind of dragons ; look at saphira, she's ugly).
In addition, someone can create a world where magic would follow scientific rules, this science being specific to this world, without loosing credibility (look at Full Metal Alchemist, alchemy is considered as a real science).

Damnit, I've derailed this thread again O_o

[Vaz]

Why couldn't I ? McCaffrey did it in her books. Still, they are great books.

The Dragonriders of Pern books are fully science-fiction, not fantasy.

[Tcei]

There was a documentry on Discovery, (or maybe it was animal plantet) a few years back, that gave some good ideas about how dragons could have evolved here on earth and what they'd look like. It was a real good episode as I recall, the way they did it almost made it look like they found a real dragon