HOME | DD
hypergojira β Green Dragon - D4e
Published: 2009-01-13 17:34:56 +0000 UTC; Views: 11041; Favourites: 75; Downloads: 2293
Redirect to original
Description
Here is my version of the Dungeon and Dragons D4e green dragon. The new D4e green dragon is a very iconic dragon with its long neck and tail and row of dorsal spikes. I decided to add to this by adding tail spikes for a very classic dragon tail club, spike, sting etc. I also added the horns on the hips. Otherwise it follows the D4e design pretty much. If you want to know why I am posting this dragon (and future ones) checkout my journal here: [link]P.S. There will eventually be a color version as well.
Related content
Comments: 74
Dragon comes from the latin or greek and the greek's version of a dragon was actually pretty similar to the asian version (very snake like) - see "Ladon" or "Drakon". So maybe the western "dragons" are not really dragons but something else.
It seems you have a very European bias to what is a dragon and what is ugly. I don't think the dragons have changed as much as our opinion of them (and all nasty fantasy creatures it seems) has. Most of the pictures I sent you don't seem ugly to me, but the probably seemed ugly or monstrous at the time they where made. They hated snakes, so they often made dragons look like snakes, but I think snakes are beautiful. I would guess that people who don't like snakes, lizards, crocodiles, etc. don't like modern dragons either.
I do want to remind you that you just posted βbut talking dragons isn't that hard to believe.β If you can make the leap of faith to accept talking dragons I canβt see what else is holding you back!
You are correct that most dragons of folklore were not very powerful, except that it almost always took a hero to slay one. I canβt really think of giant dragons other than mythological ones like: NΓΓ°hΓΆggr, Ladon, JΓΆrmungandr (if it is a dragon), Tiamat (if she was a dragon), Drakon and maybe Apep. Of course some (but not all) βasianβ dragons where huge, wise and powerful. It seems that the current trend is to blend the two. The first edition D&D dragons where 40β long, now they are 85β (120 in D3), this is still smaller than some dinosaurs.
But I am discussing D&D dragons β pure fantasy β not real myth or reality. So I really think anything goes. But I agree, a dragon should not be a horse with wings!
π: 0 β©: 3
Actually, Tiamat was a goddess of salt water and chaos (of void/emptiness, not the definition of today.) According to the Enuma Elish (Mesopotamian creation story), she gave birth to god-like dragons and supposedly turned into a dragon. She was really a god than a dragon. If you want, you can see my picture of Tiamat for a "rough idea" of what she might have looked like in legend. Your picture of Tiamat is still beautiful, though.
π: 0 β©: 1
My Tiamat is the D&D version of Tiamat, not the Mythological version.
Tiamat gave birth to the first Gods actually, as well as dragons, scorpion-men, serpents and lots of other nasty creatures. It is, however, unclear what exactly she looked like. And as the myth was told a lot more than it was written or read I bet there were hundreds of different versions of Tiamat.
I'll take a look at what you came up with.
π: 0 β©: 1
Why thank you. I knew about Tiamat giving birth to gods and dragons (the dragons were born when she went to fight Marduk.) I would have loved to see all of the versions of Tiamat on how people thought she would have looked like.
π: 0 β©: 1
that would be interesting, I bet she looked like their worst nightmares!
π: 0 β©: 1
Me too, maybe even beyond their worst nightmares.
π: 0 β©: 0
Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop jumping to conclusions about me.
I do NOT have a European bias. The ancient Europeans were idiots! They believed in God and thought dragonflies were ugly.
BUT, they invented the European dragon, so it strikes me as logical that if we're going to base a dragon off of the European model, we should at the very least pay attention to it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Damn, i always seem to piss you off - sorry about that.
I was just speaking of your stance on dragons, not your general views - you said the Asian dragons are not dragons, thus i assumed that you are saying only the european version is a dragon and I (mistakenly) construed that as a bias (niether good nor bad - just a bias) to call the european version a dragon and the asian version that is more like the beast from which the word is derived not a dragon. I apologize, I did not try to use the word bias negatively, it was intended it to simply mean "opinion."
π: 0 β©: 0
If you agree that a dragon shouldn't be a horse with wings, why are you using the 4th edition models?
And you completely miss the point of the whole snake argument.
Europeans designed dragons to be ugly. They based them off all the animals they thought were ugly. Thusly, you shouldn't make an effort to make it beautiful.
I think snake are beautiful too, and lizards, and crocodiles, and I can safely say that fantasy dragons are the most revolting thing I've ever seen. Why? Because they don't look a damned thing like any of the aformentioned animals!
A dragon should highlite the monstrous qualities of the animals it's based on. Giving it the grace of a cat is NOT a monstrous quality. None of the dragons you've shown me were graceful, and neither were the dragons in the first two editions of D&D, nor was the version of Tiamat you seem to be trying to homage.
If you make a dragon beautiful to an average person, then Ur doing it rong.
π: 0 β©: 2
I don't think the D4e dragons look like horses with wings. That is clearly an opinion that you do not share β but it is an opinion. My opinion is that they look like dragons.
I just don't know what you are arguing. The images I sent don't look like snakes, lizards, crocs, but they do incorporate some of the features, which is what modern dragons do as well. I thought some where quite graceful.
I'm not sure why a dragon "should" be anything. It is a creature of myth and fantasy; it can be whatever we want. I realize you are stating your opinion, but you seem to state that your opinion is a fact, that dragons should be this or that. Dragons have never had a clear cut definition or description or role. They have always been open to interpretation and I think they should still be. Regardless, they are fantastic and I believe they reflect our fantasies, not necessarily our history (in my opinion).
I donβt have any problem with monstrous dragons; I just have a different view on what is monstrous. I actually think the D3+ dragons are more monstrous than the first two editions (as I stated I think the skeletal nature of some of them is ugly β i.e. monstrous). I am trying to make my Tiamat monstrous (but beautiful to me!) and a way as well. Iβll have to wait and see what you think.
I donβt care what the average person thinks, but I do care about your opinion and I always appreciate our conversations. Our views clearly oppose on issues relating to monster design (which is interesting because I really like Rygama and friends β what does that mean?!), but that is why I love discussing them with you. However, I am just sorry that I always seem to make you mad. I hope I donβt drive you too crazy! Thank you again for the comments.
π: 0 β©: 2
Maybe I should change my argument from "dragons weren't intended to be this or that" to "have some fucking originality"....
To be honest, I admit, I'm sortof going overboard with my views on what they were intended to be. Mainly because they were always so much more than what fantasy is making them into.
In the old days, you could apply the name "dragon" to prettymuch any semi-reptilian monster, and it wouldn't seem out of place. That was what was cool about them. They were so varied and exotic, it was hard to find one that was like another.
NOW you prettymuch get the winged horsecats with tiny heads and long necks, and NOTHING else.
Frankly, it's depressing to the point where the hideous new versions are the ONLY thing you'll ever get, and it makes me feel ill to assign the name "dragon" to anything else. If you assign the name to something cool, you're implying that it's the same thing as those hideous THINGS, which is something I refuse to do. I suppose that's the reason for my unabashed rage.
I just think that there is SO much more to be done with the idea of dragons than this, but I also feel(know) that the current cliche has prettymuch tainted the entire mythos forever.
π: 0 β©: 0
Maybe I should change my argument from "dragons weren't intended to be this or that" to "have some fucking originality"....
To be honest, I admit, I'm sortof going overboard with my views on what they were intended to be. Mainly because they were always so much more than what fantasy is making them into.
In the old days, you could apply the name "dragon" to prettymuch any semi-reptilian monster, and it wouldn't seem out of place. That was what was cool about them. They were so varied and exotic, it was hard to find one that was like another.
NOW you prettymuch get the winged horsecats with tiny heads and long necks, and NOTHING else.
Frankly, it's depressing to the point where the hideous new versions are the ONLY thing you'll ever get, and it makes me feel ill to assign the name "dragon" to anything else. If you assign the name to something cool, you're implying that it's the same thing as those hideous THINGS, which is something I refuse to do. I suppose that's the reason for my unabashed rage.
I just think that there is SO much more to be done with the idea of dragons than this, but I also feel(know) that the current cliche has prettymuch tainted the entire mythos forever.
π: 0 β©: 0
I don't think the D4e dragons look like horses with wings. That is clearly an opinion that you do not share β but it is an opinion. My opinion is that they look like dragons.
I just don't know what you are arguing. The images I sent don't look like snakes, lizards, crocs, but they do incorporate some of the features, which is what modern dragons do as well. I thought some where quite graceful.
I'm not sure why a dragon "should" be anything. It is a creature of myth and fantasy; it can be whatever we want. I realize you are stating your opinion, but you seem to state that your opinion is a fact, that dragons should be this or that. Dragons have never had a clear cut definition or description or role. They have always been open to interpretation and I think they should still be. Regardless, they are fantastic and I believe they reflect our fantasies, not necessarily our history (in my opinion).
I donβt have any problem with monstrous dragons; I just have a different view on what is monstrous. I actually think the D3+ dragons are more monstrous than the first two editions (as I stated I think the skeletal nature of some of them is ugly β i.e. monstrous). I am trying to make my Tiamat monstrous (but beautiful to me!) and a way as well. Iβll have to wait and see what you think.
I donβt care what the average person thinks, but I do care about your opinion and I always appreciate our conversations. Our views clearly oppose on issues relating to monster design (which is interesting because I really like Rygama and friends β what does that mean?!), but that is why I love discussing them with you. However, I am just sorry that I always seem to make you mad. I hope I donβt drive you too crazy! Thank you again for the comments.
π: 0 β©: 2
I'm with you on how a dragon should be any way we think of it. Nobody has ever seen a real dragon, so there should be no limits to our intrepetation of what one should look like.
π: 0 β©: 1
Maybe I should change my argument from "dragons weren't intended to be this or that" to "have some fucking originality"....
To be honest, I admit, I'm sortof going overboard with my views on what they were intended to be. Mainly because they were always so much more than what fantasy is making them into.
In the old days, you could apply the name "dragon" to prettymuch any semi-reptilian monster, and it wouldn't seem out of place. That was what was cool about them. They were so varied and exotic, it was hard to find one that was like another.
NOW you prettymuch get the winged horsecats with tiny heads and long necks, and NOTHING else.
Frankly, it's depressing to the point where the hideous new versions are the ONLY thing you'll ever get, and it makes me feel ill to assign the name "dragon" to anything else. If you assign the name to something cool, you're implying that it's the same thing as those hideous THINGS, which is something I refuse to do. I suppose that's the reason for my unabashed rage.
I just think that there is SO much more to be done with the idea of dragons than this, but I also feel(know) that the current cliche has prettymuch tainted the entire mythos forever.
π: 0 β©: 1
Agreed. But I am not trying to be original. As I stated I am taking someone elses design and trying to make scaled version that will ultimately allow me to make a revised version of Tiamat. I was just posting the WIP.
I agree that dragons need to be more varied and the current vision of them is limiting. However, you did get pissed off at me for calling Godzilla a dragon!
I don't think the damage will last forever. There is always hope!
π: 0 β©: 1
... Yes, I did get pissed off. I distinctly remember NOT saying anything on it, so I'd like to know how the hell you knew that.
π: 0 β©: 1
I thought you did comment on it? I guess I assumed so based on your silence?
Hey, I was thinking about taking a shot a drawing Rygama some time after I finish Tiamat. If I send it to you first to review would you have a problem with that?
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't think I would feel the need to comment, being that my stance on the matter kinda goes without saying, and I don't think I need to spam other people's accounts in order to rant - especially when everyone knows what I'm going to say in the first place.
And to be perfectly honest, I'd prefer a different monster. She gets so much attention, but it really doesn't feel like a proper adventure story unless her costars get proper attention.
π: 0 β©: 1
How about Wendigo - if that is still its name?
π: 0 β©: 1
Xenovore's the current name, but I'll take anyone, really.
π: 0 β©: 1
<= Prev |