Dragons

[Shadowsoul]

Re: Dragons

 

Can I ask, as someone who has only been fantasy roleplaying for a few years, where did the idea that dragons are powerful wizards as well as being massive, flying, firebreathing monsters with near impenetrable scales come from?

 

You don't see the concept that often in non-gamer fantasies. Tolkien's dragons couldn't do magic, (though even the 'Wizards' in The Lord Of The Rings were actually angelic beings in the form of men). Nor have I come across many dragons in mythology that could use magic, many mythological dragons or dragon-like creatures weren't actually that intelligent. Being that big and being able to breathe fire or poison as well as possibly being able to fly was generally considered to be enough of a challenge for a bold warrior or questing knight to have to deal with thank you very much.

 

Was it a logical progression in Dungeons and Dragons that Dragons had to be the toughest thing around so they needed spells in order to compete? Did the makers of D&D get the idea from another source e.g. by fusing the divine beasts of East Asian religion and folklore which were translated into English as 'Dragons' with the hostile serpents of Western mythology? Or was it simply assumed that any being which was that long lived, arrogant and intelligent would have to end up learning magic?

 

I don't think it follows that a naturally magical creature would inevitably excel at the tame and scholarly spells used by humans. If a dragon, a near immortal saurian or reptilian beast of apparently greater than human intelligence, used magic I don't think it would even understand it in the same way that short lived walking mammal would.

 

To put it another way, if dragons can learn wizardry then what's to stop a unicorn from learning it, (apart from the fact that it has to turn the pages of its spellbook with its horn and keeps impaling the pages)?

[phookz]

Re: Dragons

 

I think it came from D&D, but I'm not sure.

 

With regards to Unicorns an wizardry, I think it's a matter of preference and design for a game world. There certainly is no requirement for Dragon's to be wizards - I prefer them not to be, personally, but why not. I think it comes down to what the barrier to wizardry is - is it a racial barrier, or a minimum intelligence, or something else entirely? It's really up to the world designer.

[Lezentauw]

Re: Dragons

 

D&D did have Dragons as very powerful wizards, and I am sure that most are use to that being the primary source. But, I am not sure that is the only source for that. Dragons are considered a magical beast, and there has been many cures for things that has called for the use of Dragon parts. If Dragons are that magical, then most then assume that Dragons have a closer affinity to magic, and are thus able to use magic. If it looks like a Dragon, but is not magical, people tend to refer to them as Drake's or Wyrm's...

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Dragons

 

I suspect untangling the mythological roots of the contemporary Western conception of dragons would be worth a doctoral dissertation, at least. Certainly in many world traditions "dragons" possess miraculous powers. Some are symbols and servants of the gods, or are even forms in which certain gods manifest. For that matter, "wizard" in the modern spell-casting, walking-bombard sense is a modern invention, which has been strongly affected by the war-game origins of fantasy RPGs. That has no more to do with traditions of wizards and witches than it does with dragons.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Dragons

 

I think the dragon Fafnir(which was a norse dwarf or troll who turned into a dragon) had magical powers.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Dragons

 

At the very least, the magic to turn into a dragon.

[Spence]

Re: Dragons

 

Dragons are always favorite adversaries because you know that if you can bring it down, kewl lewtz await!

 

In actuality PC-dragon combat always annoyed me since it is often handled badly. Logically a flying critter the size of a two story building armed with a breath weapon should be almost invincible simply because you can't reach it. Even on the ground, it should be hard to reach any hit location on the thing that isn't 7-8 or 14-18. I never did figure out a good way to modelthat in-game.

 

I kind of liked Dark Suns approach. Only one true dragon exists. While I like dragons I cannot imagine a world with a lot them around. At least not unless it is a world with a high death total for every other species.

 

I always liked the original Runequests concept. Real dragons are simply too powerful for even some gods. What is actually seen by most is a dream-dragon. Or the manafisation of a real dragons dream.

[Markdoc]

Re: Dragons

 

I think the dragon Fafnir(which was a norse dwarf or troll who turned into a dragon) had magical powers.

 

Right. Fafnir was a dwarf (giant in some versions: in Norse mythology they overlap anyway) who turned into a dragon (or in some versions, was turned into a dragon by a curse). There's nothing to suggest that he was a wizard in the D&D sense though. Shapechanging is a common magical power in the old norse tales.

 

I think the whole "Dragons are powerful wizards" thing is another D&D'ism that has come to be accepted as "traditional".

 

In all of the old stories I can think of from the west, dragons are mostly monsters (of varying degrees of intelligence) or transformed magicians. That makes sense: in most of those stories dragons are monsters for the hero to kill, typically symbolizing pride and greed. St George's dragon, for example, once beaten in a fight "was led about on a leash, tame as a dog" to quote the old stories. It's a little known fact that George originally killed the dragon after it had been tamed

 

In that regard, Smaug is a dragon in the western tradition - intelligent, tricky and highly dangerous - but dangerous because of his size and fiery breath, not because he can cast spells. He also explicitly typifies both the traditional vices of western dragons - pride and greed.

 

Eastern dragons are a different kettle of fish - they are typically depicted as elemental powers, both magical and highly intelligent, but not actually physical. The D&D dragon is kind of a mash-up of those two concepts - magical and intelligent, but also a physical monster that you can kill.

 

cheers, Mark

[quozaxx]

Re: Dragons

 

What is your favorite movie that has a dragon in it?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Dragons

 

Dragonslayer, then maybe Beowulf, then perhaps Dragonheart, and finally maybe the old Hobbit animated film. Reign of Fire or Dragon Wars whenever I just want a good ROFLMAO.

 

Eragon left me a little cold, and I haven't seen How to Train Your Dragon(and suspect it might go near the top of my list).

[phookz]

Re: Dragons

 

How to Train Your Dragon was actually very good. There haven't been a lot of good movies with dragons in them. Dragonheart was well done from a technical standpoint, but I thought the movie was a bit flat. Dragonslayer was good, Beowulf's dragon was good. I'm really hoping the new "The Hobbit" doesn't get scrapped - I'd love to see how they do Smaug and there's a good chance it would make the top of my list.

[Escafarc]

Re: Dragons

 

What is your favorite movie that has a dragon in it?

 

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Dragons

 

What is your favorite movie that has a dragon in it?

 

I'm old skool, so I vote Dragonslayer for my favorite. That dragon was scary. After that was Eragon. Sure, it was kind of a turn-off-your-brain popcorn flick, but hot-damn was it pretty to look at. Love the costuming in that film and the SFX were top notch. The Aerial battle scenes were also very well-filmed. I hope they film the sequels someday.

 

Didn't much like Dragonheart, though admittedly the dragon was the best character in the film, everything else in that movie was simply terrible.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Dragons

 

I'll go for a major change of pace, and vote for Falcor the Luck Dragon from The Neverending Story. There's something about the notion of "dragon as big friendly flying pooch" that I just find endearing.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Dragons

 

How to Train Your Dragon was really cool, but not at all about "dragons" as I see it. The dragons they had were pretty silly / childish as it was a kid's movie. But still really an enjoyable movie.

 

The ONLY movie with a Dragon that I really like was the original Dragonslayer. Reign of Fire, the Dragons looked awesome but the movie was fracking idiotic.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Dragons

 

The ONLY movie with a Dragon that I really like was the original Dragonslayer. Reign of Fire' date=' the Dragons [i']looked[/i] awesome but the movie was fracking idiotic.

 

Reign of Fire had plot holes you could drive a train through, but it still worked for me. The over-the-top acting, psychotic characters, and exaggerated action sequences just seemed to fit the incredibility of a world swarmed over by firebreathing dragons.

[Old Man]

Re: Dragons

 

Reign of Fire disappointed me just because the concept had so much potential, and it was wasted.

 

I'd have to vote for Dragonslayer too, but it occurs to me that there just aren't many movies that prominently feature dragons, probably for special effects reasons.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Dragons

 

There's some "made for syfy" flicks, and the second D&D movie; probably a few random movies here and there with a dragon in them; more than a few anime where they feature prominently.

 

Aside from that, yeah, the sfx are expensive and the audience for it is probably limited, at least in the judgment of producers and studios.

[dmjalund]

Re: Dragons

 

If we're talking Anime, there's of course Dragon Ball Z

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Dragons

 

There's some "made for syfy" flicks' date=' and the second D&D movie; probably a few random movies here and there with a dragon in them; more than a few anime where they feature prominently.[/quote']

 

The second D&D movie was pretty decent. Its not "good", but it was a darn sight better than that abomination they released in theatres. That movie seems to have killed Thora Birch's career. Pity. (not really, I think she's sticking to indie films, which is her strength)

 

There is also Dragon Wars which is a hollywood(ish) movie made by a Korean director. The movie itself is quite terrible with barely passible SFX, but it has some nifty ideas in it. If you want to give it a watch, make sure you Netflix it or something...don't spend money on it. Well, $1 at Redbox probably wouldn't piss you off too much.

 

Brining Anime into the equation, Record of the Lodoss War trumps even Dragonslayer. The main characters kill a dragon in the first episode and later, dragons become somewhat prominent to the plot and the dragon Shooting Star takes center stage. Shooting Star makes Vermithrax look like a hatchling.

 

There is also Vision of Escaflowne, where again, a dragon (more of a Wyvern type) is slain in the first episode. The people of Gaia (a world in a very nearby alternate dimension which exists just on the other side of our moon) take what they call Dragon Energists which are apparently the magical power source for dragons, and use them to power their machinery, most especially war machine known as Melefs or Guymelefs. The main characters Guymelef, The Escaflowne uses the Energist of a freshly slain dragon (most others simply harvest Energists from dragon graveyards) christened with the blood of its royal pilot. This Energist gives the Escaflowne supernatural powers and the ability to change from a humanoid Guymelef into a mechanical dragon! Good stuff. Quite simply one of the finest anime tittles ever produced.

 

Aside from that, yeah, the sfx are expensive and the audience for it is probably limited, at least in the judgment of producers and studios.

 

I think the "failure" of Eragon to attract hoards of movie-goers proved this. It is not enough to have a dragon theme and nifty sfx. There has to be something more. Apparently though, that "something more" is simply crappy harlequin romance plotline and co-stars with abs you can grate cheese on.

[Matt Holck]

Re: Dragons

 

I'm a big fan of Jane and the Dragon. (most episodes are on youtube)

The dialog is intelligent and the kids are likable.

Jane, a teenage girl determined to become a knight despite 12th century tradition is likable.

The dragon adds humor and soft sarcasm to the show.

[Escafarc]

Re: Dragons

 

I'm a big fan of Jane and the Dragon. (most episodes are on youtube)

The dialog is intelligent and the kids are likable.

Jane, a teenage girl determined to become a knight despite 12th century tradition is likable.

The dragon adds human and soft sarcasm to the show.

 

I totally agree, very good cartoon.

[dmjalund]

Re: Dragons

 

I'm a big fan of Jane and the Dragon. (most episodes are on youtube)

The dialog is intelligent and the kids are likable.

Jane, a teenage girl determined to become a knight despite 12th century tradition is likable.

The dragon adds humor and soft sarcasm to the show.

I feel that much of the personality of the Dragon from Merlin came from this one