You're part of a taxonomic research team in <insert D&D settng here>...

[hamishspence]

I'm not totally sure I'd classify dragons as endothermic. Their heat is usually thought to be generated from their breath weapon, but that weapon turns off in an area of antimagic (being a Supernatural effect). Then you have the example of the White Dragon, whose Cold breath weapon kind of throws the whole thing off. Maybe call it thaumothermic? Endothaumic?

A white dragon has a low but stable body temperature. Put it in a warm environment and its body will work to keep it cold - and the outside temperature is lower than the dragon's preferred blood temperature, its body will try to keep it a little warmer.

Draconomicon 3.5 (page 9):

An endothermic creature doesn't necessarily have warm blood. What it has is a body temperature that remains more or less steady no matter how hot or cold its surroundings become.

All true dragons are endothermic. Given their elemental nature, they could hardly be otherwise. A dragon's body temperature depends on its kind and sometimes its age. Dragons that use fire have the highest body temperatures, and dragons that use cold the lowest. Acid- and electricity-using dragons have body temperatures that fall between these two extremes, with acid-users tending to have cooler bodies than electricity-users. Fire-using dragons literally become hotter with age. Likewise, cold-using dragons become colder with age. Acid- and electricity-using dragons have about the same body temperatures throughout their lives, with younger and smaller dragons having slightly higher temperatures than older and larger ones.

[Beleriphon]

A white dragon has a low but stable body temperature. Put it in a warm environment and its body will work to keep it cold - and the outside temperature is lower than the dragon's preferred blood temperature, its body will try to keep it a little warmer.

Draconomicon 3.5 (page 9):

An endothermic creature doesn't necessarily have warm blood. What it has is a body temperature that remains more or less steady no matter how hot or cold its surroundings become.

All true dragons are endothermic. Given their elemental nature, they could hardly be otherwise. A dragon's body temperature depends on its kind and sometimes its age. Dragons that use fire have the highest body temperatures, and dragons that use cold the lowest. Acid- and electricity-using dragons have body temperatures that fall between these two extremes, with acid-users tending to have cooler bodies than electricity-users. Fire-using dragons literally become hotter with age. Likewise, cold-using dragons become colder with age. Acid- and electricity-using dragons have about the same body temperatures throughout their lives, with younger and smaller dragons having slightly higher temperatures than older and larger ones.

I like that. Endothermic just means the body temperature self regulates, no need for sunbathing (ice bathing?) to have a core temperature in the correct range to be active. That isn't to say red dragon doesn't like sun bathing, its just that they don't have to in normal circumstances.

[Quertus]

This interpretation opens up a host of other problems then. If golems are physical+physical than the elemental spirits can't be Monads, they have to be Biads, thought whether Spiritus or Corpus I don't know.

Also, fiends can't be just souls because they have physical bodies. Is there an explanation for that in planescape?

Don't fiends work in that weird pre-Socratic monism 'their soul is the same their body' way, which is separate to the more Platonic dualistic distinction between soul and body most creatures have?

Just as some characters wield their souls as weapons, outsiders *are* their souls. There is no matter in their "physical" form.

Which makes procreation logic… interesting.

[LibraryOgre]

Rogue theory: Dragons are monotremes. Or, barring that, synaspids.

[RedMage125]

Rogue theory: Dragons are monotremes. Or, barring that, synaspids.

Funny thing, in 4e, they explicitly stated that dragonborn were monotremes. Which explained why they both hatched from eggs and why the females have mammaries.

[Kyutaru]

Rogue theory: Dragons are monotremes. Or, barring that, synaspids.

Similarly, Kobolds were mammals that laid eggs in the oldest D&D editions. Such that when Dragonlance came around, we had Draconians that looked like kobold-dragon fusions with weird powers, born of corrupted good dragon eggs.

Totally supports the Dragons are monotremes theory.

[Beleriphon]

Rogue theory: Dragons are monotremes. Or, barring that, synaspids.

I was looking at Wikipedia's articles on taxonomy and decided that yeah they're synapsids. As a super order that covers reptiles, birds, and their precursors like dinosaurs. I don't think they're monotremes, they don't share any of the traits of monotremes at all.

[hamishspence]

I was looking at Wikipedia's articles on taxonomy and decided that yeah they're synapsids. As a super order that covers reptiles, birds, and their precursors like dinosaurs.

Actually, synapsids cover everything that is more closely related to mammals, than to birds, dinosaurs, lizards, etc.



Sauropsids, are the group that includes lizards, birds, crocodiles, dinosaurs, etc, but not mammals.

[Mechalich]

Actually, synapsids cover everything that is more closely related to mammals, than to birds, dinosaurs, lizards, etc.



Sauropsids, are the group that includes lizards, birds, crocodiles, dinosaurs, etc, but not mammals.

The divide between Synapsids, Diapsids, and potentially other classifications (Anapsids, Euryapsids) that are no longer used and may in fact be nested within the Diapsida, are based upon the position of temporal fenestra in the skulls of amniotes (basically, where there are holes in the head). unfortunately, art of D&D dragon skulls is inconsistent and limited so it is difficult to make any diagnostic determinations based on this feature - dragon skulls are often drawn without any temporal fenestrae at all, suggesting this feature was lost secondarily, perhaps to harden the skull for the purpose of breath weapon use.

There is a very good diagram of the post-cranial skeleton in the 3.5 Draconomicon, but unfortunately it doesn't diagram the ankles - which are diagnostic for relationships among Diapsid groups - in detail. However, the drawing clearly shows the calcaneus (that stubby bone at the rear) flared back behind the limb bones, in a manner very similar to that found in large felines. Compare with this image of a lion's skeleton:


If this can be taken as diagnostic (dubious, but we're not likely to get better) then you could place dragons within the Synapsida, probably branching off prior to the Therapsids, placing them close to Sphenacodonts like Dimetrodon. It's not that difficult to imagine going from a predator like D. grandis to a Hill Landwyrm, you're just changing the gait moderately. The wings, of course, have to be added post-hoc by magic.

[Jay R]

Science is a process of identifying and understanding an underlying system. For it to work, there must be an underlying system to find.

Taxonomy works in the real world because it's true. These creatures actually came into existence via a process that leaves them related to each other.

But since there was no taxonomically-prescribed process in creating D&D monsters, there is no system there to find.

Owlbears, chimeras, hippogriffs, and centaurs violate any extension of real-world taxonomy, just as fireballs violate conservation of energy, and levitation violates universal gravity.

[LibraryOgre]

Science is a process of identifying and understanding an underlying system. For it to work, there must be an underlying system to find.

Taxonomy works in the real world because it's true. These creatures actually came into existence via a process that leaves them related to each other.

But since there was no taxonomically-prescribed process in creating D&D monsters, there is no system there to find.

Owlbears, chimeras, hippogriffs, and centaurs violate any extension of real-world taxonomy, just as fireballs violate conservation of energy, and levitation violates universal gravity.

Not necessarily. After all, the fireball may merely be a conversion of one sort of energy to another, through a process that wouldn't work with our physics, but is perfectly reasonable by the physics of this alternate Prime. Levitation doesn't violate gravity, any more than planes do... they're just different applications of technology and energy.

Likewise, the various fantastical beasts don't necessarily negate any attempt at a taxonomy, though they might rewrite some of the rules. Explicit magical creations (q.v. owlbear) might be no different than transgenic spider-goats. There's no evolutionary reason for those goats to have spider DNA, but that doesn't mean they're inexplicable.

[Mechalich]

Science is a process of identifying and understanding an underlying system. For it to work, there must be an underlying system to find.

Taxonomy works in the real world because it's true. These creatures actually came into existence via a process that leaves them related to each other.

But since there was no taxonomically-prescribed process in creating D&D monsters, there is no system there to find.

Owlbears, chimeras, hippogriffs, and centaurs violate any extension of real-world taxonomy, just as fireballs violate conservation of energy, and levitation violates universal gravity.

True, but we can muse about where certain hypothetical fantasy creatures might fall in a taxonomic scheme if they lived in the real world. Yes certain chimeric creatures violate any sort of evolutionary taxonomy - most of them also involve physiological absurdities and weird skeletal abnormalities. Dragons, however, aren't necessarily one of them. Six-limbed D&D style dragons are problematic, but four-limbed dragons are actually quite reasonable. There are actually dinosaurs with bat-like leathery wings. From there to 'dragon' isn't that far at all.

Having a good idea of where you might want to put dragons into a taxonomy isn't very helpful for D&D fantasy worlds, agreed, but there's no reason why you couldn't have a more fully realized fantasy world where all of the 'monsters' were the result of actual evolutionary processes, and dragons are actually one of the more reasonable forms you might include.

[Beleriphon]

Actually, synapsids cover everything that is more closely related to mammals, than to birds, dinosaurs, lizards, etc.



Sauropsids, are the group that includes lizards, birds, crocodiles, dinosaurs, etc, but not mammals.

Right you are, I keep mixing those up.

I'm actually looking at other creatures as well, dragon are fun and I think I have a pretty good feel for how they fit into what I'm thinking. I'm just calling them reptiles with a new class of endothermic reptiles, and then magical reptiles as a order so it can include stuff like dragon turtles) down from there with reptiles that have breath weapons as the Halitos family, and then true dragons splitting as I posted earlier into the genuses Theres and Bipneuma.

What about other creatures, like say goblinoids. I'd assume they're mammals of some kind, but not part of the homo genus, even if they are hominids of some kind. Heck, why not just call the family they come Cobalidae (cobalus is Latin for "goblin") as a play on Homindae?

[PhoenixPhyre]

What about other creatures, like say goblinoids. I'd assume they're mammals of some kind, but not part of the homo genus, even if they are hominids of some kind. Heck, why not just call the family they come Cobalidae (cobalus is Latin for "goblin") as a play on Homindae?

My setting inverts the usual ordering.

It's humans that are part of the goblin tree. Mutated from hobgoblins via elven magic. Same with orcs

So humans are the pius goblins (leaving others to do the latin translations here).
Orcs are the angry goblins.
Halflings are the lucky goblins.
Hobgoblins and bugbears are temporary mutations on top of the regular goblins.

My "playable race" taxonomy has 3 starting races from which all others descend, usually by magical alterations. For setting reasons, goblins are especially susceptible to magical alteration.

The Lightbound -> Angels/devils, elves->genies
The Titanborn -> dwarves, goliaths->giants
The Proteans -> goblins -> humans, orcs, halflings, dragonborn, gnomes, etc

[Beleriphon]

My setting inverts the usual ordering.

It's humans that are part of the goblin tree. Mutated from hobgoblins via elven magic. Same with orcs

So humans are the pius goblins (leaving others to do the latin translations here).
Orcs are the angry goblins.
Halflings are the lucky goblins.
Hobgoblins and bugbears are temporary mutations on top of the regular goblins.

My "playable race" taxonomy has 3 starting races from which all others descend, usually by magical alterations. For setting reasons, goblins are especially susceptible to magical alteration.

The Lightbound -> Angels/devils, elves->genies
The Titanborn -> dwarves, goliaths->giants
The Proteans -> goblins -> humans, orcs, halflings, dragonborn, gnomes, etc

I kind of like the idea that goblins split off from the group that became demi-humans/humans at the order level, becoming a completely separate family of creatures. That's my preference, but I'm also trying to slot everything into a rough understanding of taxonomy that largely keeps what we know to be accurate true.

That's cool that you have goblins are you root for a bunch of common specieis.

[LibraryOgre]

Of course, everyone knows that all humanoids save the thri-kreen were originally halflings, transformed by the Pristine Tower (then subsequently genocided by the Sorcerer-Kings, who were unbeatable).

IOW, this is also pretty setting dependent.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's cool that you have goblins are you root for a bunch of common specieis.

The story behind how that became canon is one of my favorites. It was pretty early on in my setting's play-time and I hadn't pinned down any of these details. I figured that humans were the protean-children, not goblins. But I had a player whose character was a high elf with a serious case of "better than you lesser types". So I threw in (as an "unproven theory") a document in an arcane library saying that humans were artificially created from goblins, mainly to see what he'd do. His reaction was as expected, and we laughed. But then as I thought about it after the session, I realized that it explained so much. I had already established that that was possible (dragonborn were created from humans through experimentation with dragon souls), and it explained why humans were so social and could interbreed with lots of things, it explained orcs, it explained halflings, and it allowed me to explain the origin of all the races. So it became canon

It also sparked internal issues in a country, because there were lots of human-supremicist bigots there. Which led to an adventure I hand't planned on at all, which led to large changes in the world.

[Eldan]

That runs into problems though if you include half-elves.

I prefer the explanation that humans, elves and orcs are basically three prevalent phenotypes of one species and that they are mostly cross-fertile.

[Chronos]

The real-world genus Draco has already been mentioned, but it's worth noting that they're a real-world reptile that has both four legs and two wings. They can't quite fly with their wings, only glide, but that's a relatively small matter, evolutionarily.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That runs into problems though if you include half-elves.

I prefer the explanation that humans, elves and orcs are basically three prevalent phenotypes of one species and that they are mostly cross-fertile.

Humans were created by mixing hobgoblin base creatures with elven "DNA" (not really the molecule, but fragments of the soul resonance). So they're inter-fertile with elves because they're related. They're interfertile with orcs because orcs were created by mixing hobgoblin base creatures with other, mostly animal "DNA".

My setting doesn't use genetic evolution. Instead it's more Lamarkian, but magical. If you polymorph a human into a single animal shape persistently enough, then their children will carry animal traits. Or you can transform another creature into a human shape and breed it with a human (squicky, I know) and the children will be altered. The first was how humans were created (polymorph hobgoblins into a pseudo-elven shape a bunch and let them breed, then do the same for the children and the grandchildren, etc) and the second explains orcs and a bunch of the anthropomorphic beast races (tabaxi, etc).

The other way to create new creatures is to use blood magic to fragment a large powerful soul (like a dragon's) and merge it with unborn children. But this causes serious abyssal pollution and has lots of other nasty side effects, like sparking magical nuclear civil war once the rest of the people find out (especially if the mothers of the new dragonborn were unwilling and you treat it like a factory operation).

[Beleriphon]

The real-world genus Draco has already been mentioned, but it's worth noting that they're a real-world reptile that has both four legs and two wings. They can't quite fly with their wings, only glide, but that's a relatively small matter, evolutionarily.

Those are still tetrapods, not hexapods. The excess skin flaps that form the wings are just stiff along the edges, they aren't actually separate limbs like say a red dragon is depicted as having.