Flight Rising Discussion

I think I've figured out why I dislike Banescales so much. For a while, I wasn't really sure what was bugging me about them- their designs look fine, and the poses don't bug me too much- and then I realized. See, while I was a kid, dragons were (and uh. honestly maybe still are?) my primary special interest. I absorbed info on every book I could get, and then some. Which means, of course, that five years later, I still remember the difference between true dragons and pseudo-dragons (wyrms, wyverns, drakes, amphipteres, etc.); namely, that the typical difference between the two was number of legs and/or presence of wings. See, that's the thing: True dragons have wings (one set or more) and [u]four[/u] legs. Banescales, on the other hand, have [u]two[/u]. [img]https://www1.flightrising.com/dgen/preview/dragon?age=1&body=63&bodygene=0&breed=18&element=11&eyetype=1&gender=1&tert=161&tertgene=39&winggene=0&wings=64&auth=45da6430534a9daf64cf550a89b5917814b303b0&dummyext=prev.png[/img] That means that by definition, Banescales are wyverns, not dragons. This probably isn't a distinction that matters to people and it isn't really THAT important but at the same time... they aren't dragons... they aren't. (note: i am talking about the classifications of western dragons here; I'm aware that eastern dragons are an entirely separate matter + if imps got a legless/wingless ancient thatd be fine but banescales are very much western dragons so i see a wyvern being categorized as a dragon and i floor it kskjgdkjsgfs)

We done been known. That's why they're ancient instead of a modern breed. ALL modern breeds have to fit the 2 wings, 4 legs (or 2 arms 2 legs) classification. Ancients are allowed to have some, none, or multiple sets of any of those things because they're not technically "dragons", they're pre-dragons.

Edit: Gaolers just happened to fit the modern breed classification as the first ancient. People were laughing about it because staff said they were going to change it up and when Gaolers came out they were basically a modern breed but with smaller wings. Silly.

"A wyvern (/?wa?v?rn/ WY-v?rn, sometimes spelled wivern) is a legendary bipedal dragon[1] with a tail often ending in a diamond- or arrow-shaped tip."

A wyvern is a dragon, but a dragon isn't a wyvern

I noticed that too, though it didn't really bug me too much. Maybe in Sornieth the qualifications that need to be met in order to be considered a dragon are a bit different than what is traditionally known, so many of the mentioned pseudo-dragons would be classified as actual dragons in Sornieth.
I'm not sure about amphipteres though, because they're already a familiar on FR. technically they could be a future ancient, but what would separate amphiptere ancients from their familiar counterpart? presence of language or some sort of culture that the familiars lack, maybe? idk i'm kind of going on a tangent here.

i'm not sure what the factors that classify a dragon in sornieth are, but it'd be interesting to know where pseudo dragons fit in. right now all we know is that to sornieth dragons, wyverns count as real dragons.

Yup! Banescale are wyverns! And while I adore dragons, I also love wyverns, and I'm super happy there are wyverns on FR now! I love pretty much any mythical creature in general, and dragons just happen to be my favourite, but I also love any draconic creatures <3

Though I will admit I do get a little miffed when people call wyverns "dragons," since they technically aren't, and I've had the "classification talk" with quite a few people actually XD I like explaining the differences between western dragons, eastern dragons, wyverns, wyrms, amphipteres, etc., but I've come to accept that people use "dragon" as an immensely broad term. I still correct them a lot whenever it comes up though.

That is my thoughts as well. While their design is nice enough, I just kind of look at them and go 'You're not a dragon.'

But then again, a number of breeds don't fit my mental category on the subject.
Reasons why I love Guardians so much #1.

[quote name="@Pantheons" date="2020-01-20 14:11:43" ] [snip] i'm not sure what the factors that classify a dragon in sornieth are, but it'd be interesting to know where pseudo dragons fit in. right now all we know is that to sornieth dragons, wyverns count as real dragons. [/quote] Technically, wyverns don't count as "real dragons" in Sornieth though, considering they're an Ancient breed and not a Modern breed. Modern breeds, aka "dragons," [u]must[/u] follow the 4 legs 2 wings 1 head rule. Ancient breeds don't follow those rules, and henceforth don't need to be "dragons," just "dragon-like," at least, going off of what we've seen on Ancient breeds thus far.

[quote name="Razatharia" date="2020-01-20 14:15:53" ] [quote name="@Pantheons" date="2020-01-20 14:11:43" ] [snip] i'm not sure what the factors that classify a dragon in sornieth are, but it'd be interesting to know where pseudo dragons fit in. right now all we know is that to sornieth dragons, wyverns count as real dragons. [/quote] Technically, wyverns don't count as "real dragons" in Sornieth though, considering they're an Ancient breed and not a Modern breed. Modern breeds, aka "dragons," [u]must[/u] follow the 4 legs 2 wings 1 head rule. Ancient breeds don't follow those rules, and henceforth don't need to be "dragons," just "dragon-like," at least, going off of what we've seen on Ancient breeds thus far. [/quote] That makes sense! Honestly, I didn't think about that, because my brain considers ancient breeds "real dragons" just like modern breeds by default. Now I wonder if modern breeds have any qualms about some ancient breeds being considered "dragon-like" but still being treated equally as a true dragon. It'd be interesting to see a neutral ancient breed in the future that is so obviously not a dragon, but is close enough that moderns consider it as such, but maybe there's some controversy within sornieth about them being considered dragons/ or getting equal rights but only being recognized as "dragon-like"