Or, I ramble about removing Sornieth from Earth context, and applying what I want to take into account from game mechanics to lore, and how I ended up with just over two thousand potential dragon sexualities. Assuming I understand how math works, which is a bit of an ask.
Interested? Well, grab some tea or a sandwich, and let’s start with some -
Background Information
Or, how Almedha thinks about lore with a five-year-old-Neanderthal brain
I started to thinking about this when a potential roleplaying partner asked what one of my dragon’s sexuality was - and I was like, “You know? None of these. All of these? Yes.” Because I don’t tend to like my fantasy non-human creatures to lean on the way humans work. I know that’s not everyone’s jam - and that’s cool! One person’s hamfisted is another person’s deep and meaningful, as the old saying goes. Fantasy is fantasy. No one is invalidated because I don’t want to have a fantasy story wherein the principal lifeforms - winged lizards ranging in size from .5 m to 30 m - societally match humans on Earth 1:1. Almedha’s decision that it's not as fun for dragons to have sexualities like you (or me) says nothing about you or me, a human, on Earth.
I like it when games conform their mechanics to lore as best and often as they can. Obviously, sometimes this is impossible. Sometimes pressing F is just pressing F. That said, I usually try to integrate mechanics as much as possible. In places where this doesn’t make sense, I pick whichever concept I like best and keep that one. I happen to like this one.
I also don’t like lore that isn’t collected in one, simple, easy-to-find place. For my own sanity, all canon lore for an IP is collected within that IP’s medium. Flight Rising is especially egregious in part because some “lore” written by staff has in the past been explicitly not-canon. Therefore, to me, the encyclopedia and database are king, followed by official art and mechanical implements - and nothing else need be considered canon. “Staff confirmation” of something in a random thread six years ago doesn’t count if it wasn’t added to the encyclopedia somehow, and including it falls into the realm of “headcanon.” I think this approach makes it easier for everyone from the oldest player who doesn’t remember everything to the ones who joined just yesterday and only knows what’s immediately available. Staff confirmation is interesting and indicates the best way to build your lore (if you want to be somewhat canon-compliant) because such concepts might turn up in future canon entries, but otherwise can be ignored. If it’s important, they’ll canonize it in official entries. Otherwise, sorry, but it’s not canon to me.
Yes, I maintain my sanity by some pretty intense selective memory.
EDIT: Speaking of, it seems that dragonkind may simply have just the sexualities that we have, if vistas (Released January 2023) apply to dragons. Either way, we do have staff confirmation that this is true, but that's still, to me, not canon. I think vista descriptions and the nature of vistas overall explicitly exclude them from being canon "information" to Sornieth ("Forum Vistas are cosmetic backgrounds that add flair to your forum posts," is talking to the user, which does not exist). So, uh, all that to say? Nothing. Just rambling to say that it doesn't apply, I guess. END EDIT.
Alright, I just feel like the above philosophy is kind of important to understand heading into this subject. So let’s start with the -
Breeding Mechanics
And whether it’s canon
tl;dr, Yes, I prefer to think the breeding mechanic is canon! Read on, if you want.
I’m not convinced that mixed-species pairings and nests were canon until the release of the Aftershocks story in 2018. This story features a Spiral/Bogsneak pair. This pairing is obviously not as egregious as it could have been - we are all familiar with the idea of a Fae/Imperial pair. However, Spirals are distinctly small, while Bogsneaks are definitely medium-sized. My largest Spiral is still only about 75% the length of my very shortest Bogsneak, and that Bogsneak still needs 2.5 of her to match the length of my biggest one. Very scientific, I know. But you can easily see from others’ more scientific methods that a Bogsneak is very rarely a similar size to a Spiral.
My point is, a Bogsneak can mate with a Spiral. A Fae can mate with an Imperial. Most people seem to tackle this problem quite simply - and I think there’s plenty of canon support to assume this interpretation is the correct one: breeding is not physical. The “nose boop” theory. There is also the “external fertilization” theory, which I am disinclined to use because of the difference in size between an Imperial hatchling and its hypothetical Fae mother that I think is unreasonable to account for in the growth of an egg alone. It could, though. It's a fantasy land. Lots of people subscribe to this, though; I just don’t.
Dragons are primarily magical beings with physical components similar to their forebears. The deities are amalgamations of magic with physical forms. Dragon eggs match the element of the territory in which it is laid - and has nothing to do with neither the breed nor element of the parents. The only thing that is required for breeding is that they match at “type” (Modern or Ancient - with additional caveats for the latter) and diverge at sex.
Which brings me to “male” and “female.” As far as we can tell, most species are not sexually dimorphic. Even in size, the differences are not statistically significant for most breeds - in fact, I believe there are six breeds that have explicit differences between the sexes out of twenty. All other breeds, the differences between “male” and “female” have nothing to do with physical construction - which we may believe is largely represented by breed art because we are told when breed art is not representative. For example, the Tundras are shown in their summer coats, and Bogsneaks are not held to the number of crests shown in their art. This means, even “male” and “female” are largely (if not entirely, for most species) magical differences, not physical ones.
But, importantly, the only thing “male” and “female” matter for is for producing hatchlings. Which, I think, we don’t care about for this discussion to come. Now, keep in mind, this is just purely for… well, “simplicity” is the wrong word. Because even the non-dimorphic species still have and know the differences between male and female (see: Scribbles, member of a non-dimorphic species). I just prefer to think it doesn’t make any difference… Though if you’re talking about two thousand potential sexualities, does increasing to four thousand sexualities really make a difference…? Probably not, honestly. You could, obviously, go as big as you want. I have to have two thousand for my sanity, but four thousand seems counterproductive to that goal. Is that silly?
Probably.
That’s even assuming the only difference is between male and female regardless of element.
I have gotten ahead of myself, so what am I talking about? Good question. I’m talking about -
Dragon Sexuality
But it’s not actually “sexuality”
So, in this context, I think that there is no such thing as “sexuality,” technically, because that’s necessarily physical. (We wouldn’t have differentiated terms for romantic attraction if it were not.) So, to put this in simpler terms, Heterosexual/Homosexual/Bisexual/Asexual (henceforth abbreviated to HHBA, I guess) might exist only in romantic attractions in Sornieth: there need be no such thing as HHBA (unless you want there to be, and more on that later). Most dragons do not have physical differences between sexes and none of them physically breed - therefore, there is no such thing. But I’ll just continue calling whatever-this-is “sexual attraction” because it’s the only thing that translates.
But, with this paradigm, we know what dragons use to breed. Magic.
There are eleven elements that are an intrinsic part of what a dragon is - perhaps more so than their physical being. It determines where they were born, what magic they can do, and, in some cases, even what culture they were raised in and deity they revere most. We know magic has different physical effects and manifestations from the battle stones and descriptions. For example, compare the item descriptions between Mist Slash and Thunder Slash.
Dragons don’t have what we have to call “sexual attraction” based on their physical beings: they have attraction based on their elemental beings. I'd call it "elemental attraction."
Of course, this means that dragons have potentially over two thousand “sexuality” combinations available. (I’m bad at math, but that’s how that works, right?) Dragons who are attracted to Wind, Light, or Nature dragons are different from dragons who are attracted to Wind or Light dragons only, or dragons who are attracted to Wind, Light, or Water dragons. See what I mean? You could have dragons attracted to all elements, dragons attracted to none, and dragons attracted to any combination of those eleven elements.
But, if we wanted to, we could get really crazy and include HHBA sexualities (I suppose there could be a dragon that is not attracted to either sex for the element to which it is attracted?) for each element, if we assume there is, in fact, a magical difference between male and female. So for example, I might have a dragon that’s attracted to male Wind dragons and female Light dragons, but nothing else. Personally? I just prefer the elemental paradigm. It’s much… simpler. Simple being such a relative term...
And more fun than just having to simplify it by saying, “Well, I guess all my dragons are maybe pan, kind of? It’s the closest equivalent I can come up with, even if it really makes no sense…”
The lore possibilities with this paradigm are, frankly, endless. At least for me within my lifetime. And, in my own little opinion, way more interesting. There are two thousand labels to make, here. Or, you know, thirteen used in combination with each other. To keep it simple, you know. So -
That's All, Folks
Anyways, thanks for coming to my TED talk. I hope it was coherent. Or, at least, I hope it was fun. I promise you, I slept really well last night.
Interested? Well, grab some tea or a sandwich, and let’s start with some -
Background Information
Or, how Almedha thinks about lore with a five-year-old-Neanderthal brain
I started to thinking about this when a potential roleplaying partner asked what one of my dragon’s sexuality was - and I was like, “You know? None of these. All of these? Yes.” Because I don’t tend to like my fantasy non-human creatures to lean on the way humans work. I know that’s not everyone’s jam - and that’s cool! One person’s hamfisted is another person’s deep and meaningful, as the old saying goes. Fantasy is fantasy. No one is invalidated because I don’t want to have a fantasy story wherein the principal lifeforms - winged lizards ranging in size from .5 m to 30 m - societally match humans on Earth 1:1. Almedha’s decision that it's not as fun for dragons to have sexualities like you (or me) says nothing about you or me, a human, on Earth.
I like it when games conform their mechanics to lore as best and often as they can. Obviously, sometimes this is impossible. Sometimes pressing F is just pressing F. That said, I usually try to integrate mechanics as much as possible. In places where this doesn’t make sense, I pick whichever concept I like best and keep that one. I happen to like this one.
I also don’t like lore that isn’t collected in one, simple, easy-to-find place. For my own sanity, all canon lore for an IP is collected within that IP’s medium. Flight Rising is especially egregious in part because some “lore” written by staff has in the past been explicitly not-canon. Therefore, to me, the encyclopedia and database are king, followed by official art and mechanical implements - and nothing else need be considered canon. “Staff confirmation” of something in a random thread six years ago doesn’t count if it wasn’t added to the encyclopedia somehow, and including it falls into the realm of “headcanon.” I think this approach makes it easier for everyone from the oldest player who doesn’t remember everything to the ones who joined just yesterday and only knows what’s immediately available. Staff confirmation is interesting and indicates the best way to build your lore (if you want to be somewhat canon-compliant) because such concepts might turn up in future canon entries, but otherwise can be ignored. If it’s important, they’ll canonize it in official entries. Otherwise, sorry, but it’s not canon to me.
Yes, I maintain my sanity by some pretty intense selective memory.
EDIT: Speaking of, it seems that dragonkind may simply have just the sexualities that we have, if vistas (Released January 2023) apply to dragons. Either way, we do have staff confirmation that this is true, but that's still, to me, not canon. I think vista descriptions and the nature of vistas overall explicitly exclude them from being canon "information" to Sornieth ("Forum Vistas are cosmetic backgrounds that add flair to your forum posts," is talking to the user, which does not exist). So, uh, all that to say? Nothing. Just rambling to say that it doesn't apply, I guess. END EDIT.
Alright, I just feel like the above philosophy is kind of important to understand heading into this subject. So let’s start with the -
Breeding Mechanics
And whether it’s canon
tl;dr, Yes, I prefer to think the breeding mechanic is canon! Read on, if you want.
I’m not convinced that mixed-species pairings and nests were canon until the release of the Aftershocks story in 2018. This story features a Spiral/Bogsneak pair. This pairing is obviously not as egregious as it could have been - we are all familiar with the idea of a Fae/Imperial pair. However, Spirals are distinctly small, while Bogsneaks are definitely medium-sized. My largest Spiral is still only about 75% the length of my very shortest Bogsneak, and that Bogsneak still needs 2.5 of her to match the length of my biggest one. Very scientific, I know. But you can easily see from others’ more scientific methods that a Bogsneak is very rarely a similar size to a Spiral.
My point is, a Bogsneak can mate with a Spiral. A Fae can mate with an Imperial. Most people seem to tackle this problem quite simply - and I think there’s plenty of canon support to assume this interpretation is the correct one: breeding is not physical. The “nose boop” theory. There is also the “external fertilization” theory, which I am disinclined to use because of the difference in size between an Imperial hatchling and its hypothetical Fae mother that I think is unreasonable to account for in the growth of an egg alone. It could, though. It's a fantasy land. Lots of people subscribe to this, though; I just don’t.
Dragons are primarily magical beings with physical components similar to their forebears. The deities are amalgamations of magic with physical forms. Dragon eggs match the element of the territory in which it is laid - and has nothing to do with neither the breed nor element of the parents. The only thing that is required for breeding is that they match at “type” (Modern or Ancient - with additional caveats for the latter) and diverge at sex.
Which brings me to “male” and “female.” As far as we can tell, most species are not sexually dimorphic. Even in size, the differences are not statistically significant for most breeds - in fact, I believe there are six breeds that have explicit differences between the sexes out of twenty. All other breeds, the differences between “male” and “female” have nothing to do with physical construction - which we may believe is largely represented by breed art because we are told when breed art is not representative. For example, the Tundras are shown in their summer coats, and Bogsneaks are not held to the number of crests shown in their art. This means, even “male” and “female” are largely (if not entirely, for most species) magical differences, not physical ones.
But, importantly, the only thing “male” and “female” matter for is for producing hatchlings. Which, I think, we don’t care about for this discussion to come. Now, keep in mind, this is just purely for… well, “simplicity” is the wrong word. Because even the non-dimorphic species still have and know the differences between male and female (see: Scribbles, member of a non-dimorphic species). I just prefer to think it doesn’t make any difference… Though if you’re talking about two thousand potential sexualities, does increasing to four thousand sexualities really make a difference…? Probably not, honestly. You could, obviously, go as big as you want. I have to have two thousand for my sanity, but four thousand seems counterproductive to that goal. Is that silly?
Probably.
That’s even assuming the only difference is between male and female regardless of element.
I have gotten ahead of myself, so what am I talking about? Good question. I’m talking about -
Dragon Sexuality
But it’s not actually “sexuality”
So, in this context, I think that there is no such thing as “sexuality,” technically, because that’s necessarily physical. (We wouldn’t have differentiated terms for romantic attraction if it were not.) So, to put this in simpler terms, Heterosexual/Homosexual/Bisexual/Asexual (henceforth abbreviated to HHBA, I guess) might exist only in romantic attractions in Sornieth: there need be no such thing as HHBA (unless you want there to be, and more on that later). Most dragons do not have physical differences between sexes and none of them physically breed - therefore, there is no such thing. But I’ll just continue calling whatever-this-is “sexual attraction” because it’s the only thing that translates.
But, with this paradigm, we know what dragons use to breed. Magic.
There are eleven elements that are an intrinsic part of what a dragon is - perhaps more so than their physical being. It determines where they were born, what magic they can do, and, in some cases, even what culture they were raised in and deity they revere most. We know magic has different physical effects and manifestations from the battle stones and descriptions. For example, compare the item descriptions between Mist Slash and Thunder Slash.
Dragons don’t have what we have to call “sexual attraction” based on their physical beings: they have attraction based on their elemental beings. I'd call it "elemental attraction."
Of course, this means that dragons have potentially over two thousand “sexuality” combinations available. (I’m bad at math, but that’s how that works, right?) Dragons who are attracted to Wind, Light, or Nature dragons are different from dragons who are attracted to Wind or Light dragons only, or dragons who are attracted to Wind, Light, or Water dragons. See what I mean? You could have dragons attracted to all elements, dragons attracted to none, and dragons attracted to any combination of those eleven elements.
But, if we wanted to, we could get really crazy and include HHBA sexualities (I suppose there could be a dragon that is not attracted to either sex for the element to which it is attracted?) for each element, if we assume there is, in fact, a magical difference between male and female. So for example, I might have a dragon that’s attracted to male Wind dragons and female Light dragons, but nothing else. Personally? I just prefer the elemental paradigm. It’s much… simpler. Simple being such a relative term...
And more fun than just having to simplify it by saying, “Well, I guess all my dragons are maybe pan, kind of? It’s the closest equivalent I can come up with, even if it really makes no sense…”
The lore possibilities with this paradigm are, frankly, endless. At least for me within my lifetime. And, in my own little opinion, way more interesting. There are two thousand labels to make, here. Or, you know, thirteen used in combination with each other. To keep it simple, you know. So -
That's All, Folks
Anyways, thanks for coming to my TED talk. I hope it was coherent. Or, at least, I hope it was fun. I promise you, I slept really well last night.
|
Almedha | share project Fandragons Lore Starts Here (WIP) I collect Pulsing Relics! |
| ____ |
|
