SPOILERS ALL BOOKS You know you're hooked when...

[Valarya]

so in other words... you don't like dragons.
They're many-legged, scaled & winged.

Hahahahaha!!!

Bwahaha. HAH HA HAAAAAAAAAA haha.



Oh hahaha. Man. 'thul beings that was TOO good.

[fool-ish]

Well, 'tis true, I wouldn't want to encounter a dragon! Though, I wouldn't say they were many-legged, I'd use that term for anything with more than four legs! With regards to wings, dragons wouldn't ever get caught in my hair, because they're too big (generally!) Unlike moths and bats, for instance (shudders!) The scales, I have absolutely no excuse for

I do like reading about dragons though and I'd like to believe that redeems me somewhat! But of course, as 'thul beings like a good argument, there'll be no redemption for me whatsoever!

['thul]

Generally, "many" is to 'thul's experience not more than four. It is counted "one, two, many" so it is 3+, or sometimes 4 or more.

Of course, some common dragons are two-legged, with two arms and two wings, others have two legs and two wings, and the last of the most common varieties is the one with four legs and two wings.

There are a few rare ones without wings or with no legs, but they're rare. Some of those have wings and arms (but not legs).
The spiders (that exist outside fantasy) that you should really fear are not the big ones like tarantulas, as they are generally mostly harmless... its the small ones. Black widow spiders are fairly small, yet deadly.

Same can be said for scorpions. Big Claws = safe, small claws = dangerous. The big-clawed ones need such claws to hold prey while venom spreads. Small-clawed ones have such strong venom that they do not really need claws to hold prey at all.

[finella]

If you did not figure it out earlier, Yes, large part of the arguing back is mostly for the fun of it.

Ups, sorryI just should have read the whole thread, instead of just looking at the last page and thinking, what sort of strange views some people have and that I have to say something to it. I should have just kept my mouth shut .

['thul]

A good argument (so long as it remains good-natured and people do not get truly angry) is always a good thing.

[finella]

A good argument (so long as it remains good-natured and people do not get truly angry) is always a good thing.

Thanks, Thul!

[FoolishGirl]

Of course, some common dragons are two-legged, with two arms and two wings, others have two legs and two wings, and the last of the most common varieties is the one with four legs and two wings...There are a few rare ones without wings or with no legs, but they're rare. Some of those have wings and arms (but not legs).

Now, isn't this a point of contention amongst fantasy readers? I recall from an AGOT board that some fervently believe that a dragon should never have front legs, as their wings would have evolved from their front limbs (like bats). Tintaglia and Icefyre have 4 legs plus wings, I believe. I don't recall whether the dragons in DK are all 4-legged...

[Valarya]

I don't recall whether the dragons in DK are all 4-legged...

They are, I believe. Several times there's mention of of a Dragon pinning something down with its front feet as it tears at the meat with it's teeth. I think it makes more sense for Hobb's dragons to have 4 feet since they form from Serpents. I don't think of them as fat squat dragons, but long serpent-like dragons. With such a huge body, you'd need to have 4 feet, yes?

At least I like to think so, haha.

['thul]

RotE dragons are hexapedal, yes. Not sure if the front legs have opposable claws, but there's certainly four legs.

The most common dragon variety elsewhere is also hexapedal. Quadrupedal dragons are actually fairly rare, though they fit better into earthly mammal/reptilian standards.

[FoolishGirl]

I think it makes more sense for Hobb's dragons to have 4 feet since they form from Serpents. I don't think of them as fat squat dragons, but long serpent-like dragons. With such a huge body, you'd need to have 4 feet, yes?

I agree. A two-legged dragon would seem to have a disadvantage with regard to feeding and getting around on the ground. Trying to think back to other dragons in other authors' books, and I can't recall any that I knew for sure were only two-legged. That's why I was surprised to see the comment about A Game of Thrones, that the dragons on the show were two-legged, and the poster seemed to imply this was the "correct" anatomy.

---

RotE dragons are hexapedal, yes. Not sure if the front legs have opposable claws, but there's certainly four legs...The most common dragon variety elsewhere is also hexapedal. Quadrupedal dragons are actually fairly rare, though they fit better into earthly mammal/reptilian standards.

Having 2 legs vs 4 would greatly change the physical nature of the dragons, I would think. I imagine that, while on the ground, they would need to sit on their haunches to maintain their balance, and would therefore be more bird-like than lizard-like.