Are dragons: friends or foes?

What about pseudodragons?

Attached: pseudodragon.png (800x500, 163K)

>Buh buh if it has 4 limps it's not a dragon!
Shut up grognard. Nobody cares about your D&D definitions.

Attached: medieval dragon design.jpg (1600x952, 438K)

Attached: mfw they call this a dragon.jpg (840x623, 159K)

Attached: C9-6sEkVwAAeDDG.jpg (1200x850, 114K)

Attached: wyvern.jpg (833x335, 176K)

Why would greek hydra be even remotely related to japanese kirin?

I'd cry too if I had to kill a fat special needs lizard

>ha ha this fantasy creature everyone calls a dragon is actually a different fantasy creature and I say that as an expert conducting long in depth study on relations between various fictional creatures

D&D didn't invent the distinction, it just ripped it off from heraldry, which was autistic even about dragons with the same number of limbs looking wrong.

Attached: 1537531297812.jpg (659x659, 196K)

Why would chickens be even remotely related to velociraptors?

Dragons are punks!

Attached: godzilla.jpg (500x647, 126K)

Not even remotely equivalent. Hydra and kirin were created conpletely separately. It would be like claiming that eyes of octopuses are related to eyes of mammals. They look similar and serve similar function but are completely separate. They evolved separately based on similar needs and because of that share similarities but those are accidental and follow function rather than showing common roots.

Since people have already brought it up I might as well say it

Why on earth do some people these days start doing the whole "durrr it's not a dragon it's a wyvern" thing? I never once heard anything like that before modern times. Is it just a result of dragons and general nerd culture becoming mainstream? The term "dragon" is already pretty nebulous. Or maybe people got the wrong ideas from Monster Hunter.

People like to be right, and they like even more to be more right than others. It gives validation, and especially for older nerds validation used to be something hard to comy by, so telling others that they know this obscure fantasy info better than others makes them feel that validation. But it's one of those things where misinterpretation is more common that the actual fact, like the wage gap misinterpretation that people on both sides of the argument keep repeating. Truth is people who say only those are dragons are correct but only in certain settings, mainly D&D. Historically in Europe six limbed dragons were the most prevalent but by far not the only depiction. So in short it's elitism stemming from nerds being shunned for a long time.

I think it mostly picked up at least on Yea Forums and Yea Forums in general around the times Skyrim and later Hobbit came around. Skyrim mainly as a knock against the game, and with the Hobbit it was a knock against the fact they went back and retconned Smaug into a wyvern design. The wyvern design in general has been kind of bandwagoned for years now in general and is almost all you ever see in popular media, so liking 4 legged dragons is now the contrarian/patrician opinion apparently.

I like 4 legged dragons more but that doesn't mean other types can't be called dragons.

Stalen bait.

The point is to degrade them. Like, "your show may have a dragon, but it's the inferior kind".

wyverns are just a type of dragon tho

>some guy saw a snake with a very large meal inside still digesting and immediately thinks dragon

It's cryptozoology, it ain't gonna explain shit

Foes, kill on sight.

Attached: Morningbright.jpg (697x454, 84K)

God I wanna grope that fat pathetic boy on the left and watch him blush because he didn’t expect it.

As soon as dragons aren't a nightmarish world-ending threat they lose their meaning. The dragon is supposed to be the ultimate foe of humanity and civilization.

Because they occupy the same niche on Reddit:

Slack Wyrm vs. Swords
Art : Slack Wyrm is way more consistent
Plot : Swords has way more characters, I don't know if that makes it better
Humor : Slack Wyrm by a fucking mile

Everyone's friend.

Attached: dragons.png (1017x1032, 1.59M)

Slack Wyrm is funnier by far. Swords feels like the guy is still trying to find his niche.

With legs?

Why doesn't the orange dragon center-left have a unique name?

hoes.

Attached: Chromamancer-fantasy-art-art-4789391.png (811x456, 503K)

I am aware this is probably bait, but the chart is supposed to be a fake evolution tree for mystical creatures with horns, scales, and flanged ears to be grouped together.

So what does this count as?
Because in the game it's from it's called a flying wyvern despite not even having wings.

Attached: Monster Hunter Ukanlos.jpg (637x358, 58K)

>I never once heard anything like that before modern times.
Are you a vampire or a time traveler?
How would you know what people talked about before "modern times"?

Attached: 1422318282809.png (380x538, 321K)

>humans can't make babies with Minotaurs despite the fact that minotaurs are human hybrids already
?????

Attached: ...HUH.jpg (1200x864, 175K)

Off-topic, but why does reddit love this shit comic so much?

everyone who has ever unironically said the words "it's not a dragon, it's a wyvern" should be put to death by the state

>Eastern Dragons are evil
But that's not how it works

>elf x orc is incompatible

Attached: ~~~.gif (500x281, 1.05M)

Lots of stuff on the chart doesn't make much sense.

mules are bred from a donkey and horse but can't themselves breed

learned that from minecraft

also the minotaur on that list don't seem to be able to breed with anything but the sluts that breed with everything.

D&D orcs aren't tolkien/weab orcs.

>tfw read up on actual encounters with dragons/large reptiles during the Middle Ages
>tfw some of them seem real enough

What the FUCK was going on in Medieval Europe?

Rape

Attached: 1520960505791.gif (1280x720, 3.59M)

That's just a form of sex, not genetic compatibility. Are you mentally disabled perchance?

the word dragon derives from the greek drako which meant simply serpent.
So originally dragons were just big snakes, exacty like the chinese ones, then they got conflated with the big beast from the book of apocalypse and limbs started being added

windmill fever

He has a niche. The niche is swords.

>Slack Wyrm is funnier by far
Slack Wyrm isn't funny at all.

Depends on the work. Cause dragons don't exist, and the writer must set the rules.

That still makes it funnier than that trainwreck called Swords

whatever you want, dragons are not real

Friends, ideally.
That said, I want to hatefuck the attitude out of Hildegard.

Truest dragons

Attached: M26.1Drakones.jpg (650x678, 144K)

Are turtles friends or foes?

Dragons are callous, inhuman, scum whose very existence is an affront to goodness itself, and who ought to killed with the utmost predjudice.

>Kirin
Ain't that an Asian thing

>Are dragons: friends or foes?
No, they're for fucking

God that's so unfunny.

I will FIGHT you!

It's talking about classifications and sub-classifications based on physical traits, not actual relation you dumb fuck.

What if dragon have fur?

Attached: tumblr_myohzmBmLf1r5wphyo2_400.gif (384x263, 811K)

We tell the furries to fuck off.

Minotaurs eat humans. You wouldn't want humans being able to breed with cows would you?

the minotaur was born from a human, his mom got fucked by a bull

If it's big, reptilian, intelligent but still an asshole, kill it.

Attached: cmx-cu-sash-lg.png_0,0,361,554 208,401,152,152_QL80_TTD_ (1).jpg (360x553, 63K)

I know what it's doing. I'm saying it's wrong. You don't classify animals based on how they look and you don't classify unrelated myths into the same category because they happen to share basic physical trait. Asian creatures like longs are called dragons because someone translating them decided to call them that but they aren't related to western myths at all. Kirin are fucking unicorns not dragons of you want to use western classification for them. It's a retard classification.

it's not fur, it's quills, like in a porcupine

Nah man, that's gotta be fur. Dude appears to be some sort of cat-dragon.

Attached: 18. smaug.png (535x401, 342K)

you might think this is a fluffy furry bastard but he's covered in sharp quills

Attached: 4e5yr4u.jpg (986x655, 166K)

Yeah, the definition of dragon seemed to be really loose not to long ago, most paints and tapestries could depict anything from dog sized lizards with no wings and canine or bird heads to horse sized two headed mammals who wore crowns and had eyes on their backs.

Attached: 1234312413242.jpg (800x964, 242K)

"Double halflings" was pretty good.

this looks like a side character in a dreamworks movie.

>2 legs it's a wyvern.
Pooh boy here we go again

Attached: Propaganda-350.gif (350x525, 29K)

No... that 'Wyvern' is a drake. Wyverns walk like birds. Drakes, like bats.

And, of course, drakes and wyverns are both subtypes of dragon.

Which one can I fuck?

>Are dragons: friends or foes?

where is the fucking difference?

Attached: 56985629_2532912163450169_4397612509081556659_n.jpg (639x639, 36K)

Horse Dragon. One of the only things that can kill Asian Dragons.

It was born from a curse from the gods onto a royal asshole's wife.

>if it only has 2 legs it's a wyvern
Here we go again

All of them basically.

For most non pathological people there is a pretty clear one. I would recommend rethinking your "friendships".

>no winged hydras

iirc it's supposed to be related to tigrex so I guess it once had wings on its forelegs

That whole chart is incredibly dumb no matter how you look at it. Unless it's a chart for a specific setting in which case anyone trying to apply it to general myths and fantasy is an idiot.

That's both true.

Dragons ain't got shit on medieval UFO sightings. Also shit like strange diseases and crazy cults, or aparitions of ghosts and demons in battle.

But it's not a wyvern unless it has a barbed tail.

Then it's a Jabberwocky, or a Long.

Spergs on both sides of the argument miss the entire point of the names. It's not supposed to actually dictate what is or is not a dragon, it's supposed to make it easier to communicate what you want drawn/depicted. It's faster to say wyvern, than to describe that you want a dragon that has no front limbs and a greater emphasis on the wing size and realism.

Most cross species hybrids are more or less sterile user. If anything any random fantasy creature being able to breed with any other fantasy creature shows how fucking stupid and thoughtless modern d&d can be. If humans are far more virile than elves and half elves are in between then half and quarter elves would outnumber elves everywhere extremely fast. Having just one human grandparent would give a huge boost to virility since humans can have 5+ kids in span of 20 years easily without even getting into edge cases and elves have a few in several centuries, which means that elves with human ancestry would take over the gene pool since appearance wise they wouldn't be much different. By the logic of anything can breed with anything there would be almost no pure races left especially for long lived species that have few offspring. A species that has twice the offspring of indigenous species can take over in just a few generations if interbreeding happens.

'Jabberwocky', you awful little pleb, is a poem ABOUT the Jabberwock.

And you can call this a dragon if you want, but I don't.

>wyvern
>a dragon that has no front limbs

The wings are the front limbs.

Attached: Jabberwock.jpg (701x1024, 372K)

Attached: Screenshot_2019-07-02 Darren Naish on Twitter(1).png (1479x686, 1.27M)

Except you don't know if that's the purpose. It seems more likely it's someones idea of classifying various mythological creatures. A wyvern will have a slightly different look than a two legged dragon when drawn by most artists, and if saying "two legged dragon" is so hard for you that you need to mash it into a single word then maybe you shouldn't have any opinions on fantasy in the first place since most of it comes from books that have more than three words in them.

Japanese dragon snake and romanian vampire idol dragon

Attached: liz kiyo (4).jpg (992x1240, 173K)

So...foes?

Attached: Fate_Extella-Link-Elizabeth-Barracks.jpg (1280x720, 244K)

O, Sad Dragon that Knew Naught of Love…… Here. One, two! Like a star! Tarsque!

Attached: Tarasque.png (1100x700, 548K)

- 4 legs;
- instill fear and respect;
I think they may pass.

Attached: Lc1_042.jpg (1000x930, 488K)

Gold dragons are so majestic.

Attached: 7d47a898a34cfa73a47b34cc641a9b75.gif (769x391, 431K)

>humans can breed with ogres and dragons but not goblins and dwarves

>tarasque
Yawn.

Attached: 1414253435006.jpg (816x2044, 238K)

Thats just DnD only one unvierse interpritation of a dragon, also its crap and should be the othe way around with colours been elements of nature (good) and metals been symbols of mans greed (evil).

I usually prefer good benevolent dragons.

>Fate Martha is legitimately insane from the cognitive of Cool Martyr Jesus and Old Testament Wrathful God being both real, connected, but contradictory

Pretty cool actually.

Attached: Martha and Tarasque Adventures.jpg (1112x2134, 1005K)

This sort of shit is what always pissed me off. It's fucking fantasy. You can have a six climbed Dragon in your story. Never got how folks think having only two legs was "more realistic" . Maybe am bias since I'm not a big fan of super realistic art directions . As long as Th r Dragon comes off as believable I could care less.

I just realized the Jabberwocky is wearing a shirt. I’ve seen this image a hundred times. WTF.

>flat chest loli bait

NOPE

Attached: 8e06db71560213.5bc935d802b83.jpg (500x500, 64K)

They're called King Ghidorahs

Attached: 71LGpW030ML._SX425_.jpg (425x294, 22K)

Waistcoat, but yeah.

Dragon vs Wyvern is the "actually Frankenstein was the scientist" of this website.

are dragons friends or foes?
strawpoll.me/18261323

Neither. They're for lewd

Attached: 1560670165617.jpg (4631x3119, 1.28M)

>Dragons AND Nymphs are lover of everyone
Just imagine how horny a dragonymph would be.

I'm not talking about that image specifically, but the terms in general. Also, what the fuck is that second part? Might as well eliminate language then, the whole point is in having specific words for every little thing.

I want to fuck The Great Gretch

ghidorah's stacked

>the whole point is in having specific words for every little thing
Yes, but those meanings change with time. Why do you get to arbitrarily decide which dragon is the dragonest dragon when historically and presently it can mean different things? Do dragons breathe fire? if not then what do you call the fire breathing dragons, if yes then what do you call dragons that don't breathe fire but have six limbs? If you want to separate all the types then you must have a separate word for them. But that's not how language works because most people aren't autistic and understand the existence of context, local dialects and varied complex historical roots. If you want to have a separate word for everything then you have no right to call Asian dragons that because they are not the same dragons as western ones. You autistically screech that one slightly less common way of depicting dragons is not correct basing it on a role playing game rules, while allowing something completely separate to be called that because those rules don't forbid it.

>Implying that mythology has ever been consistent about anything
>Implying that appealing to that inconsistent mythology excuses acting like an autistic cunt about the taxonomy of nonexistent animals.

My D&D setting is an americana based on native american mythoogy and folklore of the european settlers.
"Dragons" of the setting are based on fauna native to north america, they are elephant sized buffalo,bear,orca,condor mixes that can summon storms and fire explosive bolts from their mouths.
They are not reptilian and can't even fly but since they have four legs and two wings they are dragons.

>dragonest dragon when historically and presently it can mean different things
Did you mean to respond to someone else? I never said anything about that, you are pulling it out of your ass.

Dude, that's a lamp!

Attached: tvwy27dww4u21.jpg (729x960, 36K)

>I want words to mean very specific things
>I never said I want to pick only one thing where this word can be used and reject all other commonly recognised uses
That's exactly what you said. You have trouble grasping the fact that language is an extremely complex yet still simplified way of describing anything people might want to describe, real or fake. And since languages are constantly changing and adjusting, like making up a word "dragon" to mean a range of made up creatures, that means you cannot have a meaning so precise in case of most words. Where do you draw a line between blue and purple? It's a vague description good enough for daily use, if you want to specify the exact colour you use hex code or wavelength or other means of making it exact, but if you think that people should say #0000FF instead of blue then you're a fucking moron. Words have different layers of complexity depending on what is needed and "a dragon" can mean either exclusively six limbed reptilian creature or a wide range of made up reptilians depending on context.

>"a dragon" can mean either exclusively six limbed reptilian creature or a wide range of made up reptilians depending on context
lmao, dragon doesn't even mean that anymore either. the name is so diluted these days as to be nearly meaningless.

>there are exceptions to this widely recognised meaning you said therefore language is meaningless
You are autistic.

going from your vague-ass description, someone can claim kurt connors is a dragon, or a dinosaur is a dragon. don't even get me started with japan either, where dragons usually just means powerful being, reptilian traits optional.

>Quetzalcoatl
Damn you dragon Maid!

What If? Twin Dragons?

twindragonscomic.com/

Attached: thank_you_by_thenekoboi-da1dpji.png (500x448, 143K)

>don't even get me started with japan either, where dragons usually just means powerful being, reptilian traits optional
>Asian dragons that because they are not the same dragons as western ones
Asian dragons aren't dragons in the same sense western ones because their mythology is completely separate. So in that way you are correct that the word here is imprecise. You can't define a common mythical creature exactly because there is no real animal to study and interpret, they are imagined creatures that majority of the world agrees has reptilian and often cat or bird like traits. I don't see you ass blasted that gorgon can mean a woman with snake hair or an iron bull and that the snake haired women were only three individuals associated with a specific myth not a whole fantasy race of monsters, or that a Medusa is not even a creature but a name of one of them. You got fixated on a cherry picked definition because the popular rpg system defined dragons certain way even though there was never a historical consensus and yet even random uneducated peasants knew what a "dragon" meant without having to ask autistic you for definitions. Clearly you're dumber than a middle ages peasant if you don't know what a dragon is from my description.

I'm not even talking about those, I am talking about shit like this, or literal humans with horns.

Attached: 1556965984927.png (1000x689, 771K)

This is not a western depiction of a dragon, and as established the word dragon is an unfortunate translation for eastern mythological creatures because the ones who were originally called that resembled some western depictions enough. And weeb waifus don't count because literally everything in existence has a 10 year old with boobs anime waifu version. You might as well say that black holes aren't defined because some degenerated made it into an anime loli. If you're going to whine about wyverns then don't start bringing up completely separate mythos to justify it.

I don't give a single flying fuck about wyverns, you sperg

its more that hollywood's cheap 'tard executives realized its cheaper to produce an animated 3d model with four limbs instead of six, so now almost every single dragon in modern movies or shows is a wyvern.

This was once slated to get a movie adaption using animatronic puppets but it fell through.

I can't help but wonder how it would have turned out. It's a weird book.

Attached: Dragoncharm.jpg (300x480, 27K)

>whole thread talks about wyverns and dragons
>user doesn't feel the need to specify that he isn't talking about the one thing everyone focuses on in this thread
>why is language so imprecise
I don't know user. How can people fail to use words to convey what they mean?
While I agree that this is one of the reasons four limbed dragons are more common now, and that it's shit, that doesn't mean they are wyverns. They are still dragons, just cheap soulless easy to produce dragons.

then what's the term for a wingless, non-asian dragon

You literally spun off into the exact tangent I was complaining about in my first post in this thread. If it's not those faggots complaining about wyverns not being dragons, it's the opposite end arguing that dragons can't actually be defined as anything at all because they are make believe.

wyrm?

Except they are defined, just not precisely and not by their limb count. They cannot be defined the same way real animals who are studied and documented are which is what those anons including me were talking about, and which is what the wyvern people seem to want. For the most part anyone from almost anywhere in the western world will be able to identify a dragon, and because of the imprecise nature of fiction there will be edge cases that are hard to put into categories. But that happens even in natural world where biologists have a hard time deciding if found animals are the same or different species, the difference is that they're basing those on real observations while dragons by the nature of myths do not have complete consistency even if vast majority has some traits people would expect from them. You seem to have a problem understanding that not being able to define something precisely does not mean that you cannot assign any general traits to it, and that nobody argued that dragons cannot be described at all. Everyone was saying that the limbs and other details were inconsistent therefore cannot be a set part of a description. This is what wikipedia says, note that it uses the word "often" and doesn't treat it as the only possible option.
> Beliefs about dragons vary drastically by region, but dragons in western cultures since the High Middle Ages have often been depicted as winged, horned, four-legged, and capable of breathing fire.

The reason for the ubiquity of CGI wyverns in the place of dragons is that animators can just model their movements off bats and call it a day.

>no eastern dragons
given they're basically gods but still

They don't even do that, the way they hover in the air is laughably absurd. A model with less limbs is easier to animate and rig but they sure don't use that to make the wings look or work better.

Lung dragon is right there.

>someone designs a wyvern
>they cite that it's more realistic, but the poor thing has literally almost no muscles in the pectorals and its wing membrane surface is absolutely tiny and almost nonexistent

Porcupines are covered mostly in fur dumbass

The muscles at that size would have to work differently than the muscles humans have so I'm willing to accept that dragon muscles are lighter and stronger than other animals, and it would also explain why they tend to be immune to fire, since their tissues are simply different. The membrane and slow hovering like a person floating in a pool are unacceptable though. The real wing shape looks so much better than those fake hand wings skyrim and most other dragons have.

Attached: tumblr_mkshylieSc1rr6gt0o2_1280.gif (856x850, 614K)

I hate when D&D players treat their dragons as law.

fact: i have never met a person who plays DnD regularly who has actual aspirations

The pectorals on a dragon, particularly a wyvernesque one would be critical to flight, just as they are in a bat or bird, alongside the wings themselves.

Yes but you have to make room for design even if you want to keep it somewhat realistic. An actual dragon can't exist, large flying reptiles did exist but they didn't look even remotely similar to dragons. If they can breathe fire who's to say their muscles aren't 200% as efficient at the same size and weight? It's not that far reaching to think that partially magical creatures have more efficient physiology that uses magic on a very low level enhancing their physical properties. It's certainly more plausible than explaining how the fire breathing works on any useful level, not even getting into other elements.

Attached: pterosaur_revolution_wide.jpg (700x248, 21K)

wives

Attached: the dream.jpg (3200x1800, 1.33M)

The dragons Shall NEVER be forgotten. We knights fought valiantly, but for every one of them, we lost three score of our own. Exhilaration... Fear... Hatred... Rage. The dragons teased out our greatest emotions...
...Thou will understand one day. At thy twilight, old thoughts return, in great waves of nostalgia.

Attached: Hawkeye Gough.jpg (1101x917, 131K)

>god damn it not this shit again

Game

Attached: Dragon_Slayer_knight_final_s.jpg (1200x630, 108K)

This.

Yeah, a curse to make her lust for bull cock

Based Medea dragons.

t. a punk that can't win battles without hamfisted powerups

Attached: 1559436287932.png (1197x856, 413K)

>pegasus is a dragon
>skvader is a dragon
>angels are also dragons
why do nerds get so snippy about their lore

I want a giant male dragon to torment me and tease me with the fact that he's going to eat me, but when he tries to eat me he always spits me out before I'm completely in his stomach claiming that he'll eat me later, but never really has any intention to.

but the real question is
are the baha men the servants of Bahamut?

Attached: 500x500.jpg (500x500, 38K)

I want a dragon wife.

They're twins but have different surnames?

>Chinese dragons have no wings and they aren't actually dragons at all they just got translated as such

...no, I'm pretty sure the Chinese consider them dragons. They even have their own word for it, Long, like how the Japanese have Ryu.

Attached: Dragon_on_a_wall_in_Haikou_-_01.jpg (953x937, 974K)

Please tell me she can at least polymorph...

dragons weren't winged originally in European myths, you're using arbitrary rules thought up by a neckbeard for his table top game

Most of them had wings and four legs by middle ages. Most, not all so it doesn't mean they have to have that many limbs.

Western dragons originated as representations of the seven deadly sins, so yes. Dragons are evil.

>They even have their own word for it, Long
Yes, their own word that isn't a dragon because a dragon is European word describing European mythical creature. You just proved yourself wrong. They are separate creatures but because they are somewhat similar Europeans called them dragons and the term stuck in the west even though using the original word would be more accurate.

>their own word that isn't a dragon
..except it IS a dragon. Long MEANS dragon. Europeans don't have a monopoly on the word OR the creature. They didn't invent shit. In fact, it's the complete fucking opposite. The Europeans, Ancient Greeks in particular, were inspired by the mythologies of other cultures when coming up with their dragons.

The origin of the dragon in general is probably in the Middle-east, Babylon and areas like that.

the greek/roman draco more or less meant large serpent too

The origin of dragons is human fear of serpents, which is why every culture seems to have their own dragons.

user, it's TRANSLATED as dragon, that doesn't mean the word carries the same meaning. You only speak English right? Because there's plenty of words that don't have an exact translation but are always translated to the same "good enough" one and if you know more than one language you know how that works. Sometimes a word simply doesn't exist so you pick the closest one and hope that whoever hears it will get the right idea.

That's inspiration for the design not origin of myth. Multiple cultures have their own serpent like monster myths because humans are genetically afraid of snakes so they make good scary imagined monsters and gods. Not every one of them is called a dragon but they all seem to be rooted in the same subconcious fears.

it looks like what donkey's and the dragon's mutant spawns will look like if they manage to grow up

all wyverns are dragons but not all dragons are wyverns.

I like how even though they have a variety of alignments they are all vain, proud and bend towards greedy

Bump

Reminder that History and English majors are the pettiest people in the world and aren't worth arguing with.

>origin of dragons
Around 5000 years ago a Chinese farmer dig up dinosaur bones and went ‘hory shit!’

There were plenty of more selfless examples out there

That’s not too bad, so are cats

A lot of people here are suggesting that dragons came from snakes but I don’t see the comparison, snakes are very stealthy invasive creatures, while dragons are usually bigger and more powerful, i’d say they are closer to birds of prey more than anything,

Also the word Dracos originally translated to ‘sharp staring’ so it could pretty much cover any reptile or bird

A lot of the bad rep on dragons is due to Christianity demonizing other religions

It was a gradual process of "add things to snakes to make them more scary".

Besides, look at the "fire spitting" cobras and tell me you don't see where dragon myths came from.

Attached: Kadmos_dragon_Louvre_E707.jpg (2460x1791, 2.5M)