So between my other work I decided to start trying to clean up lore details and document everything in a fun presentable way, starting with the common request for the gilded dragon species. Something for peace of mind I guess. I know it isnt anything special but just sharing for those interested <3
Some added info: The scientific term for the chemical mixture produced by those glands is "pyrophoric". A pyrophoric chemical - or mixture - will spontaneously ignite in contact with air at ambient temperatures (it might still fail to do so at very low temperatures/deep frozen) - a chemical can be pyrophoric all by itself, but requiring a mix of two chemicals is saver, as exposure of one due to mishap (accidental spill - or in case of dragons - injury to the gland) won't immediately lead to a potentially lethal fire.
Not to be confused with "hypergolic" - two substances are hypergolic, if they ignite in contact with each other - even in the absence of air/oxygen.
Both types of chemicals are common in rocket fuels. Hypergolic fuels combinations such as Hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide are used in space rockets that need to reliably ignite after long sleep times, for example deep space probes. The dragon space capsule uses that for example.
Pyrophoric mixtures are common to reliably ignite rocket fuels that would otherwise NOT spontaneously ignite, such as Kerosine+Oxygen. For example Saturn-V or Falcon9 use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triethylborane
Examples for Hypergolic mixtures in nature are the bombardier beetle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle It has glands that produce a fuel (benzene-1,4-diol) and an oxidizer (hydrogen peroxide !!! ) as well as enzymes that, when mixed in a combustion chamber in the beetle's rear cause a reaction that produces both hot steam and 1,4-benzoquinone - which happens to be a somewhat poisonous irritant - but no visible flame. The beetle uses that as a defense mechanism. Thanks to a flexible nozzle, it can aim the mixture of boiling water, steam and poison in any direction - preferably at the eyes of the assailant - and the beetle can fire multiple times in rapid succession.
I don't know of any animal (other than dragons) that produce pyrophoric substances in glands, but quite a few plant oils (linseed oil, cotton seed oil) are pyrophoric, or become pyrophoric in combination with certain other chemicals or enzymes that increase reactivity.
Some oily plants also emit pyrophoric vapours on hot days, which can cause phenomenon like "burning bushes" in deserts and the like.
If I had to guess, I'd assume the dragon's glands would include a main gland, which produces an oily, sticky liquid with relatively high viscosity. Think almost like molten tar. It would stick to what it touches and burn relatively hot and long, but - on its own - would be quite hard to set ablaze and fire would spread slowly and could be put out easily by stomping on it or making a bit of wind with the wings.
The second gland or glands would produce a smaller amount of a thin watery liquid - full of enzymes - which, on its own - might not burn at all, but when mixed with the oil highly increases its reactivity, making it burn instantly on contact with air but also burn much quicker.
The dragon then can change the nature of the flame. Adding little oil and a lot of the second liquid would make for a quick hot burst of fire, but leave the target singed but intact. Good for a show, or for mock-fights between dragons when injury is to be avoided. Most of the fuel would burn within the visible flame just after leaving the dragons maw - making this a literal flame breath. Think "blow-torch"
However if more oil gets added, the breath becomes much more like a flame thrower. The napalm like "dragon-spit" would then stick to whoever is subjected to the breath and keep burning and burning and burning, hot and persistent. This is the mixture of choice to set castles ablaze and make them burn to the ground, to set forests ablaze even though the wood is wet, and to spray enemies you never want to see ever again.
For the fire-drool, it would likely be mostly oil - but also not a lot of it overall. But a dragon could also fill a fire-pit with it and make a campfire.
Some added info: The scientific term for the chemical mixture produced by those glands is "pyrophori
Mate I am well aware of the nuances and scientific side of things. Like all fantasy projects there is also a nuance to knowing when to keep things simple for general knowledge to keep things brief and fit within a small space, choosing what most would understand.
I politely request you do not lecture me and do not force your views and canon onto my own work. I desire no input from the dragon fandom after the endless making me fight to exist in it. My handling and canon is mine alone.
Mate I am well aware of the nuances and scientific side of things. Like all fantasy projects there i
That was not my intention, i was merely spinning what you wrote a bit further, and also did a bit of research. I thought it might be interesting as context but I do not intend nor desire to tell you what your canon is supposed to be.
I was merely curious if my interpretation of how your dragons work is close to what you had in mind - given the relatively broad but nevertheless highly plausible explanation in your work above.
I was not intending to step on your foot, but apparently i stepped in a wasp nest.
That was not my intention, i was merely spinning what you wrote a bit further, and also did a bit of
My apologies, you are good as I know the intent was good, as said below my communication skills are horrible at best alongside posting these fully expecting nothing but degrading comments as history has taught me. Ive had a long history of being slapped by the dragon side of the fandom every time I try to partake with my own methodology without just conforming and giving up so I tend to get a little on edge with every post.
Though thank you for the clarification on intent as well as I did not read it as a proposed questioning of discussing the methodology in a mutual manner. The matter of fact format alongside my complete inability to read people, gave me the impression is was more of a lecture than anything else.
That was entirely my misreading of the situation and I apologize for that and coming across so harsh.
My apologies, you are good as I know the intent was good, as said below my communication skills are
This is a shame to hear that fellow dragon types can be like that and have caused so much pain.. I wonder how much of that is seeing your designs and being worried(Due to your skill/design that could make them popular) that your views are going to impact/effect/change their own view, so they are on the defensive too. And are simply very bad at communicating their own views and instead end up phrasing/coming across as an attack.
(I mostly say this as many(most?) who are in the fandoms tend to be neurodivergants who tend to have these traits and in a collective environment where it seems normal to counterargument others, they would fail to understand the difference between 'lets explore this idea, I want to dig deeper'/'this is nice but isn't for me' and 'group attack' that would drive someone out.)
This is a shame to hear that fellow dragon types can be like that and have caused so much pain.. I w
I have to apologize as well. The way I wrote my post was likely a bit too "lecture style" - especially w.r.t. the chemical stuff in the beginning - I get excited about cool stuff - and it was probably very prone to be misread. I did not intend to lecture, but I can see how it came across like that. I'm glad we are good :-)
I was unaware that the "dragon fandom" could be so toxic as you describe - I do not consider myself really part of that fandom (although I do like dragons, I don't have the necessary obsession/devotion to consider me a "true fan" ;) ) - on second thought - a lot of fandoms are very close minded about how exactly the "true real thing" has to be like - just remembering some discussion if you can be considered "hard scifi" if you have FTL travel ;) so - on second thought I should not be surprised at all that you encountered backlash for daring creative thinking that deviates from "mainstream" - whatever the genre mainstream is.
I despise that kind of close mindedness - I feel sorry for the fandom - and for you that you went through that.
I have a "dragon" character, Moira, but her setting and background story lore differs quite a bit both from your lore and "traditional" dragon lore - I loosely based her on D&D dragons with some very anti-D&D-lore additions - but its not set in stone, I might borrow some ideas from your world setting if you allow - you put a lot of thought into this, and I like that - but I really like to understand it better, too - which was kinda the underlying motivation for me to post here at all :)
I have to apologize as well. The way I wrote my post was likely a bit too "lecture style" - especial
I appreciate the understanding and thoughtful discission <3 the clarity does help, and it is nice to feel heard in a subject that normally leads to disappointment, especially with mutual analogs of the issues!
And for what it is worth, to try to give a proper response knowing the context and the intent. You did land real close to how I set them up in regard to consistancy, chemical composition, and how it lends to the flexibility of how one can use it in a manner reflecting their immediate needs. Be it as you said, a napalm like extreme, down to a weak but showy whiff.
The only missing feature of the hypothetical is I do imagine the chemicals to be fairly caustic to expose to areas not meant to hold it, so for a truly non lethal option I set them up to be able to just spray a single of the pair to cause skin irritation, temporary blindness if it gets in the eyes or at least real bad irritation and rash for a while. Can at least distract enough to get out of a situation if harm isnt intended or if full on fire may make things worse.
To the prior half, Ive def spent years bouncing back and forth on if I want them to be pyrophoric or hypergolic as each has merits from a design basis. I tend to lean toward the pyro method as it gives them the most control without the mixing chamber being a ticking bomb internally. Alternatively hypergolic provides a lot more situations where it could be used where the other cant what with being more self sufficient. Ive contemplated maybe giving it a delay they factor in, or the initial mixing builds enough pressure to prevent any internal combustion, etc. always a tricky nuance, im sure il eventually decide and make a final edit some day xD
I appreciate the understanding and thoughtful discission <3 the clarity does help, and it is nice to
Oh yes, I fully agree on that. I don't think Hypergolic would be very beneficial for dragons, considering they are air-breathing creatures and can exhale - supplying the necessary oxidizer. One could go as far as to say "if you factor in the air in the lungs as one of the components, any pyrophoric mixture becomes a hypergolic mixture" (although one of the constituents is then gaseous) - for the bombardier beetles that's not an option, bugs don't have lungs, - but they have a hard chitin exoskeleton which is well suited for "growing" combustion chambers (and they have a short life-span and produce a lot of offspring, so quantity over quality - bees can only sting once, too)
Dragons - usually - have very long lifespans so a pressure chamber would have to be highly regenerative, that kinda almost rules out very high pressure - contained - reaction chambers. I do think, spraying stuff into the airstream/breath and having it burn mostly outside in a spewed flame - besides being the traditional way everyone imagines fire breath - it also makes a lot of technical sense.
Now if we had "sea-dragons" - or "sea-serpents" that spend most or all of their life under water and maybe even use gills, then you kinda have to go hypergolic to spew fire -- or maybe a chemical that reacts violently with water. ( I wasn't previously aware of any fire-breathing gilled sea-seprent in mythology, but a quick research revealed the old testament "Leviathan" to be exactly that - so there you go ;) )
I hadn't thought about the irritating nature of the fluid, but that makes total sense! If one fluid is a fuel, and the other fluid is supposed to highly increase the reactiveness - its basically a catalyst. Many catalyst are acid based and would increase oxidization not just of the carbohydrate fuel in the other gland, but also of many other organic substances they come in contact with. --> There you have your rash/skin burn - and you definitely don't want that stuff in the eyes :) - also there's plenty of known animals that have highly irritating spit and also weaponize that.
It could very well be a side product of the dragon saliva. Catalyst enzymes and acidity are classical constituents of digestion fluids and - from an evolutionary point of view, all the parts are already there, dragons only would have needed to evolve some of their salival glands to make them a bit more potent.
Similarly, the "fuel" could originate from modified mucous glands - either in the throat or nasal cavity. If I remember right, mucus is high in glycoproteins which when concentrated would make an excellent fuel. I totally see an evolutionary path towards fire-breathing there - based on glands that are already present in basically all land based vertebrae.
I'd love to spin this further. Would you prefer to take this discussion to PM or to discord?
Oh yes, I fully agree on that. I don't think Hypergolic would be very beneficial for dragons, consid
Fantastically well done, they also remind me a lot of the dragons from Reign of Fire (altho those were wyvern-type, and the male was vastly bigger than the females).
Fantastically well done, they also remind me a lot of the dragons from Reign of Fire (altho those we
In mythology and that lore they are dragons not wyverns. In western mythology dragons are defined not by limb count but by fire while wyverns are venomous. Details and mixing occurs over the years but the limb thing was started by dnd and pop culture misinformation. The true nuance of the mythology is more of a dragons are 4 or 6 depending on the source era of the myth, and regions, while wyverns are indeed only 4 in all myths. Anatomical dragons deserve respect as what they are, and are what I prefer, but I conformed to stop having to say this in every conversation about it and fight for them every upload in my designs. Should you need proof, consult the ancient bestiaries and artworks of the period, the nuances are pretty interesting.
Il just die on the hill that by its own lore and ours they still deserve to be called what they are without fighting for it.if your lore calls them that great but dont force it on anothers. In reign thats a dragon.
In mythology and that lore they are dragons not wyverns. In western mythology dragons are defined no
I dont understand why you're being so defensive (which by the way i noticed in your answer to the guy above as well, he was only pointing out how a 'dragon' could work in a realistic setting, since you bothered to make a realistic anatomical study of yours), did i say that they are not dragons? I only made a note on how aestethically similar you made them to the beasts of another franchise, save for the details i mentioned. Besides every culture has their own representation of Dragons, Drakes, Wyvers, Worms, Serpents, and so on, and in each and every case they are only made up creatures (majestic as they might be), so saying that a certain fantasy beast is part of a certain specie can only (and needs only) be the word of the author that made it up. For example in Tolkien's mythos Glaurung, the Father of Dragons, was completely flightless, but had poison, magic and fire, and it was 'built' by Morgoth in the forges of Angband, which made it really a more complex mix of demon, golem and beast rather than an 'animal'. Yet as the author, Tolkien calls it Dragon, and so it is correct to refer it as such.
I dont understand why you're being so defensive (which by the way i noticed in your answer to the gu
Thats what I said to you. I was defending reigns dragons. They are dragons in their lore and definition. Your note of mocking them after saying the similarity is something I felt needs to be defended as the dragon fandom demands someones creation be called whatever conforms to their view.
In reign they are dragons. Not wyverns. The point isnt anything other than poorly saying a creator can do what they want and call it what they want without having snide "well you are wrong it is not a dragon its a wyvern." And similar lectures. Making the creator need to defend their decision instead of just being allowed to exist as another entry and option, you know? So many amazing concepts and designs fighting to exist like it is somehow inferior or wrong when it isnt. There is always that asterisk.
I gave up and conformed, but I still will be a voice sticking up for a anatomical dragon and a creators right to define their lore without someone else renaming and defining it to conform.
I do appologize if I sound too clinical or harsh, it is not my intent, my social ability is very poor and trained by a lifetime of abuse which I am working on, i tend to over elaborate and speak bluntly as I am not sure how else to get the information out. Alongside a history of problems whenever I try to share my own creations, it gets very difficult to express things.
Thats what I said to you. I was defending reigns dragons. They are dragons in their lore and definit
I do want to stress I intend no malice or ill will, purely discussing from the point of a creator a very common issue that some folk are good at just shrug and ignore it, but others, the constant "i like this, but your creation is wrong let me define it" asterisk can be very difficult to handle after enough times. Especially for something as personal as ones own design work.
I do want to stress I intend no malice or ill will, purely discussing from the point of a creator a
I think a lot of confusion comes from confusing "in lore" terminology to "out of lore terminology" - when comparing different world-settings or different stories (for example tolkien with D&D or Norse mythology with the reign of fire movie) - its tricky to go by "in-lore terminology" because they call different things by the same name and use the same name for different things ( common issue - elves and fairies share a similar fate )
You typically see "modern" terminology adopted for meta-discussion, for example on wikipedia, to distinguish types by form and call all 4 limbed dragons "wyverns" 6 limbed dragons "dragons" unwinged legged dragons "drakes", snake-like winged dragons "wyrms" and unlimbed ones "serpents" but this is of course completely irrelevant for any "in lore" terminology - including more or less all of the historic lore, where all these terms have been used more or less interchangeably with no such distinction.
This "definition" which is really only useful comparison between different stories/lores/myths seems to be quite recent. The graph on https://www.etymonline.com/word/wyvern suggests as recent as 1995, although it seems to have originated from heraldry where scholars needed to distinguish different type of dragon-depictions in coats of arms by appearance.
If you look at medieval depictions of dragons - especially dominant in heraldry - almost all are 4-limbed and would be called wyverns. If you go back to norse mythology, the oldest versions of the Sigurd saga feature Fafnir the dragon as a lindworm - a flightless serpent like beast. Later eddas of the same story by different skaldes depict Fafnir as a winged dragon. - Tolkien's dragons are heavily inspired by Fafnir, using the earlier description for Glaurung and the latter for Smaug. (Funnily enough the name Smaug literally means dragon - in Polish (Smok) ) - if you go far enough back, almost all dragon myths are serpents, wyrms or wyverns. Dragons with 6 limbs total seem to be generally a later invention - and quite often older stories have been retconned - with newer depictions of the same myth growing extra limbs. However all of which have always been called dragons in their respective lore.
The meta-terminology is kinda stupid, because for "what makes a dragon a dragon" - 4 vs 6 limbs is relatively irrelevant. Historically much more important was the question "how much mayhem can it cause" and "can it be killed" - for a true dragon in most lore the answer is typically "desolate entire kingdoms" and "only by a one-of-a-kind hero with a magical weapon" -- as such it didn't matter for the Sigurd saga that at one time the dragon was a "lindworm" and another time it was a "high dragon (D&D)" - because it does not change the narrative one bit.
Now when you write a story, RP, or draw an image it matters if your dragon can fly or not, and how they walk and move. But there is no point whatsoever to use the heraldic terminology in-lore.
That's almost like saying "great fantasy story, but you shouldn't use "leagues" for distance - these days we use SI units. Use kilometers please." *sic*
I think a lot of confusion comes from confusing "in lore" terminology to "out of lore terminology" -
Pardon poor typing, these discussions keep me in a small panic attack so donthe best I can.
A small nuance in this discussion is a factor that is being missed. You are coming from a perspective of a outside eye coming in and saying, lets make an example, "wow what a nice wyvern character!" Even they are a dragon by the creator and mythology and express it clearly even on the image. Now as it stands, this is just a collision of like you said, modern culture vs the full nuance and has good intent. While mildly frustrating it is good natured.
My frustration comes from quotes in the ballpark of "love the design but that is not a dragon it is a wyvern." The demanding after the fact degredation of anothers design that, by all definition, is equally valid to exist without fighting that asterisk. When someone goes out of their way to be all, by the way did you know you are wrong. When you arent. That is where I come from and poorly express. What you do in your eye and what works for you? Great! But when you demand another conform to you when your only basis is pop culture? Thats where I get frustrated.
In truth it is a lot of things. It becomes such a heated fire because of a lifetime of abuse and belittling every view and word, then suddenly this wonderful creation i love is being treated the same way? Then how often it happens, as the prior example is very rare, it is ALWAYS a matter of fact you are wrong style when the creator is not. I am also trans and told constantly how wrong I am for existing with an asterisk constantly. With the final being this has killed another thing I love. My passion is anatomy and anatomical design.
I used to draw anthros as purely anatomical. As close to how would nature do this. No human figure. No breasts. Etc.
Now every post in that era, was a small positive community, but a lot of thats semi feral. Thats not anthro. Every single time. And a lot of, wow what a disgusting zoophile! Just because I design with a love for anatomy. It was endless! When all i wanted was to make a believable and unique world that shows the beauty of everything in its way and play in the theme of nobody has a choice in their features and what they are, but there is a nuance and beauty to each unique solution every species has made to survive.
Eventually I gave up from the endless sea of hatemail and degredation. I conformed to a compromise you see now. Aparently adding tits shuts everyone up. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Same happened with dragons, my anatomy love draws me toward anatomical designs. Reign of fire is for example my #1 fav dragon design of all time and fills me with i soiration, love, passion. My next favorite? Vermithraax! That gorgeous villainous anatomical broodmother from dragonslayer.the list goes on. As such these nuances are what I wanted from mine. Anatomical, believable, and finding ways to blend that with sapience and their own needs. But every. Single. Time. I try to post it and share my love with ithers. Fuck you liz thats not a dragon get out, is the only type of reply I get.
In short, do you want to know how many times someone told my old design, wow I love your dragons like you see all the time now after I gave up and conformed? Never. Not a single time.
Only lectured of how wrong i am aparently when even the myths say im fine. But no, they always had to fight to exist, just like the designs that make me want to share my loves and passions with others. Thats how such a stupid small thing as those few words can just cascade, as people like me, who enjoy this branch, arent allowed to publicly. I broke, gave up, conformed as i have no fight left to do it daily anymore. I refuse to confor. To their terms, so i stead I conformed my design. And now i get a sting even when someone says something nice about my designs as it ends as "if i did it my way you wouldnt be saying that."
Thats where my poorly worded discussion comes from, the best I can.
Pardon poor typing, these discussions keep me in a small panic attack so donthe best I can. A small
This makes me really sad. It should be possible to create art without having to defend it each and every time against close minded idiots who believe "they know better"
This makes me really sad. It should be possible to create art without having to defend it each and e
