The "no dragons" thing and Klyros

[Bnm85]

With all the statements that there will be no dragons, Klyros seem to look a bit like dragons. On many fantasy drawings out there on the net, whenever dragons are made to look somewhat humanoid (dragon warriors, dragon mages etc), they often resemble Klyros. I\'m not expecting a huge number of replies, it was just an interesting observation, that\'s all.

Agree or disagree?

[Drey]

klyros is repitle like

dragons are dragon like...

klyros go underwater, dragons dont like water. see different.

[Bnm85]

Originally posted by Drey
klyros is repitle like

dragons are dragon like...

klyros go underwater, dragons dont like water. see different.

Dragons are reptile like. Dictionary.com\'s definition:

\"A mythical monster traditionally represented as a gigantic reptile having a lion\'s claws, the tail of a serpent, wings, and a scaly skin.\"

Sea dragons like water.

[Karyuu]

There are definitely similarities, but it also adds variety. So many people before have been screaming about wanting a reptilian race, without looking closely at the Klyros. The thing is, they\'re not dragons just as Enkidukai aren\'t cats ;)

[Bnm85]

Well, as I said in the first post, humanoid dragons like, not dragons themselves.

As for Enkis, they actually do like like cats that stood up. Heh.

[Seytra]

What remains is the OT, which has been answered. Klyros are not dragons. Yes, they have wings and scales. However, not even close to all dragons do have wings or scales. There are so many different concepts of \"dragon\" out there, and not all of them are compatible. For example, eastern traditions will see no resemblance between Klyros and dragons whatsoever, because their dragon concept is quite different, and it\'s not the only one that is. And there are concepts that have elemental dragons, others that don\'t, so saying \"dragons don\'t like water\" is valid only in the context of a few of the existing concepts.

Klyros have been used for all sorts of argumentations, like comparing them to gargoyles to justify angels, which AFAICS is a lot closer than dragons, though also not precise, since gargoyles are more similar to dragons than are Klyros. In fact, the mentioned depiction of humaniod dragons is IMO so far off the actual dragon concept that is being referred to here that it\'s not even valid to talk about dragons anymore.

I think this is mostly due to the fact that the mentioned races (Klyros, Enkis) are a lot less common in fantasy worlds than others like elves and dwarves. Similar, in fact, to the creatures they are being compared to (dragons, gargoyles), which also are (usually) not a common siht in the fantasy worlds they exist in. This is the greatest similarity IMO.
The point is that there are some properties they share with some of the major concepts of dragons (whereas Enkis have similarities with almost all existing cats), but the overall number of similarities is very small, they just stick out because one looks closer at them since they are not so well known.

What I have noticed is that Klyros are being compared to just about everything (dragons, gargoyles, demons, fish, birds, bats, lizards whatever) in about the same number of cases, and this IMO proves that they are not dragons (nor any of the others). They are dragons to the the same extent to which they are humans: a tiny bit only.

Thus, I agree with the OP: Klyros look similar to what may be increasingly classified as \"dragon\", but in fact is nothing but a humanoid lizard. However, this concept is not what a dragon traditonally is, and thus is, at best, a \"new\" concept that is quite incompatible with the others. Therefore, it can not be used to argue against the \"no dragons\" statement of PS, as it clearly refers to the traditional concepts of \"dragon\", not the (IMO diluted and misguided) concept of IMO \"non-dragons\".

[Bnm85]

Hey, Seytra

Thanks for a non-spam post, even though I disagree with a lot of it. It was still an interesting read.

The point, however, was a similarity with a humanoid dragon as an evolution from a typical dragon concept. Yes, there are many concepts but there are also typical fantasy dragons that are very similar to each other (ie not like chinese dragons, for example). Dragons themselves are a fantasy (unless you count real animal life that\'s been labeled a dragon later), so a humoid evolution of one isn\'t any more far fetched than dragons themselves. And what I was saying is that a typical fantasy dragon (or a sea dragon) evolution into a humanoid form, which you see on a majority of fantasy drawings on the net, has a strong resemblence to Klyros. It was nothing more than an observation, not an argument that the game should have dragons because Klyros look like a humanoid version of one. It was just to point out that the game isn\'t completely devoid of \"dragon-ness\" as one might think at first due to \"no dragons\" statements.

[Seytra]

While it may be imaginable and just about as far-fetched as are dragons (and yes, I think dragons are imagination only and don\'t really like the way some people claim that this and that animal is / was a dragon. It may have been part of what inspired them, but it still isn\'t.), this \"new\" concept of \"dragon\" is not acceptable for me. Even if you say that dragons may have \"evolved\" into this, it\'s not dragons anymore, just as RL humans aren\'t apes (though the evolutionary change is a lot less dramatic there).
Thusly, IMO, the drawings you are referring to are mis-labelled and don\'t depict dragons.

[Bnm85]

Hehe, that\'s why they\'re called Klyros now and not dragons! I thought it would just be interesting to discuss. Of course, the evolved \"dragons\" aren\'t really dragons anymore. But perhaps retain something \"draconic\" about them in their name.

[sesmi]

Originally posted by Drey
klyros is repitle like

dragons are dragon like...

klyros go underwater, dragons dont like water. see different.

klyros fly, i don\'t think they go underwater.

[Keyaz]

Originally posted by sesmi

Originally posted by Drey
klyros is repitle like

dragons are dragon like...

klyros go underwater, dragons dont like water. see different.

klyros fly, i don\'t think they go underwater.

Klyros glide at most, and are one of the two amphibious sentient races on our world, they breathe underwater, so why the hell wouldnt they go underwater?

[Seytra]

Originally posted by Demarthl

Originally posted by sesmi

Originally posted by Drey
klyros is repitle like

dragons are dragon like...

klyros go underwater, dragons dont like water. see different.

klyros fly, i don\'t think they go underwater.

Klyros glide at most, and are one of the two amphibious sentient races on our world, they breathe underwater, so why the hell wouldnt they go underwater?

From Klyros race description
Fly for short time. Breath underwater.

I maintain they fly to some extent, and they, like Kran (in principle) and Nolthrir, breathe underwater, so they likely, as Demarthl stated, will quite readily go underwater.

[TheMinority]

aren\'t klyros more of a fish/reptile mix? an amphibious creation of epic proportions!

or, something along those lines.

they do look SOMEWHAT like the dragon-human mix you see on the internet, but they are, in fact, not dragons at all. they\'re fish... kinda...

but they still would make a yummy addition to any Enkidukai\'s sushi plate. XD

just kidding, all you klyros. ^_^

[Malloc]

I pictured them as more amphibious than reptilian, but I\'m probably just misguided. Their description states \"skin is similar to reptiles, being slimy and cold...\" however that\'s just as easily used to describe an amphibian who are more apt to \"breath underwater\". As for wings, there are species of fish that can glide for short distances, though I don\'t think Klyros were ever meant to be one or the other.

There is no denying that Klyros and dragons share some resemblance on a rudimentary level, but so do many other creatures. I think that was Bnm85s point that there is such animosity towards dragons, yet the Klyros share many traits and are embraced. I could be wrong. Dragons are an iconic part of fantasy settings, but no less than dwarves and elves for example. Might as well get rid of those too.

You can\'t open your debate on how undragon like Klyros are, with \"There are so many different concepts of \"dragon\" out there\".  That just supports the argument that they share a likeness with one of the many visions of dragons. And yes, there are in fact multiple versions of dragons or relations to dragons that have humanoid form. Some include shapeshifting to the form of a human entirely, others to a humanoid form with a strong resemblance to their original form. Yet in others there are entire races, like the draconians of Dragonlance.

The mention of gargoyles is interesting, since they bear almost no similarities to dragons at all. They\'re not reptilian, which is a defining feature of most all dragons. Some may or may not have wings, and where grotesque in nature. They were horrible looking waterspouts, some thought warded away evil. The name itself comes from gargouille, which means throat. Even when used in a broader fashion, the gargoyle is still usually a stone construct.

At any rate, the concept at the root of the Klyros or the Enkis is definitely not an original one. You could search the internet and find hundreds of versions of cat people, or something resembling Klyros. The best you can do is name them something unique, give them their own culture, and identity and go from there. In the end, you\'ve still got a cat person, etc.

[Feye Morgan]

So...um...just curious, but how exactly did this debate come up? Just curious. I don\'t see how it should be much of an issue whether or not there are dragons that exist in PS, unless there\'s a following that particularly *wants* them.

Overall, it\'s kind of a silly debate. There are a lot of those, aren\'t there? Do balrogs have wings or not? Who knows? Who cares? Arguement for arguement\'s sake, perhaps?

On whether or not they exist, well, that\'s curious because you can still talk about things that might or might not exist. Dragons don\'t exist IRL, after all.

Perhaps they exist in PS myth and legend? I wouldn\'t know myself. I\'m rather new, and don\'t even know if there is much in the way of details PS myths and legends involving arcane creatures and cults and such. But that would be more relevant, wouldn\'t it?