You can imagine whatever you wish.
I imagine them to be glowy, semi-translucent ones.
And no dragon is 'blocked' from growing them. Get magic, grow glowy wings, fly around and scare mortals with them.
The start options are scenarios. You'll be free to modify them as you wish, but someone repeating over and over again that something is 'idiotic' has never swayed me in the slightest.
Well, yeah, but I didn't ask for one. Once I corrected 'fairy' into 'faerie', all three gave me 'волшебный дракон', just as I wanted.
What, are you paying me now?
I don't care. The OP specifically says 'personal tweaks'. You want something changed, you can reason for it,
politely, and I might listen to you. You shoot your mouth off, nothing changes except that I'll consider you an ill-mannered idiot and probably block you if it goes far enough.
The descriptions are near-identical, and neither says anything about colour.
I don't know what you're smoking, but
- None of the dragon templates has anything resembling an actual description, just mini-blurbs that are basically synonyms.
- Lustful and terrible are very distinct, both from a semantics POV and in terms of in-game effects.
- There are no original body parts with a lust focus, or even a lust-centered description.
- Black dragons have no more connection to energy or magic than any other. Bronze, Gold, Shadow and Rainbow are magical, Silver has lightning that might be a little more 'energetic'. Black is the archetypal D&D 'acid' dragon. "Испускает ноздрями ядовитые испарения" also has nothing about 'energy'.
That's your
personal interpretation of rainbow -> all colours -> all elements. There is nothing definitive to support this in the game.
I'm well aware of Gorynych, and
zmey in general. There are other Slavic dragons I'm less familiar with.
In any case, DMM is a game about a largely Western European dragon born from artificial fairy tales and modern fantasy literature. Folklore, be it Slavic, Germanic or Eastern, plays little role here.
They aren't mine. Don't assume I'm a Westerner merely because I develop in English.
Interesting, Yelbeghen/Yilbegän/whatever is also mostly multi-headed, and not always a dragon. But indeed, he seems to be a hoarding type more in line with fantasy dragons.
Cockatrices aren't (full) dragons, and modern writers have interpreted them in several different ways.
Aspid itself is a pretty vague term in English, there are people who call the biblical Serpent 'the Aspid'. I assume you mean the Slavic bird-dragon who's fucking hard to kill? That's an interesting one for sure.
No longer. It's my reimagining of the reboot, which itself made the dragon into an eldritch
slime monster, which had little to do with dragons except he took the shape of one.
We are all recycling a lot of the same, originally Russian texts, but that's it. And even Old Huntsman's dragon was more Western than anything.
Nobody ever argued a dragon is not serpentine. Pretty much every dragon interpretation I know of has some measure of snake in it. Not sure what you're trying to say with that, though.
