Wyverns and dragons don't exist so how do you know? The concept of a four legged dragon has become popular only in the last 50 years or so. Before then, dragons were often depicted as serpents since the word dragon means serpent. The word wyvern means "viper" and half of the time they were depicted as half serpent, half bird/bat. Traditionally they're all snakes.
"Wyverns and dragons don't exist so how do you know?"
Mate, there's a fuck tone of lore on both species and just because its not in the real world doesn't mean it's nonexistent.
Mate, there's a fuck tone of lore on both species and just because its not in the real world doesn't mean it's nonexistent.
Dude, calm down...if you can show me a real life dragon or wyvern then I'll comply with the "fuck ton of lore". If not, then I'm right when I say dragons and wyverns don't exist. That's the best thing about dragons, wyverns and other mythological creatures. Did you know that the unicorn is portrayed in about a dozen different ways? What I'm saying is that they're mythological. Blitzgob called the animal in the picture a wyvern but the person who made it said it was a dragon. The person who made the dragon is right in calling it a dragon because they made it that way. Dragons aren't subject to reality. That's why they're my favorite animal. The "fuck ton of lore" of a dragon or wyvern is subject only to the story that the author or artist gives them. In the story, the lore is law. Outside the story, the lore means absolutely nothing. Why? Because dragons and wyverns don't exist.
The lore of "How to Train Your Dragon" is different from the lore of "Eragon" or "Game of Thrones". In Monster Hunter, most anything that is a reptile is considered a wyvern, including ones that have no wings such as the deviljho, which is considered a "brute wyvern" while the Raviente and Dalamadur are considered "elder dragons", despite being serpents. Monster Hunter's Kirin is considered and elder dragon despite being a unicorn. Yet the Gore Magala, despite having the western dragon look of four legs and two wings, is considered a wyvern. Then when the Gore Magala matures into the Shagaru Magala, it's considered an elder dragon. The reason is because the creators make them that way. Nowadays the word "dragon" has an extremely broad meaning. There are no rules. That's what makes dragons and wyverns so damn awesome! When something is not in the real world then there are no rules binding it. Absolutely none. Why should there be? That takes away the fun.
However, if we really want to talk about the "lore" of wyverns and dragons, then we'd have to look back over the many centuries. Back to their roots. For over a millennia dragons were depicted as serpents because the word dragon comes from the Latin word Draco, which means serpent. The Old English word, Wyrm, means serpent. The name wyvern, like I said, means viper or adder, which are snakes. Half of the time wyverns through historical European art were depicted as having serpent-like bodies. The dragons and wyverns we have now are very new in comparison, only about 50 years old. J.R.R. Tolkien's book, The Hobbit was one of the biggest inspirations for the modern western dragon. The game Dungeons and Dragons, inspired in part by The Hobbit, made the modern western dragon even more popular. However, if we really want to follow the lore of our world then we would have to go back to the serpents. Is this the lore we should abide by? Why should any mythological animal be chained by rules that, outside of their stories, mean absolutely nothing? This is a sincere question. Indulge me. Why? And be calm about it, do not cause any animosity. There is no need for drama. I gave my reasons and they're solid reasons. Dragons and wyverns do not exist. They never have and they never will. Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way.
The lore of "How to Train Your Dragon" is different from the lore of "Eragon" or "Game of Thrones". In Monster Hunter, most anything that is a reptile is considered a wyvern, including ones that have no wings such as the deviljho, which is considered a "brute wyvern" while the Raviente and Dalamadur are considered "elder dragons", despite being serpents. Monster Hunter's Kirin is considered and elder dragon despite being a unicorn. Yet the Gore Magala, despite having the western dragon look of four legs and two wings, is considered a wyvern. Then when the Gore Magala matures into the Shagaru Magala, it's considered an elder dragon. The reason is because the creators make them that way. Nowadays the word "dragon" has an extremely broad meaning. There are no rules. That's what makes dragons and wyverns so damn awesome! When something is not in the real world then there are no rules binding it. Absolutely none. Why should there be? That takes away the fun.
However, if we really want to talk about the "lore" of wyverns and dragons, then we'd have to look back over the many centuries. Back to their roots. For over a millennia dragons were depicted as serpents because the word dragon comes from the Latin word Draco, which means serpent. The Old English word, Wyrm, means serpent. The name wyvern, like I said, means viper or adder, which are snakes. Half of the time wyverns through historical European art were depicted as having serpent-like bodies. The dragons and wyverns we have now are very new in comparison, only about 50 years old. J.R.R. Tolkien's book, The Hobbit was one of the biggest inspirations for the modern western dragon. The game Dungeons and Dragons, inspired in part by The Hobbit, made the modern western dragon even more popular. However, if we really want to follow the lore of our world then we would have to go back to the serpents. Is this the lore we should abide by? Why should any mythological animal be chained by rules that, outside of their stories, mean absolutely nothing? This is a sincere question. Indulge me. Why? And be calm about it, do not cause any animosity. There is no need for drama. I gave my reasons and they're solid reasons. Dragons and wyverns do not exist. They never have and they never will. Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way.
well, even if this guy was wrong, the "fuck tone of lore" in the books states clearly that this is drogon, one of the three dragons that Denarys finds. Not a wyvern. So, in this fantasy world, this is clearly a dragon
i wasn't saying the guy calling the dragon a wyvern was right i was saying his comment that theyre not real yadda yadda was crap
Do you truly believe that dragons and wyverns are real? How? Why? I don't get it. I don't understand why you think that me saying that they are not real is wrong. And why all the anger? Internet is the bane of healthy debate and discussion.
ah yes, quite right.