Ethelshai's Lair

Home of the green dragon

Considerations about dragons and draconity

These considerations are based upon two simple questions. However these have complex answers : What is a dragon ? What does draconity mean ?

Let's consider the first question. Who can give a comprehensive definition or description of the creature(s) called dragon(s) ? As we can see here, I've already evoked the idea of multiple possibilities to describe dragons. And we understand that defining what a dragon is, in terms of physical characteristics, is very complicated.

The first idea coming in mind is that of a big (potentially fire-breating) winged lizard with horns and a spaded tailtip. But this is far from accurate, or even very far from being universal as a description. For instance, if you look at my reference sheet or my portraits, do I have a tipped tail ? And some dragons don't even have horns. Others have no wings.
Let's go more in-depth : Can a dragon be classified as part of the reptiles category ? Very possibly, some may, but this involves being cold-blooded creatures and a few other features. But what about maned dragons or species having mammalian characteristics ? Are they "pure" reptiles or between two classes of beings ? Some dragons have feathers, but this does not make them belong to the birds category. Not to mention that one may wonder if some dragons can be oviparious or viviparious.
As a result, we understand that defining what a dragon is may cause some difficulties. A universal description/definition would probably be very lame. It is the same when one deals about human beings. The term englobes the notions, features, characteristics that we attribute to the being called a human (a head, hair, two arms, hands, two legs, feet, no tail, bipedal, speaks ...). In the same way, we could attempt to describe a dragon : a head, two horns, two clawed forelegs and hindlegs, a tail, two bat-like wings. And that's at this very moment that I say "Wrong wrong !". It's right in some way, but, it's wrong in many others. That's the very basic (and unaccurate/inexact) description of a western dragon. Let's take a basic eastern dragon : head with two horns, (very) long body, legs, a mane, no wings ... Ah, no wings and a mane, another incomplete decription. And that's still a dragon. Now a Wyrm : no legs, no horns, etc. Still a dragon, and still a very approximative approach.
This is to show that a huge variety of combinations is possible, like for human beings, and that there is such a diversity in species and inside the species that the definition/description keeps changing from a dragon to another. Fixed descriptions belong to biased views only and have a very very limited (if no) validity. A concrete example : The descriptions in DnD are totally wrong, they are for game purposes only.

From these considerations about the difficulty of decribing the dragon being, we can now deal with the question of draconity : What does it mean ?
An easy answer could be "I'm a dragon", but this is a bit insufficient, isn't it ? A dragon, but how ? Connected spiritually to one in some way ? A dragon in spirit (reincarnated) ?
My idea is that draconity is a kind of state of mind, like the awareness that one was a dragon in a past life, and the fact that one accepts this previous existence as a part of oneself. It has not to do with the knowledge of what one used to look like as a dragon. I know many people who don't remember what their colour(s) was(were) or their form. The important is that they know what they used to be. Then, does draconity influence the way we see the world ? I am tempted to say it does, because it comes with the idea of different existences and different worlds. This opens up possibilities and allows to explore new views that could have been discarded or forgotten otherwise. The main difficulty often comes from the fact that draconity is a feeling going totally in the contrary of what people are used to believing; namely that dragons exist (at least in other worlds) while here, they are seen as mythical/legendary creatures. The difficulty is twofold :
  1 - The fact of dealing with so-called mythical beings.
  2 - The idea of accepting oneself as having been one in some way (this may cause some distress in the case when the person has deeply-rooted beliefs depicting dragons negatively, for instance. Or simply the contradiction between scientific observation and what just feels right).

Again, the definition of draconity differs from a dragonkin to another. Some simply don't care about the word itself, which is only a label to describe a feeling. But globally, this is a sort of impression that feels right, that dragons are not imaginary and not necessarily like those depicted in tales.

This article does not pretend to be comprehensive. It is a trigger for constructive and critical thought.

This page, copyright (c) Ethelshai 2009. Reproduction not allowed.