Baby dragons shouldn't be Canon unless it's specifically retconned (dragon bones collector edition)

Tyrobag

Its an undead Dragonling, not a true Dragon. Very simple answer, within existing lore.

Aliyavana

Tyrobag wrote: »

Its an undead Dragonling, not a true Dragon. Very simple answer, within existing lore.

is that confirmed its a dragonling tho?

Kaktus

"Dragon" can potentially be a misleading term, as TES3 Morrowind referred to Wamasu as "intelligent dragons with lightning for blood."

Kierro

It's Zenimax/Bethesda's game, they can add what they want. Just because it isn't mentioned in Morrowind, Oblivion or Skyrim "OH there was a baby dragon, during the 2nd era." Doesn't mean it couldn't happen. What "lore" scholars made in the late 3rd and 4th eras could be wrong, like happens today. Dragons are seen as all males, but that doesn't mean squat, especially with Vivec being a Hermaphrodite, who had kids with Molag Bal.

I guess I break lore when I call my Nord alts in ESO and Skyrim the sons of Hircine. Not because they're werewolves, but because they're actually the sons of Hircine. I RP he slept with a mortal (Molag did it to create vampires, so maybe not lore breaking) and they begot children. Just because you never heard of it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

VaranisArano

Kierro wrote: »

It's Zenimax/Bethesda's game, they can add what they want. Just because it isn't mentioned in Morrowind, Oblivion or Skyrim "OH there was a baby dragon, during the 2nd era." Doesn't mean it couldn't happen. What "lore" scholars made in the late 3rd and 4th eras could be wrong, like happens today. Dragons are seen as all males, but that doesn't mean squat, especially with Vivec being a Hermaphrodite, who had kids with Molag Bal.

Its entirely possible that the lore books are entirely wrong, the Elder Scrolls often has deliberate mistakes and biased information in the lore books.

Nevertheless, when the majority of the information we have about dragons from Skyrim (the game that actually features dragons) suggests that they are immortal, ageless children of Akatosh that don't breed, with absolutely no sign or mention of dragon children, its pretty reasonable to say that the lore doesn't support baby dovah. (Jills as female dragons, the minute-menders, seems to come from Michael Kirkbride and I'm not sure if those are from canon sources. Not everything MK came up with is canon.)

One fairly comprehensive, though also mistaken at certain parts, source for what people knew about the dovah before the events of Skyrim: http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/There_Be_Dragons

WillhelmBlack

Zenimax 2014. "this will always be a subscription only game" "end game is PvP" "there will never be dragons in ESO"

Zenimax 2015. "we're dropping the subscription model"

Zenimax 2016. "you know you don't have to be here right"

Zenimax 2018. "you can buy with real money this pet dragon"

tyjoie

If this is indeed a "baby" or "infant" dragon then there is no justifiable explanation. Dragons simply were. They were nor born. That's the explanation given by the Daedra. They do not have gender and so they do not reproduce and so there are no dragon eggs, or dragon babies.

Belegnole

tyjoie wrote: »

If this is indeed a "baby" or "infant" dragon then there is no justifiable explanation. Dragons simply were. They were nor born. That's the explanation given by the Daedra. They do not have gender and so they do not reproduce and so there are no dragon eggs, or dragon babies.

And you would believe a Daedra?

BTW, canon is a living thing. They can change it however they want. Case in point Disney and Star Wars.

Aliyavana

Belegnole wrote: »

tyjoie wrote: »

If this is indeed a "baby" or "infant" dragon then there is no justifiable explanation. Dragons simply were. They were nor born. That's the explanation given by the Daedra. They do not have gender and so they do not reproduce and so there are no dragon eggs, or dragon babies.

And you would believe a Daedra?

BTW, canon is a living thing. They can change it however they want. Case in point Disney and Star Wars.

And we get the monstrosity recently released

VaranisArano

Belegnole wrote: »

tyjoie wrote: »

If this is indeed a "baby" or "infant" dragon then there is no justifiable explanation. Dragons simply were. They were nor born. That's the explanation given by the Daedra. They do not have gender and so they do not reproduce and so there are no dragon eggs, or dragon babies.

And you would believe a Daedra?

BTW, canon is a living thing. They can change it however they want. Case in point Disney and Star Wars.

Yeah, oddly enough I'd believe the researchers talking to daedra about the dragons as detailed in the lore: http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/There_Be_Dragons

As I've said, I can accept a retcon. But a retcon actaully has to be justified. Cyrodiil is no longer a jungle (Pocket Guide to the Empire 1st edition) because there's an entire game in which Cyrodiil is now a medieval european land of castles that contradicts an early lore book. That's an acceptable retcon.

There are now baby dragons (contrary to lore books and the utter lack of dragon babies in Skyrim) because ZOS wants to make money is a bad retcon. If its becomes canon, so be it, but that's a terrible reason to change the lore in a way that very much impacts Skyrim's lore in particular.

Tyrobag

aliyavana wrote: »

Tyrobag wrote: »

Its an undead Dragonling, not a true Dragon. Very simple answer, within existing lore.

is that confirmed its a dragonling tho?

There's no confirmation to make.. It cant be a Dragon, of that we can be 100% certain. Its the same size as a Dragonling, it looks exactly as a Dragonling's skeleton would, its a Dragonling.

arpadsweb16_ESO

I disagree. There's nothing wrong with reanimating together a small, winged little monstrosity made of various bones in a grim imitation of the magnificent dragons of old.

Kaktus

arpadsweb16_ESO wrote: »

I disagree. There's nothing wrong with reanimating together a small, winged little monstrosity made of various bones in a grim imitation of the magnificent dragons of old.

Except for the "small" part, isn't that exactly how Molag Bal made the Titans?

WhiteCoatSyndrome

Tyrobag wrote: »

aliyavana wrote: »

Tyrobag wrote: »

Its an undead Dragonling, not a true Dragon. Very simple answer, within existing lore.

is that confirmed its a dragonling tho?

There's no confirmation to make.. It cant be a Dragon, of that we can be 100% certain. Its the same size as a Dragonling, it looks exactly as a Dragonling's skeleton would, its a Dragonling.

It's not. There's a datamined image of it and it's labeled as a construct.

Ajaxandriel

Belegnole wrote: »

tyjoie wrote: »

If this is indeed a "baby" or "infant" dragon then there is no justifiable explanation. Dragons simply were. They were nor born. That's the explanation given by the Daedra. They do not have gender and so they do not reproduce and so there are no dragon eggs, or dragon babies.

And you would believe a Daedra?

BTW, canon is a living thing. They can change it however they want. Case in point Disney and Star Wars.

This

People get hurt so easily when you touch one's headcanon, and that's understandable. Story goes on, disappointment occurs, everyone will be disappointed somewhere. That's life.

But how much people do actually understand what the Elder Scrolls lore actually is, as a concept?

The "Faith" seems strong among some fans. Guys, it's a game story, even Vivec's lessons are a gospel inside a game story, not actual real-life Gospel, do you remember?

Consistency is a matter of objective facts, like something the player actually witnesses in games, or like out-of-universe statements like in Warcraft Chronicles.
1-you weren't there during the Dawn
2-you weren't there during the previous kalpa
3-the statement about dragons are moot

Anyway, I doubt the pet is any baby dragon too

Iccotak

It is a non-canon pet.
They happen in MMOs all the time

idk

aliyavana wrote: »

SisterGoat wrote: »

They actually stated in the stream that it was a "mini dragon" not a baby dragon.

What is the difference? A small spell casted or something in it? Or are baby sized dragons a species? I hope the tooltip reflects it

There would be a big difference between it being a baby vs mini dragon. One is a baby that will grow up and presumably larger, the other just was and in that it happened it was just smaller.

Canon is living, not dead. Even you stated there was not a credible explanation of dragons in canon. .

Iccotak

The data mined info reveals that the mini dragon is called a "Small Dragon Bone Construct" implying that it is artificially created.

VaranisArano

idk wrote: »

aliyavana wrote: »

SisterGoat wrote: »

They actually stated in the stream that it was a "mini dragon" not a baby dragon.

What is the difference? A small spell casted or something in it? Or are baby sized dragons a species? I hope the tooltip reflects it

There would be a big difference between it being a baby vs mini dragon. One is a baby that will grow up and presumably larger, the other just was and in that it happened it was just smaller.

Canon is living, not dead. Even you stated there was not a credible explanation of dragons in canon. .

The only "mini-dragons" are the dragonlings, which are quite different from a mini-dovah, which exist only in mods.

Chrlynsch

Dragon bones are hollow much like a birds. In the right environmental conditions, these empty cavities disappear, causing the bones to shrink more then 20x their natural size.

A reanimation spell brings the skeleton back to life, though is unable to expand the skeleton to former size. You are left with an animated mini dragon.

Because Science and magic...