D&D (2024) Size = Strength-Constitution?

[Yaarel]

Humans have the capacity of speech, whose ability to imagine different scenarios, often relativizes and undermines the immediacy of instincts.

The same is true of any D&D Humanoid that can speak a language.

The learned culture is more relevant and more explanatory than any alleged "instinct".

Humanoids diversify, mainly by learned cultures. This is why a Dwarf species individual can grow up as member of a Human-majority culture. And viceversa.

 

[Tonguez]

Humans arent tigers.

Humans − and "Humanoids" who are humanlike − require reallife cultural sensitivity, and must actively avoid reallife historical racist assumptions.

It doesnt matter if historical racism is part of the "traditions" of D&D, it is unethical and must discontinue.

The chimp strength things was raised earlier but much more important is human throwing ability. Humans can throw stones (and spears) with more speed, accuracy and force than chimps - producing more force is a measure of strength. We know that Halflings are more nimble than humans and once upon a time they were better (more accurate) at throwing stones. These traits then suggest that Halfling biomechanics are different to humans.

Equally dwarfs have much denser muscle than humans, so although smaller than humans they are heavier and have better constitutions.

It is not racist to recognise that Humans and Halflings and Dwarfs arent the same at an anatomical/biological level

 

[Yaarel]

What are you even talking about. You make a thread where you magically erase Halflings, double down on it repeatedly, and quote a perfectly simple and logical example, to then reference 1900 era racists.

Right.

The above line of argument is historical racism and is a pseudoscience.

Humans lack "breeds".

 

[Scribe]

Humans have the capacity of speech, whose ability to imagine different scenarios, often relativizes and undermines the immediacy of instincts.

The same is true of any D&D Humanoid that can speak a language.

The learn culture is more relevant than any alleged "instinct".

Humanoids diversify, mainly by learned cultures. This is why a Dwarf species individual can grow up as member of a Human-majority culture.

Wrong thread or....? You OK?

Humans lack "breeds".

And?

Fantastical beings are not real. Elves are not real. Elves are not Humans. Halflings are not real. Halflings are not Humans.

Next?

 

[Yaarel]

Wrong thread or....? You OK?



And?

Fantastical beings are not real. Elves are not real. Elves are not Humans. Halflings are not real. Halflings are not Humans.

Next?

Dog breeds lack the capacity of language to the degree that the human species has it.

Every D&D Humanoid exhibits a humanlike capacity of language. It is the learned culture that contextualizes behaviors.

 

[Scribe]

Dog breeds lack the capacity of language to the degree that the human species has it.

Every D&D Humanoid exhibits a humanlike capacity of language. It is the learned culture that contextualizes behaviors.

Are you confusing terms again? Forcing your unique defintion and view of culture on species options?

I'm not following what you are getting at.

Yes, Humans and fantastical beings in an RPG often (but not always) have the capacity for speech.

And?

 

[Yaarel]

Are you confusing terms again? Forcing your unique defintion and view of culture on species options?

I'm not following what you are getting at.

Yes, Humans and fantastical beings in an RPG often (but not always) have the capacity for speech.

And?

LOL! "Cultures" are something that scientists, including sociologists, anthropologists, animal behaviorists, and neuroscientists, are familiar with.

 

[Scribe]

Edit

LOL! "Cultures" are something that scientists, including sociologists, anthropologists, animal behaviorists, and neuroscientists, are familiar with.

Oh I'm familiar with what culture is. Its your unique definitions and application of the term which causes confusion. Like when you insist that it can replace biology.

 

[Yaarel]

Oh I'm familiar with what culture is. Its your unique definitions and application of the term which causes confusion. Like when you insist that it can replace biology.

Culture is a product of the capacity of language. Are you saying that that causes confusion?

 

[Scribe]

Culture is a product of the capacity of language. Are you saying that that causes confusion?

I think we would need to define culture.

The confusion comes from you injecting it again, into a discussion where it was not being discussed.