D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That's a cop out. I made a stab at who they were, why won't you?

I wasn't asked before, so no need to be snarky.

A person is an individual who has enough intelligence to have a culture (sometimes religion), develop tools and creative problem solving, self awareness, and is fit to be a member of society.

Intelligence is a requirement, but it doesn't give you innate personhood. Culture is key, without culture we wouldn't be people. Development of tools is important, and is what was a major drive in the evolution of humans as we know them today. Self-awareness is very important "I think, therefore I am". You cannot be considered a person if you cannot see that you have a purpose above being a member of a community. Creative problem solving is important, and is what gave us our creativity and tactics that make us human.
The last part, "is fit to be a member of society" is important, perhaps the most important. You have to understand other people's needs, the benefits of being in a society besides the sole benefits to yourself. You have to care about other people.

By my definition, the standard Mind Flayer isn't a person, as their diet requires them to not be able to be a fit member of society. By my definition, murderhobos, liches, and serial killers aren't people.

By my definition, gorrilas or chimpanzees, who are intelligent enough to learn language, communicate, and be in society, aren't people. They don't develop culture or religion.

This is my definition of person. You are born a person, but can choose to not be one. You can be born not a person, but choose to become one.

 

[Cadence]

Definitionally, yes. However, I've played D&D for so long that the PHB races all feel like people to me, though. Are Orcs people? I can see the argument for it, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. But where do you draw the line? Dopplegangers? Beholders? Giants? If everything intelligent is a person, does personhood really mean much in D&D?

I'm not sure where the line is. Is looking at spells like "Charm Person" useful? Or should they change the name? I've posted before it's interesting to see how reincarnate has changed over time.

The arguments about type and what we value shows up in lots of other places too, and I'm not sure it's ever clean. What animals count as pets? What animals are ok to eat? Is it worse to eat an ape or a monkey than a squirrel? Are horses different than cows? Dolphins (the mammal) than mahi-mahi? What should one conclude about the farmer in Babe?

Star Wars isn't D&D. Don't use arguments that aren't applicable here. We're talking about the definition of person in D&D terms.

Would Tolkien references be equally bad as, in spite of inspiring a lot of it, Tolkien isn't D&D. The elves in it, for example, are certainly very different from the 5e elves.

The using unrelated literature feels like it might be relevant and useful for sussing out what we mean by a person, if nothing else, by analogy. If we are happy in the one context with saying Yoda and Chewie count as people, or Worf or Data, then we can start to ask why? Is there anything to learn from how we feel about the mutants in the Marvel Universe? When we see that even an android can cry, do we think the Vision is a person, or are we with those who are outraged when Wanda wants to marry "it"?

 

[Cadence]

I wasn't asked before, so no need to be snarky.

A person is an individual who has enough intelligence to have a culture (sometimes religion), develop tools and creative problem solving, self awareness, and is fit to be a member of society.

I'm not sure why developing physical tools is necessary, or is a suite of problem solving techniques that can be taught and refined for particular uses just as good?

How close are elephants, orcas, and chimpanzees to meeting these requirements? [Some combination of group specific teachings passed on, self-awareness, tool-making, and/our mourning the dead feel like a good start towards it.]

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm not sure why developing physical tools is necessary, or is a suite of problem solving techniques that can be taught and refined for particular uses just as good?

I think physical tools are important, but I generally mean any tool to help you function as a species better. Language is a tool, writing is a tool, and fire is a tool.

How close are elephants, orcas, and chimpanzees to meeting these requirements? [Some combination of group specific teachings passed on, self-awareness, tool-making, and/our mourning the dead feel like a good start towards it.]

Elephants, orcas, and chimpanzees don't have culture or tools sufficient enough to qualify them. Dolphins do have language, Elephants are very intelligent, and Chimpanzees do use sticks to eat termites, but they're not developed enough to meet my definition.

 

[Maxperson]

I wasn't asked before, so no need to be snarky.

Perhaps you missed it, but I asked you directly in the post you responded to above.

A person is an individual who has enough intelligence to have a culture (sometimes religion), develop tools and creative problem solving, self awareness, and is fit to be a member of society.

I find that last part interesting. It would seem to mean that insane people and evil murderers are not people. And fit for whose society?

I would submit that an Aboleth is fit to be a member of Aboleth society. Aboleths definitely have enough intelligence to have culture, and they are their own religion, have tools and problems solving ability, and self-awareness. It would only be that last bolded portion that would keep them from being people as you lay it out above.

The last part, "is fit to be a member of society" is important, perhaps the most important. You have to understand other people's needs, the benefits of being in a society besides the sole benefits to yourself. You have to care about other people.

In OUR society, yes. You seem to be saying that any society that doesn't meet human standards isn't a society and can't be people.

By my definition, the standard Mind Flayer isn't a person, as their diet requires them to not be able to be a fit member of society. By my definition, murderhobos, liches, and serial killers aren't people.

By my definition, gorrilas or chimpanzees, who are intelligent enough to learn language, communicate, and be in society, aren't people. They don't develop culture or religion.

This is my definition of person. You are born a person, but can choose to not be one. You can be born not a person, but choose to become one.

It would also mean that here in the real world you don't consider the Amazon tribes that practice cannibalism to be people, either. Interesting ground you are treading on when there are real world humans that you don't consider to be people.

Thank you for answering my question, though.

 

[Cadence]

Elephants, orcas, and chimpanzees don't have culture or tools sufficient enough to qualify them. Dolphins do have language, Elephants are very intelligent, and Chimpanzees do use sticks to eat termites, but they're not developed enough to meet my definition.

Is it having culture, or the ability to have culture? So, if culture developed after modern humanity became genetically distinct, would the pre-culture humans not count as people by your definition? If, after training, elephants, orcas, or chimps demonstrated culture, is that when they would become people?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I find that last part interesting. It would seem to mean that insane people and evil murderers are not people. And fit for whose society?

Insane people and murderers aren't people. They lose their personhood when they don't meet the requirements.
And, it's for society in general. A society has to have 3 things:

1. People to agree upon the rules of the society.
2. People who enforce the rules of society.
3. The agreed upon pact that everyone in society will be treated equally.

You have to be fit to abide by these rules in society. If you can't agree to the rules, won't obey by the rules, or treat others equally, you will not be a member of society.

I would submit that an Aboleth is fit to be a member of Aboleth society. Aboleths definitely have enough intelligence to have culture, and they are their own religion, have tools and problems solving ability, and self-awareness. It would only be that last bolded portion that would keep them from being people as you lay it out above.

Sure, they're fit to be people in terms to their own society, but my point is that aboleths aren't fit to be people in the standard D&D society. If they can agree to the 3 parts of aboleth society, they're considered people in it.

In OUR society, yes. You seem to be saying that any society that doesn't meet human standards isn't a society and can't be people.

No, there are other societies, and they can be considered people in their societies, but they can't be people in our society unless they abide by the rules of society.

It would also mean that here in the real world you don't consider the Amazon tribes that practice cannibalism to be people, either.

I have no opinion on the topic. I didn't know it was still practiced.

Interesting ground you are treading on when there are real world humans that you don't consider to be people.

There are real world humans that I do not consider people. Not specific races or anything like that. I do not consider serial killers people.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Is it having culture, or the ability to have culture?

I think having culture is important. If it has the ability to have it, but doesn't, I'm not sure. Is there any version of this in fantasy or real life terms?

So, if culture developed after modern humanity became genetically distinct, would the pre-culture humans not count as people by your definition?

There is a point in every definition of people where in evolution, if you go back far enough, you stop being a person. I don't think I get to draw the lines there.

If, after training, elephants, orcas, or chimps demonstrated culture, is that when they would become people?

They don't fill other requirements, but if they filled them all, they would become people.

 

[Dire Bare]

A person is an individual who has enough intelligence to have a culture (sometimes religion), develop tools and creative problem solving, self awareness, and is fit to be a member of society.

Insane people and murderers aren't people. They lose their personhood when they don't meet the requirements.

Wow dude, going to have to disagree with you hardcore on this stuff.

Who determines who is "fit for society"? People suffering from mental illness are no longer people? People who have made mistakes, albeit some pretty serious ones (taking another's life), are no longer people? Damn. I'm glad society IRL doesn't hold to those standards. Sure would solve our mental health and prison crises we have, since none of those folks are people, just dump them in the old gas chamber . . . . In D&D, most PCs would probably qualify as "murderers" by real-world legal standards.

Let's use some real world examples here. Is a person who has given in to fear and hate, who then lashed out and killed someone . . . given up their right to be considered a person? Do we not try to rehabilitate those folks? If they later show regret and remorse, can they no longer participate in society? What about someone who felt in fear of their own life and was acting of of perceived self-defense? What about a crime of passion, a spousal argument that has gone too far? I'm not saying those folks shouldn't suffer the consequences of their actions, but to revoke their personhood? Dude.

What about Nazis? Pretty evil group of folks there from a few decades ago, committed some serious atrocities. Are Nazis criminal? Are they evil? I would agree that the Nazi ideology is criminal and evil, but are they not people any more? When you start labeling groups of humans as "not people", you are going down that very same slope the Nazis themselves traveled.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Who determines who is "fit for society"? People suffering from mental illness are no longer people? People who have made mistakes, albeit some pretty serious ones (taking another's life), are no longer people? Damn. I'm glad society IRL doesn't hold to those standards. Sure would solve our mental health and prison crises we have, since none of those folks are people, just dump them in the old gas chamber . . . . In D&D, most PCs would probably qualify as "murderers" by real-world legal standards.

Whoa, I'm not saying they still don't have a right to live and redemption. They definitely still do have all the rights that any other human does, if they can continue to follow the rules of society. Prison systems are supposed to give punishment to people who do crime to enforce the rules of society, and according to the USA's laws, you're not a full person while in prison. People make mistakes, and should be able to redeem themselves, but there's a point where people do lose personhood. (I have mentioned serial killers multiple times. I've done research into them, they should not be considered people)

Let's use some real world examples here. Is a person who has given in to fear and hate, who then lashed out and killed someone . . . given up their right to be considered a person? Do we not try to rehabilitate those folks? If they later show regret and remorse, can they no longer participate in society? What about someone who felt in fear of their own life and was acting of of perceived self-defense? What about a crime of passion, a spousal argument that has gone too far? I'm not saying those folks shouldn't suffer the consequences of their actions, but to revoke their personhood? Dude.

I'm not saying any of that. You lose your personhood if you kill someone, but it's not like you can't regain it. They can be part of society again if they don't do what they used to.
I'm also talking about murders here, not self defense or accidental/sudden killing of people.

What about Nazis? Pretty evil group of folks there from a few decades ago, committed some serious atrocities. Are Nazis criminal? Are they evil? I would agree that the Nazi ideology is criminal and evil, but are they not people any more? When you start labeling groups of humans as "not people", you are going down that very same slope the Nazis themselves traveled.

I would never kill anyone because lack of "personhood". I would never criminalize someone because of that. I do not agree with Nazis at all. Hitler doesn't count as a person, in my definition.