D&D 5E What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

[zarionofarabel]

Its especially strange, because, as written, it would comprise all fiction so any non-human character, anywhere, is less than any human character anywhere..ever.

They are. Non-Human characters in fiction are used as a lens through which we can examine the greater aspects that humans are capable of.

 

[Gammadoodler]

They are. Non-Human characters in fiction are used as a lens through which we can examine the greater aspects that humans are capable of.

Ahh. I see, we've begun cherry picking what we're going to respond to, and we're doubling down to make a monumentally silly assertion.

Let's even say that you're right that the only purpose for non-human character is to examine our humanity. Is that a bad thing? Further, is it so bad that every single human character ever formulated by every fiction writer ever from Stephen King to stevenuniverse64 over on reddit is better by logical syllogism because they are not used that way?

You may believe that's true, but it's profoundly close-minded.

 

[Marandahir]

That's.... Not how 'Homo' is used.

I'm referring to 'Human' in terms of 'Anatomically modern human', so, applicable to 'Homo sapiens'. H. neaderthalensis is, by definition, not 'human' in that sense. Of course we're getting into the whole debate of what consists of 'species', given that's a biiiig debate

If 'Homo' means human, then you're saying H. floresiensis or H. habilis count as human specifically which.... Isn't what most people would define as 'human', especially given H. floresiensis is an offshoot with nothing to do with human evolution

Actually, Genus Homo IS used for all species of human, whether anatomically modern (Homo sapiens sapiens) or archaic (Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 'Denisova', etc).

You're the one using Homo and Human in an incorrect, limited capacity not supported by science. You can call a shoelace a shoe, but that doesn't make it the whole footwear.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Actually, Genus Homo IS used for all species of human, whether anatomically modern (Homo sapiens sapiens) or archaic (Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 'Denisova', etc).

Can confirm. Paleoanthropologists generally refer to Homo (and sometimes Australopithecus as well) broadly as 'humans'.

The phrase 'anatomically modern human' is a bit mangled; what you actually hear is 'anatomically modern H. sapiens' when referring specifically to us.

 

[Marandahir]

Can confirm. Paleoanthropologists generally refer to Homo (and sometimes Australopithecus as well) broadly as 'humans'.

The phrase 'anatomically modern human' is a bit mangled; what you actually hear is 'anatomically modern H. sapiens' when referring specifically to us.

Thank you, and sorry for mangling the phrase.

To put the analogy another way, there's a reason that the different cultures of Human in the Player's Handbook don't provide alternative "racial" bonuses. They're all part of humanity, whatever that messy definition means. There's no reason to split out humans, unlike other peoples who have magical or magic-like differences between their groupings of peoples (Eladrin are influenced by the ebbs and flows of the feywild, while Pallid Elves are dominated by the power of the moon and Dark elves transformed because of Corellon's curse on Lolth, etc).

 

[Jack Daniel]

Thank you, and sorry for mangling the phrase.

It wasn't you that said it.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Ahh. I see, we've begun cherry picking what we're going to respond to, and we're doubling down to make a monumentally silly assertion.

Let's even say that you're right that the only purpose for non-human character is to examine our humanity. Is that a bad thing? Further, is it so bad that every single human character ever formulated by every fiction writer ever from Stephen King to stevenuniverse64 over on reddit is better by logical syllogism because they are not used that way?

You may believe that's true, but it's profoundly close-minded.

Well, in all fiction I have encountered non-humans generally follow the same pattern of being restricted by the tropes that are applied to the character. These tropes are then played up to highlight how they are different from humans. Human characters on the other hand are generally presented as not being restricted by any tropes. When humans are presented as being restricted by tropes it is generally so they can later break free of such tropes to show that humans are indeed not restricted by such tropes. If the human character is restricted by tropes they refuse to break free from it is generally used to show how other human characters are not restricted by such tropes, or how allowing yourself to be restricted by such tropes is a bad thing.

I never said it was a bad thing, and I am completely lost on how syllogism has anything to do with what I said.

 

[Marandahir]

It wasn't you that said it.

I said "human, whether anatomically modern (..." so I assumed that was the reference you made. No worries.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yep. Hell growing up in a town of Tabaxi means Tabaxi are more like humans than like house cats.

I don't know . . . . cats live in villages in the real world too . . . .

Houtong Cat Village - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Chaosmancer]

All non-human characters are stereotypes of humans, thus they are less than human. The stereotype exists specifically to highlight how they are not human.

I feel like you are edging into incredibly dangerous territory by declaring that "these people are stereotypes, and stereotypes are less than human"

Steroetypes are short hand, they are not meant to capture a full version of whatever the stereotype is. But we know that steroetypes are incomplete at the best of times, and that individuals can grow and exist past them.

They are. Non-Human characters in fiction are used as a lens through which we can examine the greater aspects that humans are capable of.

Yeah, the problem with this is that a lot of human characters are also stereotypes and used as a lens through which we can examine the greater human whole. See... everything in all fiction.

Well, in all fiction I have encountered non-humans generally follow the same pattern of being restricted by the tropes that are applied to the character. These tropes are then played up to highlight how they are different from humans. Human characters on the other hand are generally presented as not being restricted by any tropes. When humans are presented as being restricted by tropes it is generally so they can later break free of such tropes to show that humans are indeed not restricted by such tropes. If the human character is restricted by tropes they refuse to break free from it is generally used to show how other human characters are not restricted by such tropes, or how allowing yourself to be restricted by such tropes is a bad thing.

I never said it was a bad thing, and I am completely lost on how syllogism has anything to do with what I said.

Yeah, this is not a very good reading of the genre of fiction. Sometimes this is true, but "not restricted by tropes" is more often presented as "character growth" and even then they often grow from one trope into a different trope.

And if humans can be "restricted by tropes" such as... Mother Abigail in Stephen King's "The Stand" who is about a big of a stereotype of the "wise, pious mentor" as you can get, then seeing a non-human character who has tropes about them doesn't make them inferior to human characters.


Heck, go and read TV Tropes. There are tropes for every single thing you can see happen in fiction, and most of them involve human characters.