D&D (2024) What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?

[Cadence]

I don’t assume that. On the contrary, I assume things work like they do in real life unless otherwise indicates. I would consider the presence of gods creating beings fully formed is sufficient indication that adaptation does not work like in real life.[/quite]

It feels like children having a good chance at their parents traits doesn't depend on special creation vs. evolution?

my concern stems from pessimism about the biological knowledge of the average English speaker.

Well, maybe they would learn that things of different species can interbreed in some cases and then have arguments about if D&D races should be one. (Distracting them from politics into science for the win?)

But, I do trust that any choice will lead to some level of debacle. :-(

 

[Yaarel]

"Gods" are merely an other species, with the Creature Type, Celestial.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have strongly disagreed with pretty much everything you have said in this thread, and with hindsight, I have maybe been a little harsh in expressing that. But this OTOH, I completely agree with!

I appreciate you saying that.

With my homebrew setting, every character picks a Culture in addition to their Species/Ancestry/whatever, and which separates out things like languages, weapon training, and other non-inborn characteristics.

This would be my ideal way of doing it too!

TBF you're right, in rebutting your claim I overstated my case. What I should have said was that you can have evolution in the presence of active divinities, not that you necessarily do. Either way, the presence of active divinities who can do create species from whole cloth do not prove that evolution by means of natural selection is not also occurring.

Very true, and I like to imagine at least creatures of the Beast type did arise through evolution.

The ways that they are (in some settings) unalike are not ways that would matter or even be noticeable to the vast majority of people.

I agree. But it does matter quite a lot to me, hence my position.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is it your contention that using "species" for categories of created beings might lead more people than currently do to believe that real-world species are also created? Because that was not coming across before, and might be something to be concerned about. I'd like to dismiss it out of hand, but unlike your previous arguments I cannot - it does bear thinking about at least!

Not as such, but I suppose in a roundabout way? I think a lot of modern science skepticism arises from a disconnect between the way we use scientific language and the way the same language is often used colloquially. I therefore find it important to be intentional and precise with language, especially scientific language.

 

[Charlaquin]

"Gods" are merely an other species, with the Creature Type, Celestial.

If so, they seem to be a species with the power to create other species ex nihilo

 

[SkidAce]

I don’t assume that. On the contrary, I assume things work like they do in real life unless otherwise indicates. I would consider the presence of gods creating beings fully formed is sufficient indication that adaptation does not work like in real life.

Just because a god did it once (twice, etc,) does not mean that adaptation and/or evolution is not taking place.

 

[Yaarel]

If so, they seem to be a species with the power to create other species ex nihlo.

Something like that.

Albeit more precisely: thought construct → force construct → matter construct

So the Celestial species start with thought as a preexisting kind of medium.

Humans too are a species that can create other species, at least in principle.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just because a god did it once (twice, etc,) does not mean that adaptation and/or evolution is not taking place.

True. But it is evident that evolution is not the process by which many of the playable character types arose.

 

[SkidAce]

True. But it is evident that evolution is not the process by which many of the playable character types arose.

Fair.

 

[Charlaquin]

Something like that.

Albeit more precisely: thought construct → force construct → matter construct

So the Celestial species start with thought as a preexisting kind of medium.

Humans too are a species that can create other species, at least in principle.

I don’t think “species” would be the right word to describe, for example, varieties of artificially intelligent constructs.