Bilogical Tree of D&D creatures

[Umbran]

One could order it in terms of proximity to godhood or one could order it in terms of sentience or perhaps based on some other principle. Thoughts?

Well, who craetes the system? What information do they have access to, and what ordering would be useful?

Linneaus worked with gross physical characteristics because that's what he could get at. Coincidentally, relating gross phyical characteristics are also what he'd find useful. His system wound up reflecting evolution, because evolution happend to be behind the similarities and differences in gross physical characteristics he could see.

In a D&D world, who is creating the system - probably a wizard or cleric, perhaps some royal Expert. He's probably got some access to magic. But what form of arrangement would be useful?

Well, does evolution as we know it operate in his world? If not, where do the critters come from? If the relations of their origins are not reflected in their gross physical characteristics, a Linnean system isn't necessarily useful.

I'd actually think that such a researcher - working in a world without evolution, per se, might arrive at classifications similar to what teh MM uses - creature types and subtypes. You lump all thehumanolids together because, for most of your intents and purposes, you can deal with them similarly. You dump all the aberrations in the same box not because they are related in any way - they probably all come from different unconnected wizardly experiments - but due to how magic works all those experiments have certain similar results in terms of strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Fenris]

You can make a biological graph, but it won't be a tree. (A tree is a special kind of graph where there is only one path from the source (root) to any particular end (leaf).)

For example, take a Gryphon. It is descended from both birds (giant, or at least large, eagles) and lions.

Up to (or down to, if you prefer) eagles and lions, you have a biological tree. If you go toward the root, you'll see both converge toward a same origin, since they're both vertebrates.

But, upon arriving at Gryphon, you have two branches of the tree that are merging into one! And then, at Hippogriff, a third branch (horse) merges in, too!
!

Not at all. You are assuming that Gryphons are decended from both birds and lions. Why can't they be their own independant species? That through convergent evolution have come to have body parts that resemble lions or birds. Analogous structures not homologous.

And in biology, you do have branches that remerge together. The key, as Umbran mentioned is whether the offspring are fertile or not. Technically since Elves, Orcs and Humans can all produce fertile offspring they have to be classified as the same species! They would merely be different races Biology not Fantasy) or sub-species of each other.

With magic and planar issues, it may be best to envision the tree not in two diminsions, but in three: time, genetic relatedness and magical relatedness. Where in that third diminsion you can have branches merging and compensate for otherworldly intervention.

 

[Umbran]

Analogous structures not homologous.

Hm, even in fantasy worlds, Occam's Razor is a reasonably good guide. While analogous structures are not necessarily homologous ones, when the similarity between the structures becomes too great, you start figuring homonogy has something to do with it. Convergence may produce similarity, but not exact replicas.

Birds and bats both have wings, both derived from the same body parts. But the similarity ends there. But if it's got feathers and the same bone strucutre of every other bird, it comes from another bird. And if the critter also has fur, you've got a lot of explaining to do

 

[Fenris]

Hm, even in fantasy worlds, Occam's Razor is a reasonably good guide. While analogous structures are not necessarily homologous ones, when the similarity between the structures becomes too great, you start figuring homonogy has something to do with it. Convergence may produce similarity, but not exact replicas.

Birds and bats both have wings, both derived from the same body parts. But the similarity ends there. But if it's got feathers and the same bone strucutre of every other bird, it comes from another bird. And if the critter also has fur, you've got a lot of explaining to do

Yes, but as I said if you read the description in the MM is says "resembles" lions or eagle, not derived from. And convergence does produce stiking similarities, eg Batesian mimicry. But we need not achieve "exact replicas" because we are not required to. The description merely says that the organism has parts that have the same general body pattern as another animal that all.

As for Bats/Birds both share a hollow bone structure (birds a true hollow and bats merely the lightest bone mass/cc of any mammal).

Feathers and Fur is merely fur flying. We are assuming that the natural history of our generic fantasy setting is the same as our world. It need not and magic may be the causitive agent behind ancient "mergers". But we can always find exceptions to "But if it's got feathers and the same bone strucutre of every other bird, it comes from another bird" from egg laying mammals to ovoviporous reptiles and I know you know of a reptile with feathers

 

[Algolei]

If you conclude that some creatures are magical conjunctions of two species, they can be left out of the biological tree.

 

[Ron]

You can make a biological graph, but it won't be a tree. (A tree is a special kind of graph where there is only one path from the source (root) to any particular end (leaf).)

For example, take a Gryphon. It is descended from both birds (giant, or at least large, eagles) and lions.

Not a problem as modern biological trees take in account the possibility of hybridization, which is a very common process in plants.

As many others said, it makes no sense to work in some sort of evolutionary classification as, in most cases, magic, instead of evolution, was the primary agent in the formation of the species.

 

[ptolemy18]

I've thought about this stuff for my own campaign. The idea I've come up (for my campaign) with is that evolution does exist, but almost all the different species have been interfered with (genetically engineered) by one or more different gods. So each god has different creatures associated with it, and in some cases they collaborated on a particular creature. It's kind of like in the ELRIC series where the different animal species each have their own god. Or maybe like EGYPTIAN ADVENTURES: HAMUNAPTRA where each of the major D&D races is treated as if it were the creation of a different god in the Egyptian pantheon (Osiris created Halflings, Anubis created these gnoll-creatures, etc.)

Also, there is a god whose primary purpose is to create mutants and hybrid creatures, such as chimeras and other really weird things, which don't really exist as a "species" per se: they just get born as mutations within the wombs of other species and, because they are so powerful, they generally survive long enough to grow big and become scary.

Actually, more than an evolutionary chart... I'd like to see someone do a webpage explaining the mythological and/or fiction origins of MONSTER MANUAL creatures. I may do this myself if I feel ambitious enough. F'rinstance... the leucrotta is a beast from European mythology... I *think* the term "gnolls" originated with the 1900ish Lord Dunsany story THE MAN WHO SOLD ROPE TO THE GNOLES (but they sure don't look/act like D&D gnolls)... I've heard a rumor that many of the "famous" D&D creatures like mind flayers and beholders were inspired by a series of 1970s Japanese action figures which someone in the pre-D&D crew got hold of... I'd be interested in seeing a list of verified information like that.

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

I've come up with minor ideas of relatedness between sentient humanoid species for an old campaign of mine, but it's very specific to the world. And I think that coming up with a taxonomy for a specific world is probably about the best you can do.

Yeah, that's my feeling.

When I was younger I used to play D&D "out of the box", pretty much, without even thinking about the concept of campaign worlds. But as I've gotten older I've decided it's more fun to come up with a specific world and to totally fiddle with the standard D&D races in the process... I'm happy when my players are unable to recognize some standard D&D creature because I've used the MONSTER MANUAL stats but modified its description & "role" so totally. (For instance I changed svirfneblins into these maggot-headed gnome-sized burrowing-insect-creatures....)

Jason

 

[arscott]

I'd say that evolution is the primary cause, at least if you look at it from a which-happened-first point of view.

Therefore, the best (biological) classification system can probably be built by first removing the magic, then adding it back in when everything else is done.

So lets say you start with the linnean system that we've got. then add in the species and subspecies whose form was dirived through natural means. Then do the magic seperately

as an example, let's classify the phb races:

While the genus homo encompasses several species, only one exists on earth today: Homo Sapiens Sapiens. (Latin translations--Homo: man, Sapiens: wise)

Except for special cases like mules and ligers, a member of a species can only interbreed with other members of that species. Since half-elves and half-orcs are capable of having children (unlike the vast majority of those aforementioned exceptions), elves and orcs must be members of the species human. Thus we have:
Homo Sapiens Sapiens
Homo Sapiens Silvanus (silvanus: pertaining to the forest)
Homo Sapiens Orcus (orcus: hell)

Then we add dwarves and halflings as seperate species:
Homo Minusculus (minusculus: small)
Homo Ferrarius (ferrarius: blacksmith)

Then there are the gnomes. You could put these as a seperate species, but they're really just halflings with innate magic. And that's where the fun begins. rather that come up with a seperate species or subspecies designation (which would just cause a lot of headaches in the long run), it would be better to have a seperate system set up to indicate magical interference. And since the species names above were arrived at via five minutes at the U. Notre Dame website, I'm going to switch to english rather than pretend any knowledge of the scholar's tongue.

So let's designate gnomes as:
Homo Minusculus [Inherent-Illusion(faint), Animal(incedental)]

That breaks down into parts the Linnean classification and the description of magical nature. The magical nature describes the effect (a school or domain), it's power level (incidental, faint, moderate, strong, and overwhelming), and the means by which the power was aquired(Inherent in this case, meaning that it's simply a racial trait. Other possibilies here include Lycanthropic, Created, and Imbued).

Finally, the Magical Halfbreeds. This is handled similarly to the innate magic. A Half-Dragon and Gryphon appear below:
Homo Sapiens Sapiens [Bred-Draco Argent(parent)]
Panthera Leo [Artificial-Haliaeetus Leucocephalus(Head, Wings, Talons)]

The half dragon entry indicates that two creatures who were otherwise unable to breed (in this case a human and a silver dragon) were allowed to by means of shapechanging or some other magical effect. the (parent) bit indicates how much ancestry the creature has. Someone with a smaller connection, such as a tiefling, would have (grandparent), (great grandparent), or (ancestor).

Things like Gryphons, on the other hand aren't an even mix of two creatures. They result when some wizard with too much time on his hands chops off bits of one creature and attaches them to another. The description therefore indicates which creature (in this case, a bald eagle), and which bits.

That should do it for your more common fantasy creature. Just don't ask me to classify an aboleth.

 

[fusangite]

Well, who craetes the system? What information do they have access to, and what ordering would be useful?

Well, there are a few things that could be used as standards for ordering these things:
1. Gross Physical Characteristics
2. Proximity to Original Creation: By this I mean that come creatures are described in the MM as hybrids created magically or otherwise. One can therefore see, to mix Gnostic metaphors, an original demiurge and inferior demiurges of inferior emmanations. So creatures could be ordered based on the proximity of their creation to the original creation. In this scheme, Captured Ones of the MMII would be of the lowest order.
3. Free Will: This measure would aggregate the following things (in order of priority):
(a) Adjective in the alignment descriptor with "always" creatures having the least free will. (This places angels and demons low on the hierarchy.)
(b) Absence of mental stats. (Creatures missing Int, Cha or Wis, ie. vermin, placing low.)
(c) Fixed versus rolled intelligence. (This places animals low on the hierarchy.)
(d) Sum of mental stats.
4. Similarity to Ideal Form: To now massacre Platonism, how about conceiving of one particular form of being -- an angel, a human, a dragon as the first-created being of which all subsequent beings are derivations or modifications.
5. The Monster Manual system. (It seems to be that from my reading of the knowledge skills and ranger special abilities in the PHB, characters are indeed aware of these classifications.)

I would imagine that this kind of ridiculous quixotic project would only be of interest to lore masters.