Creation or Evolution?

[Quasqueton]

I noticed in Sandstorm, the authors mention plants and creatures evolving to survive in the waste. The two new races presented in the book are described (or at least introduced) as having evolved to their waste-survival state.

Is this a divergence from most other D&D material? Hasn't most D&D material assumed races were created as they are?

How about in your world: have the races evolved into their present state, or did the gods (or whatever) create them as is? How about the various subraces?

Quasqueton

 

[Desdichado]

Probably a bit of both. The evolution is a bit on the subtler side, though -- it could represent a base race developing subraces, for example, as a reaction to environmental conditions. But it doesn't represent anything like Homo archeoelfus evolved into elves or anything like that.

 

[Henry]

We never go that far into detail. When D&D uses "evolution" it may not be in the same sense - in other words, magic could cause creatures to change in a mere generation or two.

In Dragonlance, creation (via gods, men wielding magic, etc.) played a dominant part. The Graygem alone was responsible for three races (Dwarves, Gnomes, and Kender).

In the Forgotten Realms, evolution played a large part. but more over thousands of years than millions of years.

In Greyhawk and Eberron, I don't think it's ever really been specified.

 

[Gold Roger]

I think traditional D&D kanon uses both. Dwarfes where created by Moradin, Elves by Correlon, but Githianky,Githzerai and Druergar evolved under the domination of Mindflayers etc.
On homebrews, I prefer the creation/interloper method or supernatural evolution (evolution through magical mutation or divine intervention), but that's because of the type of setting mythology/cosmology I like.

 

[Piratecat]

I'm sure it's obvious, but thanks in advance for keeping this thread focused on campaign worlds and for not bringing up real-life religious debate.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Divine creation with microevolution (finch beaks and such) is the way I do it.

 

[Shemeska]

In my own stuff, probably a mix of both, and both in their most extremes.

Life originally grows up de novo and evolves to intelligence, those beings eventually believing in divine beings enough to actually give rise to those beings on the outer planes (and previously forming the outer planes by the raw alignment and unfocused belief of the prime). Those deities arise from focused belief of mortals who evolved, but then after that point, some of those deities go off on their own and create species out of whole cloth in the opposite extreme from life evolving from the ground up.

 

[Ferret]

Evolution: The creatues in my world came before the gods and created them.

 

[James Heard]

I'd weep with frustration if any player of mine stopped fearing for his life enough that he stopped long enough to consider it. That is to say, who cares? I have enough to worry about in my homebrew without worrying about genetics, they should all accept the fact that I'm focussed on people and plot - and don't worry about chickens, eggs, or whatever. Ugh. Unleash the god of flesh eating bacteria upon thee!

 

[Psion]

Somewhere in between. It probably varies depending on game world I am running, but I don't see it as a dichotomy. Two examples of approaches I have commonly taken:

- Just because the gods create a being does not mean it can't evolve in successive generations, nor is a creature that evolved immune to meddling.

- OTOH (this is how Second World works), creatures are really evolving, but they evolve only to acheive the perfection of some platonic form that the gods intended; the inertia of evolution is merely a means by which the will of the gods are realized.