D&D 5E D&D Beyond: Raven Queen

[doctorbadwolf]

Um, no. As the three dictionaries I linked point out, the common usage for "crow" is not limited to birds with the word "crow" in their common name. That limited usage is even noted in the definitions. It seems more like a personal definition rather than common usage.



Fortunately, I wasn't using jargon, but common usage as shown by multiple dictionaries (the purpose of which is to reflect common usage). So, no, no pedantry on my part (in my initial statement). Seriously, there's no room for debate here—I've shown sources that point out common usage.

So, you think that it somehow isn’t common usage to use crow to refer to specific types of corvids, as opposed to magpies, Ravens, and other corvids that aren’t as similar to eachother as the crow species that have crow names, really? You seriously think that is uncommon?

Because if you do, you’re wrong.

edit: to clarify, it seems that you believe that “crow=any corvid” is the only common usage of the term. That is the only way you could rationally be understood to not be pedantic, here. If both are common, you are being pedantic by “correcting” one for the other.

And both are common.

These things are sometimes regional, but even just on the internet it’s quite easy to see articles and discussions where “crow” and “raven” are used non-interchangeably, often to discuss the differences between ravens, and the various crow named corvids, who tend to have more in common with eachother than with ravens. Maybe you’ve somehow never encountered that extremely common usage, but that doesn’t change that it is very common, and for quite obvious reasons.

 

[Azzy]

So, you think that it somehow isn’t common usage to use crow to refer to specific types of corvids, as opposed to magpies, Ravens, and other corvids that aren’t as similar to eachother as the crow species that have crow names, really? You seriously think that is uncommon?

Because if you do, you’re wrong.

edit: to clarify, it seems that you believe that “crow=any corvid” is the only common usage of the term. That is the only way you could rationally be understood to not be pedantic, here. If both are common, you are being pedantic by “correcting” one for the other.

And both are common.

Sure, because you say so.

Was my initial comment that ravens are crows incorrect? Nope. You're the one that's now engaging pedantry (even if unsupported).

These things are sometimes regional, but even just on the internet it’s quite easy to see articles and discussions where “crow” and “raven” are used non-interchangeably, often to discuss the differences between ravens, and the various crow named corvids, who tend to have more in common with eachother than with ravens. Maybe you’ve somehow never encountered that extremely common usage, but that doesn’t change that it is very common, and for quite obvious reasons.

Said sites on the internet are typically discussing specific species of crow and ravens. Given that various species "named" crows have different characteristics from each other and various species of ravens have different characteristics from each other, it's a hard sell that sites that discuss the differences between crows and ravens would have anything worthwhile to say unless they were comparing specific species.

 

[cbwjm]

What if the Raven Queen has no association with ravens and the raven in her name referred to her hair, and all of her worshippers just got it wrong.

Worshippers: The Raven Queen! Ravens are sacred and are her messengers in the early realm.
Raven Queen: What? No. I don't care about ravens, I'm raven-haired, raven-haired!

Either that or due to a spelling error someone added an "n" to her name, she was really meant to be the Rave Queen.

 

[Azzy]

What if the Raven Queen has no association with ravens and the raven in her name referred to her hair, and all of her worshippers just got it wrong.

What if the Raven Queen has an association with magpies, and all of her worshipers just thought they were ravens?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure, because you say so.

Was my initial comment that ravens are crows incorrect? Nope. You're the one that's now engaging pedantry (even if unsupported).



Said sites on the internet are typically discussing specific species of crow and ravens. Given that various species "named" crows have different characteristics from each other and various species of ravens have different characteristics from each other, it's a hard sell that sites that discuss the differences between crows and ravens would have anything worthwhile to say unless they were comparing specific species.

Examples of the usage I and everyone but you in this thread is using, from experts and science journalists quoting experts:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/ravens-animals-evolution-species/

https://corvidresearch.blog/faqs-about-crows/#crow-raven

So, yeah, the usage I describe is perfectly normal and common, and thus correct for any but the most precise acedemic use.

It doesn’t matter whether your usage is correct, because language doesn’t work that way. The majority of words have multiple common usages. “Correcting” one with another is, at best, pedantic.

 

[Sunseeker]

What if the Raven Queen has no association with ravens and the raven in her name referred to her hair, and all of her worshippers just got it wrong.

Worshippers: The Raven Queen! Ravens are sacred and are her messengers in the early realm.
Raven Queen: What? No. I don't care about ravens, I'm raven-haired, raven-haired!

Either that or due to a spelling error someone added an "n" to her name, she was really meant to be the Rave Queen.

Gives whole new meaning to Rave in Loft.

 

[Azzy]

Examples of the usage I and everyone but you in this thread is using, from experts and science journalists quoting experts:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/ravens-animals-evolution-species/

https://corvidresearch.blog/faqs-about-crows/#crow-raven

So, yeah, the usage I describe is perfectly normal and common, and thus correct for any but the most precise acedemic use.

It doesn’t matter whether your usage is correct, because language doesn’t work that way. The majority of words have multiple common usages. “Correcting” one with another is, at best, pedantic.

So, isn't the usage of "experts and science journalists" the opposite of general usage—as opposed to the general usage as recorded by actual dictionaries (the purpose of which is to record actual, general usage)?

So, again, my statement that ravens are crows was neither incorrect (as you initially claimed), nor was it pedantic (given that it's the actual common, default usage of the word). In fact, trying to argue against the fact that it is the common (verified) usage, *you've* engaged in a lot of (incorrect) pedantry. If you don't like the common usage, take it up with everyday English speakers, and the dictionaries that reflect their usage of words.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, isn't the usage of "experts and science journalists" the opposite of general usage—as opposed to the general usage as recorded by actual dictionaries (the purpose of which is to record actual, general usage)?

So, again, my statement that ravens are crows was neither incorrect (as you initially claimed), nor was it pedantic (given that it's the actual common, default usage of the word). In fact, trying to argue against the fact that it is the common (verified) usage, *you've* engaged in a lot of (incorrect) pedantry. If you don't like the common usage, take it up with everyday English speakers, and the dictionaries that reflect their usage of words.

An article for general consumption tends to use, and those I linked do use, informal, common language.

I don’t think I claimed you were wrong, and if I did it certainly wasn’t my initial claim. My initial response was to jokingly accuse you of anti-corvidism, and to indicate that I thought you were making a joke.

 

[Sunseeker]

So, isn't the usage of "experts and science journalists" the opposite of general usage—as opposed to the general usage as recorded by actual dictionaries (the purpose of which is to record actual, general usage)?

So, again, my statement that ravens are crows was neither incorrect (as you initially claimed), nor was it pedantic (given that it's the actual common, default usage of the word). In fact, trying to argue against the fact that it is the common (verified) usage, *you've* engaged in a lot of (incorrect) pedantry. If you don't like the common usage, take it up with everyday English speakers, and the dictionaries that reflect their usage of words.

This whole discussion is rather pedantic at this point really. Confusing various black birds is a common attitude, most people just honestly don't know better. Unfortunately doctorbadwolf is unwilling to concede that simple point. At this point further discussion is pointness. doctorbadwolf knows he's wrong, but he's not going to admit it, another common attitude among humans.

Ravenloft has ravens not crows. It's in the name RAVENloft. Unfortunately they are this oddly tangential element that are both extremely important in the fight against Strahd and necessary for several important exposition elements within the story. They're also somehow the representative animal of the remnants of the Worshippers of Andral, a sun god, a type of deity that ravens are almost never associated with. But none of this is explained or even rationalized out with "people just got it wrong" because several of these talking ravens are also high level clerics of this sun god. The origin of these sentient ravens is also equally unexplained, they just exist in Ravenloft for some apparent reason, even though Barovia in particular was brought in from outside by the Dark Powers and the ravenkin were not present in "real world" Barovia. If they were something created by the Dark Powers to torment Strahd that's just odd. Even if they were humans cursed into raven forms would make more sense but nooooooooo....

It's just silly. It's all sorts of silly. It's poorly written silly. It's like someone wrote up this dark, gothic horror setting and then said "You know what this needs!? Disney-esque talking animals!"

 

[QuietBrowser]

This whole discussion is rather pedantic at this point really. Confusing various black birds is a common attitude, most people just honestly don't know better. Unfortunately doctorbadwolf is unwilling to concede that simple point. At this point further discussion is pointness. doctorbadwolf knows he's wrong, but he's not going to admit it, another common attitude among humans.

Ravenloft has ravens not crows. It's in the name RAVENloft. Unfortunately they are this oddly tangential element that are both extremely important in the fight against Strahd and necessary for several important exposition elements within the story. They're also somehow the representative animal of the remnants of the Worshippers of Andral, a sun god, a type of deity that ravens are almost never associated with. But none of this is explained or even rationalized out with "people just got it wrong" because several of these talking ravens are also high level clerics of this sun god. The origin of these sentient ravens is also equally unexplained, they just exist in Ravenloft for some apparent reason, even though Barovia in particular was brought in from outside by the Dark Powers and the ravenkin were not present in "real world" Barovia. If they were something created by the Dark Powers to torment Strahd that's just odd. Even if they were humans cursed into raven forms would make more sense but nooooooooo....

It's just silly. It's all sorts of silly. It's poorly written silly. It's like someone wrote up this dark, gothic horror setting and then said "You know what this needs!? Disney-esque talking animals!"

Here's the thing a lot of Ravenloft fans don't like to remember/admit: when it comes to being a "dark, gothic horror settiong", the truth of it is? Ravenloft's not very good at it.

Don't get me wrong, it can do dark fantasy well, it can do horror fantasy well, and it can even do gothic fantasy, but its record at applying any of those is... spotty.

The entire setting evolved out of a module that was, to all practical effects, literally a D&D take on Castlevania. There's a reason the Castlevania 2 artwork is basically Ravenloft's box-art shrunk down and with Simon Belmont in the foreground. The crypt was full of awful puns and there all kinds of jokes at it.

And when it tried to go serious as a full-fledged campaign setting? Ooh, boy. You had the blatant rip-off domains like Lamordia, you had poorly designed adventures, you had characters like freaking Malignio (who is Evil Pinnochio), you had bungled backstories (Drakov is an evil, evil bastard who deserves punishment, but what the hell is "gothic" about his backstory)... yeah, frankly, it's a very hit and miss setting.

The Ravenkin? They are some of the least stupid ideas or implementations to make it into Ravenloft.