Reason for Fantasy Biodiversity

the Jester said:
Why shouldn't there be? Frankly, if the world is big enough for multiple intelligent species to dwell in, why not?

Because, frankly, species are competitive. Whoever got there first would wipe out anybody challenging that dominance. Assuming they got there around the same time, then they would fight it out until one side won.

This assumes that natural selection is the operative force in the fantasy world. Species that are not competitive die out. The alternative to this is supernatural selection, of course, to which other posters have alluded. Note that I am speaking strictly in a gaming world sense -- real world debates along this line are likely to get this thread closed, so please refrain.

How do you know they aren't quite sentient? Is it not possible that the idea that other animals aren't sentient is simply prejudice?

Based on your question, I checked my definitions and found I am in error. Common terms here are:

Sentience: the ability to feel or perceive, basic consciousness. In D&D terms, this would be connoted, I believe, by a Wisdom score.

Sapience: the ability to act with judgement. This is actually closer to what "wisdom" usually means in the colloquiel sense.

Self-awareness: the knowledge of one's own existence.

I'll assume that you're asking an honest question and not just baiting. Given my new understanding of the word "sentience," I can say that I do believe there are animals that are sentient. What I have yet to see is any evidence that there are other species that are self-aware, with the possible exception of closely-related primate species.

In fantasy terms, most "demihumans," as they used to be called, are most certainly self-aware. Not only are they self-aware, but they are capable of developing and using sophisticated technologies, including magic. That makes them implicit competitors to humans or any other such species.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Dirigible said:
*applauds SpiralBound*

Excellent range of possibilities.

I agree SpiralBound has covered the basics.

IIRC, the DragonLance campaign settings used a form of deific fiat to explain the diversity. The Forgotten Realms is basically a crossroads world with portals going everywhere in the known universe. Spelljammer and Planescape (and Dragonstar) don't really need excuses, as the setting is inherently diverse with different worlds and/or planes. Ravenloft absorbs portions of other planes that have been the site of great evil. One of the races in Monte Cook's Diamond Throne setting was magically bred by the giants to attain intelligence.

Was there an "official" Greyhawk explanation?

Also, the Silmarillion tells Tolkein's version, which is basically a story of divine intervention followed by forced breeding for species like orcs.
 

DreadPirateMurphy said:
Because, frankly, species are competitive. Whoever got there first would wipe out anybody challenging that dominance. Assuming they got there around the same time, then they would fight it out until one side won.

Plant and animal species are competitve, but there's no way to say that would be true if many of them were intelligent. Maybe the Cooperative species would hava an advantage. That's a pretty good explanation for several dominant/good races w/dozens of less dominant/more individually powerful/evil races. we stick together.
 

DreadPirateMurphy said:
Just curious...how do you explain the existence of multiple species of sentient humanoids in your campaign world?

In the real world, we have one dominant, sentient species, one extinct branch (neanderthals), and a handful of intelligent but not quite sentient mammals and birds.

I'm looking for something more than just hand-waving or "it's magic!" Those are fine answers for any individual campaign, but I'm looking for more developed rationales.

A topic close to my heart.

I'm also of the view that competition of the fitest favors a single or few sapient species. The intelligence of the various australopithecus species may be in doubt, but that of neaderthals is not, clear tool users which we coexisted with for some time. They lost out we survived.

IMC there was originally (in the sense of existing before about 10,000 years ago campaign time) only five species: dwarves, elves, humans, halfings, and goblins. They all share a common lineage, the goblins being of the australopithecus branch, humans and elves being very close (they can interbreed after all). Goblins IMC are well adapted to tropical and equitorial environements. They pushed humans and others out of these regions long ago. Elves, humans and dwarves split to different environments and did not come into contact again until about 10,000 years ago. It is said certain gods had a hand in fashioning elves from men and dwarves from men or halflings. Others say elves were a mutant strain of humans that retreated into dense forests due to an initial sensitivity to ultraviolet light. They also say dwarves were pushed into the mountains by humans where they adapted admirably to the high altitude and cold. So IMC different species had advantages in different environments which allowed them to develop relatively undisturbed. Halflings, they were always found associated with humans in a symbiotic relationship it seems.

On goblins, I lump kobold, goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears all together as one species: goblins. They start off small and never stop growing given a proper diet. So they progress from kobold to bugbear. The broad range in size of australopithecus species inspired this.

The other fantasy species arose from interaction with a campaign mythical material called solarium, or pieces of the sun. Not to go over the whole campaign myth and details. Elves, humans and dwarves find themselves in an ice age. About 10,00 years ago, magic is discovered along with the existance of this magical metal solarium. An Elf gets a bright idea that if we gather up enough pieces of this stuff, we can use it to power magic to end the ice age and all will be good. (They did end the ice age but all was not good) Well, solarium is magical and mutagenic. Pieces were gathered from all over but those who handled the raw ore mutated and combined with things "central to their way of life." The fishing tribes became mermen, the mounted tribes became centuars, goat herders became satyrs, frost giant were men of the cold wastes, fire gaints men of the forge, etc. Whole tribes changed overnight, Whether a man became half horse, or his horse became half man is unknown; but certainly it is an insult of the deepest kind to call one of these "Children of the Sun" an animal that became a man.

This mutagenic ore is also an explaination for many of the chimeric creatures, giant creatures and other monsters IMC, and why they sometimes arise spontaneuosly by mutation without a breeding population that would normally wreak havoc on the countryside. Bascially, IMC humans, dwarves, elves, halflings and goblins evolved and became what they were without knowledge of magic or fantasy monsters around. All that changes with the unearthing of this solarium (oh the pride of the elves).

Orcs came later and were made from men, at least, as they can interbreed.

That's it in brief.
 

The Grackle said:
Plant and animal species are competitve, but there's no way to say that would be true if many of them were intelligent. Maybe the Cooperative species would hava an advantage. That's a pretty good explanation for several dominant/good races w/dozens of less dominant/more individually powerful/evil races. we stick together.

That is fine if the fantasy world in question has a common source of moralism, i.e., good or evil. That is the case in many fantasy worlds, and it certainly could provide both a sense of common cause and a restraint on competitive urges.

It is certainly not the case in the real world...altruism among humans rarely extends beyond the social groupings with which one identifies: family, tribe, community, nation, etc. Many fantasy worlds have plentiful examples of elves and dwarves going to war, humans fighting other humans, etc. In some campaign settings such as Eberron or the Iron Kingdoms, peace seems to be the exception more than the rule. What explains the plethora of sword-swinging species in those campaigns?

(Obviously, from a metagame perspective, conflict is useful for driving plots and providing character motivation. I'm interested in the campaign-specific mythos rationale.)
 

In a fantasy world there's no particular reason you have to have things follow a Darwinian evolutionary model. Maybe Lamarckian evolution is the rule of the land. Perhaps spontaneous generation happens, or any number of other long-discredited theories are true. In standard D&D there's already such a thing as "elemental" fire, right?

More specifically, for my campaign world, a central theme is that human civilization has risen to great heights several times in history, only to fall, its remnants becoming cursed. This explains, for example, goblins. There is also an immortal, ever-reincarnating progenitor of man (the janni - who are very low in number), their fallen (who are various unique monsters. The medusa is unique. Kill her, and she is reborn elsewhere in the world.), and those janni who relinquished their powers for a closer connection to the world (stone-trolls that don't much resemble RAW trolls.)

I had problems with all the multifarious humanoid races, too, and my solution for many of them was to move them off-plane, to neighboring planes of existence. Dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, most giants, so on.
 

DreadPirateMurphy said:
Just curious...how do you explain the existence of multiple species of sentient humanoids in your campaign world?

I don't. My adventures aren't about palaeontology, and so far (in over 25 years of GMing) none of my players has ever asked for an explanation.

In the real world, we have one dominant, sentient species, one extinct branch (neanderthals), and a handful of intelligent but not quite sentient mammals and birds.

At various stages during the last 2 million years or so there have sometimes been several species of hominid existing at the same time. And if the Homo floriensis camp turns out to be right about the Flores Hobbit fossils the most recent of those times will have quite recent. Having several fully intelligent species around at teh same time might not be all that strange, from a biological point of view. The last 20,000 years, not the 1,980,000 years preceding them, might be the anomaly.

I'd just like to add that 'sentience' is not a higher standard than 'intelligence', at least outside SF pseudo-jargon. Insofar as the word is well-defined, it means only 'capable of recieving impressions from its senses', and every animal that is more responsive than a sponge qualifies.

If you want a word for what humans are and other animals are supposedly not 'sapient' would be better, or 'sophont', meaning 'knowing' and 'wise' respectively. Of course, neither term is well-defined, but that is appropriate since we don't really know what (if anything) distinguishes human cognition qualitatively from the cleverer other animals, such as cetaceans, canids, corvids, and psittacines. It seems to me that the distinguishing ability of humans is to negotiate, to enter into agreements, to 'truck. barter, and exchange'. But that is hardly accepted as a crucial test of personhood--outside of economics.
 

The Grackle said:
Plant and animal species are competitve, but there's no way to say that would be true if many of them were intelligent. Maybe the Cooperative species would hava an advantage. That's a pretty good explanation for several dominant/good races w/dozens of less dominant/more individually powerful/evil races. we stick together.

Not quite true. Numerous cultures have wiped each other out. SOme of these were co-opetrative with their target, until they gained some other advantage.

These are just sets of ideals or methods of survival, yet they compete as well. I doubt various thinking, self aware species would be any less competitive. More likely the opposite would be true.

About the only thing I can think of is genetic borders. As long as no technological (or magical, depending on your view) advances are made, no one really gains ground.

Scratch that; there is one other explanation: species growth and room for it. Most campaign settings are set in a renaissance type of atmosphere. Discoveries have been made, but the world hasn't been mapped out yet (at least not completely). They haven't reached our level of competition because the losers still have a place outside of borders to establish themselves (possibly destroying weaker cultures in those areas in the process). Once the campaign goes 'global' then divine interference may be the only thing that keeps one species from dominating.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top