D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Thus, my suggestion that we toss "species" when we need to start talking about a fantasy world in which far too many things can interbreed for the Earth-term to apply.

To be fair, there are species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis, Grizzly Bears and Polar Bears, Buffalo and Cows, and so on.

The real world's most common definition of species is broken, so I don't have any qualms against using species in D&D terms.

 

[Dire Bare]

Okay, can we please agree that the term "species" in this context is at best vaguely suggestive/descriptive? Because the biological meaning we have for it really does not apply to D&D fantasy.

Yes, and if you aren't very specific about how you interpret it... who is to blame for that, hm?

There's a rhetorical technique (and logical fallacy) that is often called "bait-and-switch". Is it where one starts speaking using one definition or meaning of a term, but ends using a different one. When words are of questionable or uncertain meaning in the context in which they are used (like "species" in a fantasy world where dragons can interbreed with almost anything) it is extremely easy to bait-and-switch, often without even meaning to do so.

Thus, my suggestion that we toss "species" when we need to start talking about a fantasy world in which far too many things can interbreed for the Earth-term to apply. If the book uses the term, we should not plow forward as if that has all the meanings we can usually attach to it.

Species isn't a better, or worse, term than race or ancestry. It has a modern and/or sci-fi feel to it, but it isn't a poor word to use when describing the differences between elves, dwarves, and orcs.

IRL, are tigers and lions different species? Of course! Can they interbreed, giving us half-lion, half-tiger cubs? Yup, ligers, probably my favorite animal. Are ligers often sterile or unable to breed themselves? Yes, but not always . . . .

Fantasy creatures often interbreed in weird and magical ways that go way beyond anything possible IRL, of course. And I don't think it's necessary to try and get overly "scientific" when trying to differentiate different fantasy races/creatures . . . . but to say that elves, dwarves, humans, and orcs are all different species isn't really much different than saying they are different races or come from different ancestries. IMO, of course.

So, no, we can not all agree that the use of "species" is too vague or doesn't really apply to the fantasy world of D&D. At least, not more or less so than any of the other imperfect words we have available to use.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Yup, ligers, probably my favorite animal.

They're bred for their skills in magic.

 

[Umbran]

The real world's most common definition of species is broken...

All the more reason to not use it here. It isn't like broken words help us understand more clearly right?

 

[Oofta]

Yes, and if you aren't very specific about how you interpret it... who is to blame for that, hm?

There's a rhetorical technique (and logical fallacy) that is often called "bait-and-switch". Is it where one starts speaking using one definition or meaning of a term, but ends using a different one. When words are of questionable or uncertain meaning in the context in which they are used (like "species" in a fantasy world where dragons can interbreed with almost anything) it is extremely easy to bait-and-switch, often without even meaning to do so.

Thus, my suggestion that we toss "species" when we need to start talking about a fantasy world in which far too many things can interbreed for the Earth-term to apply. If the book uses the term, we should not plow forward as if that has all the meanings we can usually attach to it.

I'm not sure the english language has a good word for it, or at least not one that works for everyone. I don't view orcs as humans. They were a race created by a god, they have no common ancestor with any other living creature. They can procreate with other races because of magic, same as dragons. Horses and humans might be able to have offspring depending on where centaurs came from in your campaign because "magic".

I also think it can, and should, vary from campaign to campaign. On the one extreme orcs are no more human than dragons on the other they're humans that look funny. I don't think there's a right or wrong, even if I do agree that some of the lore could be changed.

So maybe species isn't the best word, but I don't know what else would be better unless you just make up a new word.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm a bit confused by the orc discussion. In my understanding, a humanoid creature is one that is some what like a human (walks upright on 2 legs, with 2 arms), but it isn't a human. A monster can be humanoid for example. I always thought that is what orcs were: monsters that are humanoid in appearance, but still monsters.

There are a lot of different interpretations.

For example, earlier this year I was told that one way to tell warforged were actually alive and had souls was because they were humanoid. If they were something else they would not have souls and be okay to murder without care.

The definition of body shape is one that I have never seen (after all, demons and devils would then be humanoid)

 

[Dire Bare]

All the more reason to not use it here. It isn't like broken words help us understand more clearly right?

The word species doesn't quite work, you are right. But what word is better? The term race is problematic, and the other words tossed around aren't bad, they just don't really solve the problem (ancestry, heritage, etc). None of them seem to be more clear or precise when talking about fantasy races.

I don't know if folks using the term "species" interchangeably with "race" in D&D is that much of a problem, it doesn't make things more clear, but it doesn't make things less clear or problematic. IMO.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

All the more reason to not use it here. It isn't like broken words help us understand more clearly right?

The definition of race is also broken. I just think species is more accurate than race.

My point is, the fact that species normally means "two populations of creatures that can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring" shouldn't be the thing that blocks us from using species instead of race.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't remember which ancient philosopher it was, but they made a claim that I think applies here. "Man is the measure of all things"

We, as humans, cannot create a race of people that use language, tools, and housing without making them a mirror of ourselves. We just can't, because we are the only thing we have ever encountered that does those things.

Sure we can. We cannot think like an alien, but we can imagine things that are different from how we think and approximate those. Those are races that are not a mirror of ourselves. They are not human.

And, every single time in history someone has said "but those aren't really people" they've been wrong.

Yes, because they were talking about real humans. Anyone referring to any real human as not a person is terribly wrong. When speaking about things in the game that aren't human, though, they are correct.

I also want to point this out. You never have a race "born with" or "forced by a god" to have good traits. Orcs are just born violent and savage, but no race is just born kind-hearted and merciful. Something to consider.

Devas, Archons, Planetars, Solars, Djinni and a few others. There aren't very many and WotC removed some of the formerly good monsters from the books. You don't see many such races and saw the removal by WotC not because of race, but rather because many DMs don't really use good creatures all that often. The game needs antagonists more than allies and they have space concerns. They want to put in things DMs will use more in order to make money.

 

[Oofta]

The definition of race is also broken. I just think species is more accurate than race.

My point is, the fact that species normally means "two populations of creatures that can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring" shouldn't be the thing that blocks us from using species instead of race.

Even in the real world people recognize that the word species is flawed.