Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadence" data-source="post: 8847897" data-attributes="member: 6701124">It's not effective for you; it's apparently perfectly effective for lots of other people. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Trying to parse how many are in each camp, and how strong their objections are, is something I'm glad WotC has to do and not me!&nbsp;No matter what term is used, it feels really odd to me to think that wizards and the like wouldn't do some sort of taxonomy on living things in their bestiaries and theories (What does &quot;Charm Person&quot; affect?&nbsp; &quot;Charm Monster&quot;? What can one be reincarnated into?&nbsp; What can be turned by a cleric?&nbsp; How do we classify these things?).&nbsp; Just as it didn't for Linnaeus, a taxonomic system for living creatures doesn't need to be explicitly based on phylogenetics - it just needs some set of principles.&nbsp;Are the fourteen types of creatures in DnD part of a taxonomic system?&nbsp; Is whatever grouping they decide on for the thing formerly known as race part of one too?In any case, I completely agree with you that instantiating phylogeny into the game isn't a route to go.[And now I have to really avoid reading <a href="https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/55/5/774/1664874" target="_blank">Are the Linnean and Phylogenetic Nomenclatural Systems Combinable? Recommendations for Biological Nomenclature</a> so that I can get and the like and get my work done!! Augh!&nbsp; Why can't work be as fun as message board conversations!?!?]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadence, post: 8847897, member: 6701124"] It's not effective [I]for you[/I]; it's apparently perfectly effective for lots of other people. :) Trying to parse how many are in each camp, and how strong their objections are, is something I'm glad WotC has to do and not me! No matter what term is used, it feels really odd to me to think that wizards and the like wouldn't do some sort of taxonomy on living things in their bestiaries and theories (What does "Charm Person" affect? "Charm Monster"? What can one be reincarnated into? What can be turned by a cleric? How do we classify these things?). Just as it didn't for Linnaeus, a taxonomic system for living creatures doesn't need to be explicitly based on phylogenetics - it just needs some set of principles. Are the fourteen types of creatures in DnD part of a taxonomic system? Is whatever grouping they decide on for the thing formerly known as race part of one too? In any case, I completely agree with you that instantiating phylogeny into the game isn't a route to go. [And now I have to really avoid reading [URL='https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/55/5/774/1664874']Are the Linnean and Phylogenetic Nomenclatural Systems Combinable? Recommendations for Biological Nomenclature[/URL] so that I can get and the like and get my work done!! Augh! Why can't work be as fun as message board conversations!?!?] [/QUOTE]

Verification