I just feel there wasn't a need to get rid of the half-races period. It has been a thing for this game for over 40 years. Like I said earlier in this thread. Are we going to retcon Tanis Half-Elven as a human now? Or is he going to be a full eleven? It's just stupid to me.
Tanis just won't exist in 5e. Or he'll just be "Tanis" with no qualifiers. And mechanically, yes, he will be either Human or Elven.
I think you're both making the mistake of conflating mechanics with flavour. Flavour is free, Tanis would still be a half-elf and that would still impact his story, but there'd just be no mechanical benefit to being a half-elf in the same way I once played a half-dwarf and had to use the dwarf stats. And that's the problem I always had with half elves and half orcs; why just those two? What 2024 has really missed a trick on is not introducing mechanics to increase the number of mixed heritage options rather than remove them entirely
Right, but he won't be Tanis Half-Elven, he'll just be Tanis. If they're not including the half-_____ options because that upsets some people, then they're not going to have a character with that term in his name. He'll be Tanis Elven who has a human father for flavour.
Since Tanis has come up so much in these debates I just Googled the dates. The first Dragonlance book was published in 1984, the first half elf as a player option wasn’t introduced until 1989 in 2e *because* of Tanis and his popularity. Which just proves my point that you don’t need mechanics to create the flavour for your character, the original Tanis would have been created as a Elf and only player and DM agreement would have put the focus so heavily on his parentage
Since Tanis has come up so much in these debates I just Googled the dates. The first Dragonlance book was published in 1984, the first half elf as a player option wasn’t introduced until 1989 in 2e *because* of Tanis and his popularity.
Since Tanis has come up so much in these debates I just Googled the dates. The first Dragonlance book was published in 1984, the first half elf as a player option wasn’t introduced until 1989 in 2e *because* of Tanis and his popularity.
Half-elves were in AD&D1e.
Bloody Google AI search results. Forget I said anything <face palm>
Actually, half-elves have been available since 1975 in the "white box" edition of D&D as outlined in the Greyhawk supplement to the original three little paperback books (Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasures, The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures). It's on page 5 of the Greyhawk supplement.
If you'd prefer a 1e source rather than a 0e source, The original AD&D (1e) Player's Handbook (1978) has a section on half-elves on page 17.
So, half-elves predate Tanis and the Dragonlance books by almost a decade if you go by 0e and by 6 years if you go by 1e. The original inspiration was Elrond, et. al., from Tolkien's Legendarium.
I am somewhat perplexed by much of this thread. Why would you associate real life ancestry with fantasy species that have very different origins? I suppose the answer is allegory, but it has always kinda boggled my mind.
You can still play a half elf in the new rules, they're just not mechanically different because there's an assumption that (unless you were raised by wolves) you were raised in either elf or the human society.
Tanis was an outsider in the human world because he was raised by elves, and he was an outside in the elf world because of his different physiology and shorter life span, not because he was lacking in elf culture/upbringing. He learned elvish, he learned to hunt like an elf, he was betrothed to an elf, and *then* he went into the human world.
If you were to make Tanis in the new rules, it's entirely plausible that you would pick Elf as your species.
What about a half-elf raised by both parents in a society populated with both humans and elves in which neither's culture dominates?
Why should that character's player be forced to pick just one parent to determine anything mechanical for his or her character?
Like I said:
[It] mirrors how extremely racist people in the past would view those of us who are multiethnic. Telling us we "weren't white enough" or "weren't black enough" and that we could "only possibly" be one or the other. As if we can't identify as both. Or neither for that matter. The concept of Third Culture Kids (TKC)—whom I teach for a living—and the sensitivity with which it handles this very subject is far more greatly in line with having specific half-"species" as available options for players whose characters then are a blend of traits from both parents.
They are then something in and of themselves. Not just one or the other. Or "both"—only one is purely cosmetic. That is so deeply offensive it boggles the mind how Wizards even considered it.
I would wager a dragon's hoard the majority of those who see nothing wrong with telling a multiethnic player to just pick one parent when rolling up a half-"species" character don't "get it" because they are neither multiethnic nor do they remotely care whether really anything might distress other players just as long as it's behavior of which they personally approve.
The problem with comparing the irl multi-ethnic experience to how they run the rules for mechanical features of a fictional character in a fictional setting of at least one fictional heritage is that the comparison is objectively apples to oranges. Within the irl experience, the most substantial physiological differences between ethnicities are things like pigmentation and bone structure. Within the fiction of D&D, the differences between the races start with that and then expand into lifespan, significantly stronger senses, physical features like horns or scales or wings, and a massive array of magical powers. Which then, on the mechanical side, gets into the issue of potentially creating overpowered combinations if you let people mix and match; a problem that would rapidly balloon as more races are introduced and they need to check those features against an ever-expanding list of prior ones. Yes, if you’re actively looking for a reason to be upset with WotC you can spin the “pick one block’s features” method as being meant to push the kind of specious narratives people have irl, or alternatively you can consider the practical application of the various options on the game and recognize it’s the most effective way to leave any pairing a given player and DM agree on as valid without creating a massive and unwieldy headache for design teams.
Um ... the reasoning behind their making these changes in the first place was because they and others were comparing how all this works in real life to how it works in fantasy. How often have you yourself made such comparisons? You don't get to pick and choose when it is okay to do so just so you can feign empathy when it suits you but then shrug off how offended others may be when you just don't care.
You have just gone and proven my point:
I would wager a dragon's hoard the majority of those who see nothing wrong with telling a multiethnic player to just pick one parent when rolling up a half-"species" character don't "get it" because they are neither multiethnic nor do they remotely care whether really anything might distress other players just as long as it's behavior of which they personally approve.
I am multiethnic. I am a "third culture" individual. As is someone else in this very thread also offended by what they had initially decided to do. If you need help understanding why it is both insensitive and senseless for a white person to lecture me or anyone else on how we are "wrong" in this regard then I really don't know what to say!
You can still play a half elf in the new rules, they're just not mechanically different because there's an assumption that (unless you were raised by wolves) you were raised in either elf or the human society.
Tanis was an outsider in the human world because he was raised by elves, and he was an outside in the elf world because of his different physiology and shorter life span, not because he was lacking in elf culture/upbringing. He learned elvish, he learned to hunt like an elf, he was betrothed to an elf, and *then* he went into the human world.
If you were to make Tanis in the new rules, it's entirely plausible that you would pick Elf as your species.
What about a half-elf raised by both parents in a society populated with both humans and elves in which neither's culture dominates?
Why should that character's player be forced to pick just one parent to determine anything mechanical for his or her character?
Like I said:
[It] mirrors how extremely racist people in the past would view those of us who are multiethnic. Telling us we "weren't white enough" or "weren't black enough" and that we could "only possibly" be one or the other. As if we can't identify as both. Or neither for that matter. The concept of Third Culture Kids (TKC)—whom I teach for a living—and the sensitivity with which it handles this very subject is far more greatly in line with having specific half-"species" as available options for players whose characters then are a blend of traits from both parents.
They are then something in and of themselves. Not just one or the other. Or "both"—only one is purely cosmetic. That is so deeply offensive it boggles the mind how Wizards even considered it.
I would wager a dragon's hoard the majority of those who see nothing wrong with telling a multiethnic player to just pick one parent when rolling up a half-"species" character don't "get it" because they are neither multiethnic nor do they remotely care whether really anything might distress other players just as long as it's behavior of which they personally approve.
The problem with comparing the irl multi-ethnic experience to how they run the rules for mechanical features of a fictional character in a fictional setting of at least one fictional heritage is that the comparison is objectively apples to oranges. Within the irl experience, the most substantial physiological differences between ethnicities are things like pigmentation and bone structure. Within the fiction of D&D, the differences between the races start with that and then expand into lifespan, significantly stronger senses, physical features like horns or scales or wings, and a massive array of magical powers. Which then, on the mechanical side, gets into the issue of potentially creating overpowered combinations if you let people mix and match; a problem that would rapidly balloon as more races are introduced and they need to check those features against an ever-expanding list of prior ones. Yes, if you’re actively looking for a reason to be upset with WotC you can spin the “pick one block’s features” method as being meant to push the kind of specious narratives people have irl, or alternatively you can consider the practical application of the various options on the game and recognize it’s the most effective way to leave any pairing a given player and DM agree on as valid without creating a massive and unwieldy headache for design teams.
Also as I said elsewhere:
The differences between a hobbit and a human are so small that if hobbits existed they would most definitely be considered human. And not an entirely different species. In fact it's safe to assume that anyone who would consider them a different species would be regarded with suspicion. Because that's the sort of language one expects from hateful individuals when talking about ethnic groups with a phenotype that sees them with a shorter stature than others.
Those between an elf and a human? Now those are more like the differences between an alien and a human I would agree. However it is interesting to note how elves are treated as something truly otherworldly and very much alien in earlier editions of the game but have become more and more "humanized" over the years and probably because of people's interpreting what came before as racist. (The longevity afforded dwarves means they are not really analogous with humans with achondroplasia or dwarfism. But many do run them at their tables as little people and simply remove from them anything supernatural in nature.)
You can still play a half elf in the new rules, they're just not mechanically different because there's an assumption that (unless you were raised by wolves) you were raised in either elf or the human society.
Tanis was an outsider in the human world because he was raised by elves, and he was an outside in the elf world because of his different physiology and shorter life span, not because he was lacking in elf culture/upbringing. He learned elvish, he learned to hunt like an elf, he was betrothed to an elf, and *then* he went into the human world.
If you were to make Tanis in the new rules, it's entirely plausible that you would pick Elf as your species.
What about a half-elf raised by both parents in a society populated with both humans and elves in which neither's culture dominates?
Why should that character's player be forced to pick just one parent to determine anything mechanical for his or her character?
Like I said:
[It] mirrors how extremely racist people in the past would view those of us who are multiethnic. Telling us we "weren't white enough" or "weren't black enough" and that we could "only possibly" be one or the other. As if we can't identify as both. Or neither for that matter. The concept of Third Culture Kids (TKC)—whom I teach for a living—and the sensitivity with which it handles this very subject is far more greatly in line with having specific half-"species" as available options for players whose characters then are a blend of traits from both parents.
They are then something in and of themselves. Not just one or the other. Or "both"—only one is purely cosmetic. That is so deeply offensive it boggles the mind how Wizards even considered it.
I would wager a dragon's hoard the majority of those who see nothing wrong with telling a multiethnic player to just pick one parent when rolling up a half-"species" character don't "get it" because they are neither multiethnic nor do they remotely care whether really anything might distress other players just as long as it's behavior of which they personally approve.
The problem with comparing the irl multi-ethnic experience to how they run the rules for mechanical features of a fictional character in a fictional setting of at least one fictional heritage is that the comparison is objectively apples to oranges. Within the irl experience, the most substantial physiological differences between ethnicities are things like pigmentation and bone structure. Within the fiction of D&D, the differences between the races start with that and then expand into lifespan, significantly stronger senses, physical features like horns or scales or wings, and a massive array of magical powers. Which then, on the mechanical side, gets into the issue of potentially creating overpowered combinations if you let people mix and match; a problem that would rapidly balloon as more races are introduced and they need to check those features against an ever-expanding list of prior ones. Yes, if you’re actively looking for a reason to be upset with WotC you can spin the “pick one block’s features” method as being meant to push the kind of specious narratives people have irl, or alternatively you can consider the practical application of the various options on the game and recognize it’s the most effective way to leave any pairing a given player and DM agree on as valid without creating a massive and unwieldy headache for design teams.
Also as I said elsewhere:
The differences between a hobbit and a human are so small that if hobbits existed they would most definitely be considered human. And not an entirely different species. In fact it's safe to assume that anyone who would consider them a different species would be regarded with suspicion. Because that's the sort of language one expects from hateful individuals when talking about ethnic groups with a phenotype that sees them with a shorter stature than others.
Those between an elf and a human? Now those are more like the differences between an alien and a human I would agree. However it is interesting to note how elves are treated as something truly otherworldly and very much alien in earlier editions of the game but have become more and more "humanized" over the years and probably because of people's interpreting what came before as racist. (The longevity afforded dwarves means they are not really analogous with humans with achondroplasia or dwarfism. But many do run them at their tables as little people and simply remove from them anything supernatural in nature.)
Why would Hobbits necessarily be "similar enough" if they were real, anymore than Elves or Dwarves would? In my personal opinion, the fact that they have species specific abilities make it clear they are cut from different cloth than humans. By this same token, there can be many ethnicity, but I would NOT go with the "sub species" route that default D&D does, and would allow any combination of ethnic variation in the various species, while allowing the player to choose whichever mechanical "version" best fit there preferences.
It helps that my setting is not Forgotten Realms, however, so it is a different set of suppositions coming out of the gate.
Now we are too used to half-elves and now a lot of playes miss them.
Maybe in your land you are too used to "pureblood ancestors" but here it's the opposite and mixed blood from different communities isn't rare.
It is not only about half-blood PCs by WotC but by 3PPs.
The quarter-elves are canon in the Witcher universe. How should be one like PC specie? Maybe only a subtype and some racial trait.
There were half-kenders and half-gnomes in Dragonlance 3.5 Ed.
But what if anybody wanted a half-blood gnome-dwarf or dwarf-halfling?
Maybe the solution is creating the half-blood feat where PC gets a second subtype, and later this can get racial feats or special feats for half-blood.
You can still play a half elf in the new rules, they're just not mechanically different because there's an assumption that (unless you were raised by wolves) you were raised in either elf or the human society.
Tanis was an outsider in the human world because he was raised by elves, and he was an outside in the elf world because of his different physiology and shorter life span, not because he was lacking in elf culture/upbringing. He learned elvish, he learned to hunt like an elf, he was betrothed to an elf, and *then* he went into the human world.
If you were to make Tanis in the new rules, it's entirely plausible that you would pick Elf as your species.
What about a half-elf raised by both parents in a society populated with both humans and elves in which neither's culture dominates?
Why should that character's player be forced to pick just one parent to determine anything mechanical for his or her character?
Like I said:
[It] mirrors how extremely racist people in the past would view those of us who are multiethnic. Telling us we "weren't white enough" or "weren't black enough" and that we could "only possibly" be one or the other. As if we can't identify as both. Or neither for that matter. The concept of Third Culture Kids (TKC)—whom I teach for a living—and the sensitivity with which it handles this very subject is far more greatly in line with having specific half-"species" as available options for players whose characters then are a blend of traits from both parents.
They are then something in and of themselves. Not just one or the other. Or "both"—only one is purely cosmetic. That is so deeply offensive it boggles the mind how Wizards even considered it.
I would wager a dragon's hoard the majority of those who see nothing wrong with telling a multiethnic player to just pick one parent when rolling up a half-"species" character don't "get it" because they are neither multiethnic nor do they remotely care whether really anything might distress other players just as long as it's behavior of which they personally approve.
The problem with comparing the irl multi-ethnic experience to how they run the rules for mechanical features of a fictional character in a fictional setting of at least one fictional heritage is that the comparison is objectively apples to oranges. Within the irl experience, the most substantial physiological differences between ethnicities are things like pigmentation and bone structure. Within the fiction of D&D, the differences between the races start with that and then expand into lifespan, significantly stronger senses, physical features like horns or scales or wings, and a massive array of magical powers. Which then, on the mechanical side, gets into the issue of potentially creating overpowered combinations if you let people mix and match; a problem that would rapidly balloon as more races are introduced and they need to check those features against an ever-expanding list of prior ones. Yes, if you’re actively looking for a reason to be upset with WotC you can spin the “pick one block’s features” method as being meant to push the kind of specious narratives people have irl, or alternatively you can consider the practical application of the various options on the game and recognize it’s the most effective way to leave any pairing a given player and DM agree on as valid without creating a massive and unwieldy headache for design teams.
Um ... the reasoning behind their making these changes in the first place was because they and others were comparing how all this works in real life to how it works in fantasy. How often have you yourself made such comparisons? You don't get to pick and choose when it is okay to do so just so you can feign empathy when it suits you but then shrug off how offended others may be when you just don't care.
You have just gone and proven my point:
I would wager a dragon's hoard the majority of those who see nothing wrong with telling a multiethnic player to just pick one parent when rolling up a half-"species" character don't "get it" because they are neither multiethnic nor do they remotely care whether really anything might distress other players just as long as it's behavior of which they personally approve.
I am multiethnic. I am a "third culture" individual. As is someone else in this very thread also offended by what they had initially decided to do. If you need help understanding why it is both insensitive and senseless for a white person to lecture me or anyone else on how we are "wrong" in this regard then I really don't know what to say!
I think this discussion is why I posted earlier that it was probably best for WotC to stay out of it. They could keep half-elf and half-orc and offend one segment of the player population or provide rules for how to have half species and offend another segment of the player population. Just best for them to stay out of it altogether and let each table to decide how to handle it.
Just my opinion and I will stay out of it from here on out.
You can still play a half elf in the new rules, they're just not mechanically different because there's an assumption that (unless you were raised by wolves) you were raised in either elf or the human society.
Tanis was an outsider in the human world because he was raised by elves, and he was an outside in the elf world because of his different physiology and shorter life span, not because he was lacking in elf culture/upbringing. He learned elvish, he learned to hunt like an elf, he was betrothed to an elf, and *then* he went into the human world.
If you were to make Tanis in the new rules, it's entirely plausible that you would pick Elf as your species.
What about a half-elf raised by both parents in a society populated with both humans and elves in which neither's culture dominates?
Why should that character's player be forced to pick just one parent to determine anything mechanical for his or her character?
Like I said:
[It] mirrors how extremely racist people in the past would view those of us who are multiethnic. Telling us we "weren't white enough" or "weren't black enough" and that we could "only possibly" be one or the other. As if we can't identify as both. Or neither for that matter. The concept of Third Culture Kids (TKC)—whom I teach for a living—and the sensitivity with which it handles this very subject is far more greatly in line with having specific half-"species" as available options for players whose characters then are a blend of traits from both parents.
They are then something in and of themselves. Not just one or the other. Or "both"—only one is purely cosmetic. That is so deeply offensive it boggles the mind how Wizards even considered it.
I would wager a dragon's hoard the majority of those who see nothing wrong with telling a multiethnic player to just pick one parent when rolling up a half-"species" character don't "get it" because they are neither multiethnic nor do they remotely care whether really anything might distress other players just as long as it's behavior of which they personally approve.
The problem with comparing the irl multi-ethnic experience to how they run the rules for mechanical features of a fictional character in a fictional setting of at least one fictional heritage is that the comparison is objectively apples to oranges. Within the irl experience, the most substantial physiological differences between ethnicities are things like pigmentation and bone structure. Within the fiction of D&D, the differences between the races start with that and then expand into lifespan, significantly stronger senses, physical features like horns or scales or wings, and a massive array of magical powers. Which then, on the mechanical side, gets into the issue of potentially creating overpowered combinations if you let people mix and match; a problem that would rapidly balloon as more races are introduced and they need to check those features against an ever-expanding list of prior ones. Yes, if you’re actively looking for a reason to be upset with WotC you can spin the “pick one block’s features” method as being meant to push the kind of specious narratives people have irl, or alternatively you can consider the practical application of the various options on the game and recognize it’s the most effective way to leave any pairing a given player and DM agree on as valid without creating a massive and unwieldy headache for design teams.
Also as I said elsewhere:
The differences between a hobbit and a human are so small that if hobbits existed they would most definitely be considered human. And not an entirely different species. In fact it's safe to assume that anyone who would consider them a different species would be regarded with suspicion. Because that's the sort of language one expects from hateful individuals when talking about ethnic groups with a phenotype that sees them with a shorter stature than others.
Those between an elf and a human? Now those are more like the differences between an alien and a human I would agree. However it is interesting to note how elves are treated as something truly otherworldly and very much alien in earlier editions of the game but have become more and more "humanized" over the years and probably because of people's interpreting what came before as racist. (The longevity afforded dwarves means they are not really analogous with humans with achondroplasia or dwarfism. But many do run them at their tables as little people and simply remove from them anything supernatural in nature.)
Why would Hobbits necessarily be "similar enough" if they were real, anymore than Elves or Dwarves would? In my personal opinion, the fact that they have species specific abilities make it clear they are cut from different cloth than humans. By this same token, there can be many ethnicity, but I would NOT go with the "sub species" route that default D&D does, and would allow any combination of ethnic variation in the various species, while allowing the player to choose whichever mechanical "version" best fit there preferences.
It helps that my setting is not Forgotten Realms, however, so it is a different set of suppositions coming out of the gate.
Are you honestly suggesting if a team of researchers encountered a community in some remote part of the world and its inhabitants were very much humanoid and perfectly capable of language and all the trappings of human civilization but were of a phenotype that saw them with a short stature and an appearance only marginally different from our own you would consider them an entirely different species? Seriously?
Your bringing up halflings' possession of "species-specific abilities" is a perfect example of circular logic. Halflings are treated as a different species in the game and provided "species-specific abilities." Ergo they would simply have to be considered a different species if they lived among us? You are completely missing my point.
Even in the unlikely scenario the terrain and climate in which this hypothetical community live had seen them develop the ability to see in the dark—and yes I know halflings go without darkvision but bear with me—they would not be considered an entirely different species. Some indigenous peoples possess the sharpest of vision of all peoples on the planet because how they have lived for centuries has seen their retina and brain adapt accordingly. There are indigenous groups that can see stars with the naked eye that most of us require some apparatus to see. They are human like you and me. They are not a different species.
Are you honestly suggesting if a team of researchers encountered a community in some remote part of the world and its inhabitants were very much humanoid and perfectly capable of language and all the trappings of human civilization but were of a phenotype that saw them with a short stature and an appearance only marginally different from our own you would consider them an entirely different species? Seriously?
You mean like Homo floresiensis? Contemporary of humans with stone tools and evidence of civilization. Different species.
Ditto the Neandertals, which had complex societies and could interbreed with humans. But are slightly physically different. They're homo neanderthalensis.
Just because they have language and share soceity doesn't mean they're the same species as humans.
You can still play a half elf in the new rules, they're just not mechanically different because there's an assumption that (unless you were raised by wolves) you were raised in either elf or the human society.
Tanis was an outsider in the human world because he was raised by elves, and he was an outside in the elf world because of his different physiology and shorter life span, not because he was lacking in elf culture/upbringing. He learned elvish, he learned to hunt like an elf, he was betrothed to an elf, and *then* he went into the human world.
If you were to make Tanis in the new rules, it's entirely plausible that you would pick Elf as your species.
What about a half-elf raised by both parents in a society populated with both humans and elves in which neither's culture dominates?
Why should that character's player be forced to pick just one parent to determine anything mechanical for his or her character?
Like I said:
[It] mirrors how extremely racist people in the past would view those of us who are multiethnic. Telling us we "weren't white enough" or "weren't black enough" and that we could "only possibly" be one or the other. As if we can't identify as both. Or neither for that matter. The concept of Third Culture Kids (TKC)—whom I teach for a living—and the sensitivity with which it handles this very subject is far more greatly in line with having specific half-"species" as available options for players whose characters then are a blend of traits from both parents.
They are then something in and of themselves. Not just one or the other. Or "both"—only one is purely cosmetic. That is so deeply offensive it boggles the mind how Wizards even considered it.
I would wager a dragon's hoard the majority of those who see nothing wrong with telling a multiethnic player to just pick one parent when rolling up a half-"species" character don't "get it" because they are neither multiethnic nor do they remotely care whether really anything might distress other players just as long as it's behavior of which they personally approve.
The problem with comparing the irl multi-ethnic experience to how they run the rules for mechanical features of a fictional character in a fictional setting of at least one fictional heritage is that the comparison is objectively apples to oranges. Within the irl experience, the most substantial physiological differences between ethnicities are things like pigmentation and bone structure. Within the fiction of D&D, the differences between the races start with that and then expand into lifespan, significantly stronger senses, physical features like horns or scales or wings, and a massive array of magical powers. Which then, on the mechanical side, gets into the issue of potentially creating overpowered combinations if you let people mix and match; a problem that would rapidly balloon as more races are introduced and they need to check those features against an ever-expanding list of prior ones. Yes, if you’re actively looking for a reason to be upset with WotC you can spin the “pick one block’s features” method as being meant to push the kind of specious narratives people have irl, or alternatively you can consider the practical application of the various options on the game and recognize it’s the most effective way to leave any pairing a given player and DM agree on as valid without creating a massive and unwieldy headache for design teams.
Also as I said elsewhere:
The differences between a hobbit and a human are so small that if hobbits existed they would most definitely be considered human. And not an entirely different species. In fact it's safe to assume that anyone who would consider them a different species would be regarded with suspicion. Because that's the sort of language one expects from hateful individuals when talking about ethnic groups with a phenotype that sees them with a shorter stature than others.
Those between an elf and a human? Now those are more like the differences between an alien and a human I would agree. However it is interesting to note how elves are treated as something truly otherworldly and very much alien in earlier editions of the game but have become more and more "humanized" over the years and probably because of people's interpreting what came before as racist. (The longevity afforded dwarves means they are not really analogous with humans with achondroplasia or dwarfism. But many do run them at their tables as little people and simply remove from them anything supernatural in nature.)
Why would Hobbits necessarily be "similar enough" if they were real, anymore than Elves or Dwarves would? In my personal opinion, the fact that they have species specific abilities make it clear they are cut from different cloth than humans. By this same token, there can be many ethnicity, but I would NOT go with the "sub species" route that default D&D does, and would allow any combination of ethnic variation in the various species, while allowing the player to choose whichever mechanical "version" best fit there preferences.
It helps that my setting is not Forgotten Realms, however, so it is a different set of suppositions coming out of the gate.
Are you honestly suggesting if a team of researchers encountered a community in some remote part of the world and its inhabitants were very much humanoid and perfectly capable of language and all the trappings of human civilization but were of a phenotype that saw them with a short stature and an appearance only marginally different from our own you would consider them an entirely different species? Seriously?
Your bringing up halflings' possession of "species-specific abilities" is a perfect example of circular logic. Halflings are treated as a different species in the game and provided "species-specific abilities." Ergo they would simply have to be considered a different species if they lived among us? You are completely missing my point.
Even in the unlikely scenario the terrain and climate in which this hypothetical community live had seen them develop the ability to see in the dark—and yes I know halflings go without darkvision but bear with me—they would not be considered an entirely different species. Some indigenous peoples possess the sharpest of vision of all peoples on the planet because how they have lived for centuries has seen their retina and brain adapt accordingly. There are indigenous groups that can see stars with the naked eye that most of us require some apparatus to see. They are human like you and me. They are not a different species.
It's entirely possible for very similar phenotypes to still be categorized as distinct species. Look at bears or big cats or dogs and wolves. Very similar phenotypes, but different species. Halflings natural adult sizes are the ones that on an adult human would be attributed to some form of congenital condition, and they live about half again as long as humans do on average. Any scientist with a high school level understanding of taxonomy would classify them as a different species. And that's before we get into the halfling's supernatural capacity for luck and shrugging off certain forms of mental influence.
You can still play a half elf in the new rules, they're just not mechanically different because there's an assumption that (unless you were raised by wolves) you were raised in either elf or the human society.
Tanis was an outsider in the human world because he was raised by elves, and he was an outside in the elf world because of his different physiology and shorter life span, not because he was lacking in elf culture/upbringing. He learned elvish, he learned to hunt like an elf, he was betrothed to an elf, and *then* he went into the human world.
If you were to make Tanis in the new rules, it's entirely plausible that you would pick Elf as your species.
What about a half-elf raised by both parents in a society populated with both humans and elves in which neither's culture dominates?
Why should that character's player be forced to pick just one parent to determine anything mechanical for his or her character?
Like I said:
[It] mirrors how extremely racist people in the past would view those of us who are multiethnic. Telling us we "weren't white enough" or "weren't black enough" and that we could "only possibly" be one or the other. As if we can't identify as both. Or neither for that matter. The concept of Third Culture Kids (TKC)—whom I teach for a living—and the sensitivity with which it handles this very subject is far more greatly in line with having specific half-"species" as available options for players whose characters then are a blend of traits from both parents.
They are then something in and of themselves. Not just one or the other. Or "both"—only one is purely cosmetic. That is so deeply offensive it boggles the mind how Wizards even considered it.
I would wager a dragon's hoard the majority of those who see nothing wrong with telling a multiethnic player to just pick one parent when rolling up a half-"species" character don't "get it" because they are neither multiethnic nor do they remotely care whether really anything might distress other players just as long as it's behavior of which they personally approve.
The problem with comparing the irl multi-ethnic experience to how they run the rules for mechanical features of a fictional character in a fictional setting of at least one fictional heritage is that the comparison is objectively apples to oranges. Within the irl experience, the most substantial physiological differences between ethnicities are things like pigmentation and bone structure. Within the fiction of D&D, the differences between the races start with that and then expand into lifespan, significantly stronger senses, physical features like horns or scales or wings, and a massive array of magical powers. Which then, on the mechanical side, gets into the issue of potentially creating overpowered combinations if you let people mix and match; a problem that would rapidly balloon as more races are introduced and they need to check those features against an ever-expanding list of prior ones. Yes, if you’re actively looking for a reason to be upset with WotC you can spin the “pick one block’s features” method as being meant to push the kind of specious narratives people have irl, or alternatively you can consider the practical application of the various options on the game and recognize it’s the most effective way to leave any pairing a given player and DM agree on as valid without creating a massive and unwieldy headache for design teams.
Um ... the reasoning behind their making these changes in the first place was because they and others were comparing how all this works in real life to how it works in fantasy. How often have you yourself made such comparisons? You don't get to pick and choose when it is okay to do so just so you can feign empathy when it suits you but then shrug off how offended others may be when you just don't care.
You have just gone and proven my point:
I would wager a dragon's hoard the majority of those who see nothing wrong with telling a multiethnic player to just pick one parent when rolling up a half-"species" character don't "get it" because they are neither multiethnic nor do they remotely care whether really anything might distress other players just as long as it's behavior of which they personally approve.
I am multiethnic. I am a "third culture" individual. As is someone else in this very thread also offended by what they had initially decided to do. If you need help understanding why it is both insensitive and senseless for a white person to lecture me or anyone else on how we are "wrong" in this regard then I really don't know what to say!
I think this discussion is why I posted earlier that it was probably best for WotC to stay out of it. They could keep half-elf and half-orc and offend one segment of the player population or provide rules for how to have half species and offend another segment of the player population. Just best for them to stay out of it altogether and let each table to decide how to handle it.
Just my opinion and I will stay out of it from here on out.
Agreed. Though I would additionally point out that the segments of the playerbase that were satisfied with how '14 (and before), UA, and '24 handle "inter-species progeny" all seem to include multi-ethnic players. The fact that other multi-ethnic players are equally dissatisfied with the aforementioned iterations leaves little incentive to put something to print. Am I giving WotC too much credit by saying that they probably saw the dissatisfaction with '14, then saw the dissatisfaction with UA, realized there was no way they were going to completely redesign and balance yet another iteration before their deadline and decided to scrap it or put it off until the DMG? Perhaps. But I've read enough posts on this issue to think it's a probable rationale.
Are you honestly suggesting if a team of researchers encountered a community in some remote part of the world and its inhabitants were very much humanoid and perfectly capable of language and all the trappings of human civilization but were of a phenotype that saw them with a short stature and an appearance only marginally different from our own you would consider them an entirely different species? Seriously?
You mean like Homo floresiensis? Contemporary of humans with stone tools and evidence of civilization. Different species.
Ditto the Neandertals, which had complex societies and could interbreed with humans. But are slightly physically different. They're homo neanderthalensis.
Just because they have language and share soceity doesn't mean they're the same species as humans.
No. I don't mean like Homo floresiensis. Because they have been extinct for 50,000 years. I am talking about researchers discovering a community that is more than alive and whose language and culture and infrastructure mirror our own in many ways.
If you ran into Pippin Took down at the pub would you figure he must belong to an entirely different species?
Are you honestly suggesting if a team of researchers encountered a community in some remote part of the world and its inhabitants were very much humanoid and perfectly capable of language and all the trappings of human civilization but were of a phenotype that saw them with a short stature and an appearance only marginally different from our own you would consider them an entirely different species? Seriously?
You mean like Homo floresiensis? Contemporary of humans with stone tools and evidence of civilization. Different species.
Ditto the Neandertals, which had complex societies and could interbreed with humans. But are slightly physically different. They're homo neanderthalensis.
Just because they have language and share soceity doesn't mean they're the same species as humans.
No. I don't mean like Homo floresiensis. Because they have been extinct for 50,000 years. I am talking about researchers discovering a community that is more than alive and whose language and culture and infrastructure mirror our own in many ways.
If you ran into Pippin Took down at the pub would you figure he must belong to an entirely different species?
Language and culture are completely separate from species. And while one individual in the 2-3 foot range could just be a condition, an entire community of them is clearly a different species.
You can still play a half elf in the new rules, they're just not mechanically different because there's an assumption that (unless you were raised by wolves) you were raised in either elf or the human society.
Tanis was an outsider in the human world because he was raised by elves, and he was an outside in the elf world because of his different physiology and shorter life span, not because he was lacking in elf culture/upbringing. He learned elvish, he learned to hunt like an elf, he was betrothed to an elf, and *then* he went into the human world.
If you were to make Tanis in the new rules, it's entirely plausible that you would pick Elf as your species.
What about a half-elf raised by both parents in a society populated with both humans and elves in which neither's culture dominates?
Why should that character's player be forced to pick just one parent to determine anything mechanical for his or her character?
Like I said:
[It] mirrors how extremely racist people in the past would view those of us who are multiethnic. Telling us we "weren't white enough" or "weren't black enough" and that we could "only possibly" be one or the other. As if we can't identify as both. Or neither for that matter. The concept of Third Culture Kids (TKC)—whom I teach for a living—and the sensitivity with which it handles this very subject is far more greatly in line with having specific half-"species" as available options for players whose characters then are a blend of traits from both parents.
They are then something in and of themselves. Not just one or the other. Or "both"—only one is purely cosmetic. That is so deeply offensive it boggles the mind how Wizards even considered it.
I would wager a dragon's hoard the majority of those who see nothing wrong with telling a multiethnic player to just pick one parent when rolling up a half-"species" character don't "get it" because they are neither multiethnic nor do they remotely care whether really anything might distress other players just as long as it's behavior of which they personally approve.
The problem with comparing the irl multi-ethnic experience to how they run the rules for mechanical features of a fictional character in a fictional setting of at least one fictional heritage is that the comparison is objectively apples to oranges. Within the irl experience, the most substantial physiological differences between ethnicities are things like pigmentation and bone structure. Within the fiction of D&D, the differences between the races start with that and then expand into lifespan, significantly stronger senses, physical features like horns or scales or wings, and a massive array of magical powers. Which then, on the mechanical side, gets into the issue of potentially creating overpowered combinations if you let people mix and match; a problem that would rapidly balloon as more races are introduced and they need to check those features against an ever-expanding list of prior ones. Yes, if you’re actively looking for a reason to be upset with WotC you can spin the “pick one block’s features” method as being meant to push the kind of specious narratives people have irl, or alternatively you can consider the practical application of the various options on the game and recognize it’s the most effective way to leave any pairing a given player and DM agree on as valid without creating a massive and unwieldy headache for design teams.
Also as I said elsewhere:
The differences between a hobbit and a human are so small that if hobbits existed they would most definitely be considered human. And not an entirely different species. In fact it's safe to assume that anyone who would consider them a different species would be regarded with suspicion. Because that's the sort of language one expects from hateful individuals when talking about ethnic groups with a phenotype that sees them with a shorter stature than others.
Those between an elf and a human? Now those are more like the differences between an alien and a human I would agree. However it is interesting to note how elves are treated as something truly otherworldly and very much alien in earlier editions of the game but have become more and more "humanized" over the years and probably because of people's interpreting what came before as racist. (The longevity afforded dwarves means they are not really analogous with humans with achondroplasia or dwarfism. But many do run them at their tables as little people and simply remove from them anything supernatural in nature.)
Why would Hobbits necessarily be "similar enough" if they were real, anymore than Elves or Dwarves would? In my personal opinion, the fact that they have species specific abilities make it clear they are cut from different cloth than humans. By this same token, there can be many ethnicity, but I would NOT go with the "sub species" route that default D&D does, and would allow any combination of ethnic variation in the various species, while allowing the player to choose whichever mechanical "version" best fit there preferences.
It helps that my setting is not Forgotten Realms, however, so it is a different set of suppositions coming out of the gate.
Are you honestly suggesting if a team of researchers encountered a community in some remote part of the world and its inhabitants were very much humanoid and perfectly capable of language and all the trappings of human civilization but were of a phenotype that saw them with a short stature and an appearance only marginally different from our own you would consider them an entirely different species? Seriously?
Your bringing up halflings' possession of "species-specific abilities" is a perfect example of circular logic. Halflings are treated as a different species in the game and provided "species-specific abilities." Ergo they would simply have to be considered a different species if they lived among us? You are completely missing my point.
Even in the unlikely scenario the terrain and climate in which this hypothetical community live had seen them develop the ability to see in the dark—and yes I know halflings go without darkvision but bear with me—they would not be considered an entirely different species. Some indigenous peoples possess the sharpest of vision of all peoples on the planet because how they have lived for centuries has seen their retina and brain adapt accordingly. There are indigenous groups that can see stars with the naked eye that most of us require some apparatus to see. They are human like you and me. They are not a different species.
It's entirely possible for very similar phenotypes to still be categorized as distinct species. Look at bears or big cats or dogs and wolves. Very similar phenotypes, but different species. Halflings natural adult sizes are the ones that on an adult human would be attributed to some form of congenital condition, and they live about half again as long as humans do on average. Any scientist with a high school level understanding of taxonomy would classify them as a different species. And that's before we get into the halfling's supernatural capacity for luck and shrugging off certain forms of mental influence.
A halfling. A humanoid perfectly capable of speech. And who has developed a culture and infrastructure no less advanced than our own. Would be an entirely different species due to little more than its longevity and its capacity for luck?
Think you will find any scientist with a high school level understanding of much of anything will tell you the supernatural is pure fancy.
This discussion is about whether halflings would be considered human or not were they real. Were they there would be nothing supernatural about them.
What you are saying is analogous to if scientists were weighing up the possibility of the existence of dragons and talking about aerodynamics and fire breathing and you being like Well actually dragons can cast spells so how do you explain that? At least try to understand the conversation.
Are you honestly suggesting if a team of researchers encountered a community in some remote part of the world and its inhabitants were very much humanoid and perfectly capable of language and all the trappings of human civilization but were of a phenotype that saw them with a short stature and an appearance only marginally different from our own you would consider them an entirely different species? Seriously?
You mean like Homo floresiensis? Contemporary of humans with stone tools and evidence of civilization. Different species.
Ditto the Neandertals, which had complex societies and could interbreed with humans. But are slightly physically different. They're homo neanderthalensis.
Just because they have language and share soceity doesn't mean they're the same species as humans.
No. I don't mean like Homo floresiensis. Because they have been extinct for 50,000 years. I am talking about researchers discovering a community that is more than alive and whose language and culture and infrastructure mirror our own in many ways.
If you ran into Pippin Took down at the pub would you figure he must belong to an entirely different species?
Language and culture are completely separate from species. And while one individual in the 2-3 foot range could just be a condition, an entire community of them is clearly a different species.
Could you articulate what is meant by your first sentence? Because halflings are capable of speech. And they boast a level of civilizational advancement that is virtually identical to that of "Man." (EDIT: If we allow that their preference for pastoral living is no indication that they would not be capable of building cities like Minas Tirith.)
Your second sentence misses the point. We know Took is not alone and comes from a community in which his short stature is common—much like it is among "pygmy" peoples who are categorized as ethnic groups and not entirely different species—and were you to meet him and spend less than five minutes engaging with him it would seem more than a little "odd" to write him off as an entirely different species.
Are you honestly suggesting if a team of researchers encountered a community in some remote part of the world and its inhabitants were very much humanoid and perfectly capable of language and all the trappings of human civilization but were of a phenotype that saw them with a short stature and an appearance only marginally different from our own you would consider them an entirely different species? Seriously?
You mean like Homo floresiensis? Contemporary of humans with stone tools and evidence of civilization. Different species.
Ditto the Neandertals, which had complex societies and could interbreed with humans. But are slightly physically different. They're homo neanderthalensis.
Just because they have language and share soceity doesn't mean they're the same species as humans.
No. I don't mean like Homo floresiensis. Because they have been extinct for 50,000 years. I am talking about researchers discovering a community that is more than alive and whose language and culture and infrastructure mirror our own in many ways.
If you ran into Pippin Took down at the pub would you figure he must belong to an entirely different species?
Language and culture are completely separate from species. And while one individual in the 2-3 foot range could just be a condition, an entire community of them is clearly a different species.
Could you articulate what is meant by your first sentence? Because halflings are capable of speech. And they boast a level of civilizational advancement that is virtually identical to that of "Man."
Your second sentence misses the point. We know Took is not alone and comes from a community in which his short stature is common—much like it is among "pygmy" peoples who are categorized as ethnic groups and not entirely different species—and were you to meet him and spend less than five minutes engaging with him it would seem more than a little "odd" to write him off as an entirely different species.
To address the first point, species as a taxonomical term is based on physical characteristics, not intangibles like language and culture. I would not write him off, but if you're describing a large-scale group of human-like individuals with multiple characteristics that are distinct from humanity, then by definition that is another species. Or are you going to tell me the a polar bear is not a different species from a grizzly or panda?
Since Tanis has come up so much in these debates I just Googled the dates. The first Dragonlance book was published in 1984, the first half elf as a player option wasn’t introduced until 1989 in 2e *because* of Tanis and his popularity. Which just proves my point that you don’t need mechanics to create the flavour for your character, the original Tanis would have been created as a Elf and only player and DM agreement would have put the focus so heavily on his parentage
Half-elves were in AD&D1e.
Bloody Google AI search results. Forget I said anything <face palm>
Actually, half-elves have been available since 1975 in the "white box" edition of D&D as outlined in the Greyhawk supplement to the original three little paperback books (Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasures, The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures). It's on page 5 of the Greyhawk supplement.
If you'd prefer a 1e source rather than a 0e source, The original AD&D (1e) Player's Handbook (1978) has a section on half-elves on page 17.
So, half-elves predate Tanis and the Dragonlance books by almost a decade if you go by 0e and by 6 years if you go by 1e. The original inspiration was Elrond, et. al., from Tolkien's Legendarium.
Lee
I am somewhat perplexed by much of this thread. Why would you associate real life ancestry with fantasy species that have very different origins? I suppose the answer is allegory, but it has always kinda boggled my mind.
Um ... the reasoning behind their making these changes in the first place was because they and others were comparing how all this works in real life to how it works in fantasy. How often have you yourself made such comparisons? You don't get to pick and choose when it is okay to do so just so you can feign empathy when it suits you but then shrug off how offended others may be when you just don't care.
You have just gone and proven my point:
I would wager a dragon's hoard the majority of those who see nothing wrong with telling a multiethnic player to just pick one parent when rolling up a half-"species" character don't "get it" because they are neither multiethnic nor do they remotely care whether really anything might distress other players just as long as it's behavior of which they personally approve.
I am multiethnic. I am a "third culture" individual. As is someone else in this very thread also offended by what they had initially decided to do. If you need help understanding why it is both insensitive and senseless for a white person to lecture me or anyone else on how we are "wrong" in this regard then I really don't know what to say!
Also as I said elsewhere:
The differences between a hobbit and a human are so small that if hobbits existed they would most definitely be considered human. And not an entirely different species. In fact it's safe to assume that anyone who would consider them a different species would be regarded with suspicion. Because that's the sort of language one expects from hateful individuals when talking about ethnic groups with a phenotype that sees them with a shorter stature than others.
Those between an elf and a human? Now those are more like the differences between an alien and a human I would agree. However it is interesting to note how elves are treated as something truly otherworldly and very much alien in earlier editions of the game but have become more and more "humanized" over the years and probably because of people's interpreting what came before as racist. (The longevity afforded dwarves means they are not really analogous with humans with achondroplasia or dwarfism. But many do run them at their tables as little people and simply remove from them anything supernatural in nature.)
Why would Hobbits necessarily be "similar enough" if they were real, anymore than Elves or Dwarves would? In my personal opinion, the fact that they have species specific abilities make it clear they are cut from different cloth than humans. By this same token, there can be many ethnicity, but I would NOT go with the "sub species" route that default D&D does, and would allow any combination of ethnic variation in the various species, while allowing the player to choose whichever mechanical "version" best fit there preferences.
It helps that my setting is not Forgotten Realms, however, so it is a different set of suppositions coming out of the gate.
Huh?
Now we are too used to half-elves and now a lot of playes miss them.
Maybe in your land you are too used to "pureblood ancestors" but here it's the opposite and mixed blood from different communities isn't rare.
It is not only about half-blood PCs by WotC but by 3PPs.
The quarter-elves are canon in the Witcher universe. How should be one like PC specie? Maybe only a subtype and some racial trait.
There were half-kenders and half-gnomes in Dragonlance 3.5 Ed.
But what if anybody wanted a half-blood gnome-dwarf or dwarf-halfling?
Maybe the solution is creating the half-blood feat where PC gets a second subtype, and later this can get racial feats or special feats for half-blood.
I think this discussion is why I posted earlier that it was probably best for WotC to stay out of it. They could keep half-elf and half-orc and offend one segment of the player population or provide rules for how to have half species and offend another segment of the player population. Just best for them to stay out of it altogether and let each table to decide how to handle it.
Just my opinion and I will stay out of it from here on out.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Are you honestly suggesting if a team of researchers encountered a community in some remote part of the world and its inhabitants were very much humanoid and perfectly capable of language and all the trappings of human civilization but were of a phenotype that saw them with a short stature and an appearance only marginally different from our own you would consider them an entirely different species? Seriously?
Your bringing up halflings' possession of "species-specific abilities" is a perfect example of circular logic. Halflings are treated as a different species in the game and provided "species-specific abilities." Ergo they would simply have to be considered a different species if they lived among us? You are completely missing my point.
Even in the unlikely scenario the terrain and climate in which this hypothetical community live had seen them develop the ability to see in the dark—and yes I know halflings go without darkvision but bear with me—they would not be considered an entirely different species. Some indigenous peoples possess the sharpest of vision of all peoples on the planet because how they have lived for centuries has seen their retina and brain adapt accordingly. There are indigenous groups that can see stars with the naked eye that most of us require some apparatus to see. They are human like you and me. They are not a different species.
You mean like Homo floresiensis? Contemporary of humans with stone tools and evidence of civilization.
Different species.
Ditto the Neandertals, which had complex societies and could interbreed with humans. But are slightly physically different. They're homo neanderthalensis.
Just because they have language and share soceity doesn't mean they're the same species as humans.
It's entirely possible for very similar phenotypes to still be categorized as distinct species. Look at bears or big cats or dogs and wolves. Very similar phenotypes, but different species. Halflings natural adult sizes are the ones that on an adult human would be attributed to some form of congenital condition, and they live about half again as long as humans do on average. Any scientist with a high school level understanding of taxonomy would classify them as a different species. And that's before we get into the halfling's supernatural capacity for luck and shrugging off certain forms of mental influence.
Agreed. Though I would additionally point out that the segments of the playerbase that were satisfied with how '14 (and before), UA, and '24 handle "inter-species progeny" all seem to include multi-ethnic players. The fact that other multi-ethnic players are equally dissatisfied with the aforementioned iterations leaves little incentive to put something to print. Am I giving WotC too much credit by saying that they probably saw the dissatisfaction with '14, then saw the dissatisfaction with UA, realized there was no way they were going to completely redesign and balance yet another iteration before their deadline and decided to scrap it or put it off until the DMG? Perhaps. But I've read enough posts on this issue to think it's a probable rationale.
No. I don't mean like Homo floresiensis. Because they have been extinct for 50,000 years. I am talking about researchers discovering a community that is more than alive and whose language and culture and infrastructure mirror our own in many ways.
If you ran into Pippin Took down at the pub would you figure he must belong to an entirely different species?
Language and culture are completely separate from species. And while one individual in the 2-3 foot range could just be a condition, an entire community of them is clearly a different species.
A halfling. A humanoid perfectly capable of speech. And who has developed a culture and infrastructure no less advanced than our own. Would be an entirely different species due to little more than its longevity and its capacity for luck?
Think you will find any scientist with a high school level understanding of much of anything will tell you the supernatural is pure fancy.
This discussion is about whether halflings would be considered human or not were they real. Were they there would be nothing supernatural about them.
What you are saying is analogous to if scientists were weighing up the possibility of the existence of dragons and talking about aerodynamics and fire breathing and you being like Well actually dragons can cast spells so how do you explain that? At least try to understand the conversation.
Could you articulate what is meant by your first sentence? Because halflings are capable of speech. And they boast a level of civilizational advancement that is virtually identical to that of "Man." (EDIT: If we allow that their preference for pastoral living is no indication that they would not be capable of building cities like Minas Tirith.)
Your second sentence misses the point. We know Took is not alone and comes from a community in which his short stature is common—much like it is among "pygmy" peoples who are categorized as ethnic groups and not entirely different species—and were you to meet him and spend less than five minutes engaging with him it would seem more than a little "odd" to write him off as an entirely different species.
To address the first point, species as a taxonomical term is based on physical characteristics, not intangibles like language and culture. I would not write him off, but if you're describing a large-scale group of human-like individuals with multiple characteristics that are distinct from humanity, then by definition that is another species. Or are you going to tell me the a polar bear is not a different species from a grizzly or panda?