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.
Well, only because Homo Sapiens has rather low genetic diversity. We don't consider a chihuahua and a great dane different species.
If a real-world biologist ran into a D&D world and was forced to classify what they found, they'd decide it's time to invent new terminology because D&D biology is complete nonsense by real world standards.
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.
Well, only because Homo Sapiens has rather low genetic diversity. We don't consider a chihuahua and a great dane different species.
If a real-world biologist ran into a D&D world and was forced to classify what they found, they'd decide it's time to invent new terminology because D&D biology is complete nonsense by real world standards.
To a certain degree the determination of what is or is not a different species is arbitrary, particularly in the absence of an ability to analyze the genetics- although I suppose we could consider the divisions WotC establishes to be a word of god on when there's enough genetic disparity. But I think everyone arguing in good faith can agree that halflings present enough differences from humanity that classifying them as a different species of sapient life is at least as valid as trying to lump them in as a human variant.
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?
A people with a phenotype that sees them with a short stature and who even might have developed a sense of vision vastly superior to yours or mine because their retinas and brains have evolved to grant them this would not be considered a different species ...
... but halflings are because?
I perfectly understand that whether something is categorized as a different species is not pat all dependent on its possession of language and culture. Neanderthals are typically considered a different species. They likely possessed both however primitive they may have been.
But we are not talking about a species or subspecies capable of making primitive tools. We are talking about a playable "race" or "species" in a game inspired by one that made use of umbrellas and matches and clocks.
Do you think Tolkien conceived of hobbits as belonging to an entirely different species than that of "Man"? Or just a different culture? Do you think the tales of Beren and Lúthien and of Aragorn and Arwen are tales of cross-"species" romance or just of love between individuals belonging to different cultures?
Given philosophical discussions about what makes us human you cannot pretend were halflings discovered scientists would just be ticking the Different Species box and not at all considering the possibility they might just be human and no less so than are "pygmy" peoples or indigenous peoples capable of seeing stars with the naked eye that you or I need a telescope to see.
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.
Well, only because Homo Sapiens has rather low genetic diversity. We don't consider a chihuahua and a great dane different species.
If a real-world biologist ran into a D&D world and was forced to classify what they found, they'd decide it's time to invent new terminology because D&D biology is complete nonsense by real world standards.
To a certain degree the determination of what is or is not a different species is arbitrary, particularly in the absence of an ability to analyze the genetics- although I suppose we could consider the divisions WotC establishes to be a word of god on when there's enough genetic disparity. But I think everyone arguing in good faith can agree that halflings present enough differences from humanity that classifying them as a different species of sapient life is at least as valid as trying to lump them in as a human variant.
What differences do they present? Their short stature? Their only marginally different appearance? What would be unprecedented longevity? If anthropologists uncovered an ethnic group that presented these "differences from humanity" they would not be calling them a different species.
The difference in humans and halfings within D&D is as simple as they don't have common ancestors. Usually with most of the races one god made one of them and another god made the other. Usually different gods made each of the species, thus they are distinct creatures.
The difference in humans and halfings within D&D is as simple as they don't have common ancestors. Usually with most of the races one god made one of them and another god made the other. Usually different gods made each of the species, thus they are distinct creatures.
I would be perfectly happy with the term "ancestry."
The term "species"?
I do not think it is an accurate term for making a distinction between humans and halflings given the differences between them are as small as some that exist between different ethnic groups with different phenotypes.
It is a term that was not even used that way until the 16th century or so.
I wouldn't even have the term present in a fantasy world with more in common with the Middle Ages that it does with the Early Modern Period short of it being one that is gonzo in nature.
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?
No. But if I wasn’t familiar with zebras and I ran into one at a horse stable, I’d think it was a horse too.
Just because things look somewhat the same doesn’t mean they’re the same species.
I could make a similar statement regarding Mister Spock but I don’t think people argue Vulcans are Human.
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?
No. But if I wasn’t familiar with zebras and I ran into one at a horse stable, I’d think it was a horse too.
Just because things look somewhat the same doesn’t mean they’re the same species.
I could make a similar statement regarding Mister Spock but I don’t think people argue Vulcans are Human.
You are right. Just because things look somewhat the same does not mean they belong to the same species. We aren't talking about quadrupeds that belong to the same genus though or other non-human animals that merely resemble one another. We are talking about humanoids that unprecedently would be capable of communication at a level as advanced as our own and whose culture would be as advanced as ours.
On that note: It's worth considering how these hobbits may be very well have developed their own understanding of the world and how it works and disagree with what they might see as little more than viewing that world through a "human"-centric lens. It's funny how many see "Human" as analogous with "white" or "western" only for them to fall into the very same assumptions a "white" and "western" world has made about others. It isn't as if for centuries some indigenous group weren't categorized as "fauna" by those then at the forefront of scientific knowledge. (If you need reminding: Science isn't infallible and infinite. It evolves with each discovery.)
As someone else said it: The discovery of hobbits would probably see science reexamining how they categorize things and coming up with entirely new terminology to account for them.
People don't argue that Vulcans are humans. For one they are extraterrestrial. Neither is the way these things are typically handled in science fiction the same as they are typically handled in fantasy. Tolkien and others have conceived of different "races" as mere abstractions much like they are in the real world. Only with the human "race" a singular and particular "race." And "creatures" belonging to not too dissimilar cultures merely "others."
No one is yet to comment on what I have said about Beren and Lúthien and Aragorn and Arwen. Because the notion that these romances existed between two different species sounds silly on the face of it.
Bear in mind that D&D is a setting where some mad wizard or something decided to stick an owl head on a bear's body and it (a) worked, and (b) bred true. However biology works in D&D, it has very little to do with the real world.
Some of the developments and thematic changes that have taken place are a shame. The loss of half-elves and half-orcs being the most pertinent example as they made up an integral part of the D&D setting for those of us who have been around for decades. Not everything about the recent changes is bad at all, in fact I've enjoyed reading the new PHB. However, it is hard to escape that it appears that politics and ideology has influenced some peoples views and to me, that is a shame.
Bear in mind that D&D is a setting where some mad wizard or something decided to stick an owl head on a bear's body and it (a) worked, and (b) bred true. However biology works in D&D, it has very little to do with the real world.
Yet here we are mired in a discussion brought about because Wizards and others insisted on judging D&D as if its world or rather worlds operated under the same rules as ours. It's why they wanted to change the term in the first place—a decision with which I have no problem—and why people are insisting "species" is a more accurate term—a position I find flawed for multiple reasons including the fact we are talking about what is pure fantasy as you have just pointed out.
History however is replete with examples of encounters with remote ethnic groups who were considered "fauna" when first encountered. The scientists of yesteryear had to recalibrate when making such discoveries to arrive at more accurate—not to mention more sensitive—conclusions.
The source material for D&D is not the world around us however. It is fantasy.
As I have said:
Tolkien and others have conceived of different "races" as mere abstractions much like they are in the real world. Only with the human "race" a singular and particular "race." And "creatures" belonging to not too dissimilar cultures merely "others."
And asked:
Do you think Tolkien conceived of hobbits as belonging to an entirely different species than that of "Man"? Or just a different culture? Do you think the tales of Beren and Lúthien and of Aragorn and Arwen are tales of cross-"species" romance or just of love between individuals belonging to different cultures?
I don't think anyone particularly cares to give any of this much thought—from what anthropologists would make of hobbits were they living among us to how literature that has served as the genre's key pillars have treated the subject. I think most just want to be "right." And for the wrong reasons.
Yet here we are mired in a discussion brought about because Wizards and others insisted on judging D&D as if its world or rather worlds operated under the same rules as ours.
No, that's not why the change was made. Honestly, it comes down a very simple calculus: it's hard to implement hybrids well, and they didn't have the time or word count to do it in the PHB, so they left it out. This doesn't mean half-elves don't exist, it just means they aren't in the PHB.
Yet here we are mired in a discussion brought about because Wizards and others insisted on judging D&D as if its world or rather worlds operated under the same rules as ours.
No, that's not why the change was made. Honestly, it comes down a very simple calculus: it's hard to implement hybrids well, and they didn't have the time or word count to do it in the PHB, so they left it out. This doesn't mean half-elves don't exist, it just means they aren't in the PHB.
Sorry, but I don't believe your explanation at all. It has nothing to do with the calculus of the word count and quite frankly, given that all that has been said, I don't know why you'd try and make such a claim.
Bear in mind that D&D is a setting where some mad wizard or something decided to stick an owl head on a bear's body and it (a) worked, and (b) bred true. However biology works in D&D, it has very little to do with the real world.
Yet here we are mired in a discussion brought about because Wizards and others insisted on judging D&D as if its world or rather worlds operated under the same rules as ours. It's why they wanted to change the term in the first place—a decision with which I have no problem—and why people are insisting "species" is a more accurate term—a position I find flawed for multiple reasons including the fact we are talking about what is pure fantasy as you have just pointed out.
History however is replete with examples of encounters with remote ethnic groups who were considered "fauna" when first encountered. The scientists of yesteryear had to recalibrate when making such discoveries to arrive at more accurate—not to mention more sensitive—conclusions.
The source material for D&D is not the world around us however. It is fantasy.
As I have said:
Tolkien and others have conceived of different "races" as mere abstractions much like they are in the real world. Only with the human "race" a singular and particular "race." And "creatures" belonging to not too dissimilar cultures merely "others."
And asked:
Do you think Tolkien conceived of hobbits as belonging to an entirely different species than that of "Man"? Or just a different culture? Do you think the tales of Beren and Lúthien and of Aragorn and Arwen are tales of cross-"species" romance or just of love between individuals belonging to different cultures?
I don't think anyone particularly cares to give any of this much thought—from what anthropologists would make of hobbits were they living among us to how literature that has served as the genre's key pillars have treated the subject. I think most just want to be "right." And for the wrong reasons.
Keep in mind that in Tolkien's writing, Elves, Humans and Dwarves were literally made separately with Dwarves having been made sort of in secret rebellion and humans having been made more as a surprise for the others. And the Gods never intended Elves to come to Middle Earth at all. Orcs were also made from Elves by the god of evil.
We are talking a setting where Gods really do exist, magic really does exist and the world is (likely, DM mileage may vary) literally created by one or more gods and at the very least, in a literally sense, created by the DM or whoever's writing they are using as source material for their world(s). For pretty obvious reasons, no specific mechanics of procreation are given. My official line in my campaigns is "Mommy and daddy loved each other very much, so they went into the cosmic dice chamber and rolled the mystical dice six times. Then they decided where such numbers were to be placed and subsequently chose your race, class and even background! And now, here you are, a brand new character!"
Some of the developments and thematic changes that have taken place are a shame. The loss of half-elves and half-orcs being the most pertinent example as they made up an integral part of the D&D setting for those of us who have been around for decades. Not everything about the recent changes is bad at all, in fact I've enjoyed reading the new PHB. However, it is hard to escape that it appears that politics and ideology has influenced some peoples views and to me, that is a shame.
Honestly, half-orcs aren't a huge loss. They mostly existed as a compromise for playable orcish characters when orcs themselves were firmly in the "antagonist NPC" category, and Tieflings are better for exploring the "taboo heritage with potential influence from conventionally negative powers" without some of the more unfortunate stereotyping of orc characterization that has analogies to problematic philosophies put forward irl.
Some of the developments and thematic changes that have taken place are a shame. The loss of half-elves and half-orcs being the most pertinent example as they made up an integral part of the D&D setting for those of us who have been around for decades. Not everything about the recent changes is bad at all, in fact I've enjoyed reading the new PHB. However, it is hard to escape that it appears that politics and ideology has influenced some peoples views and to me, that is a shame.
Honestly, half-orcs aren't a huge loss. They mostly existed as a compromise for playable orcish characters when orcs themselves were firmly in the "antagonist NPC" category, and Tieflings are better for exploring the "taboo heritage with potential influence from conventionally negative powers" without some of the more unfortunate stereotyping of orc characterization that has analogies to problematic philosophies put forward irl.
Half Orcs and Half Elves also have Tolkien-ian roots. Elrond was half elven and Saurman's Uruk-Hai were from Saruman's pet breeding program, mating orcs and humans (but since orcs are corrupted Elves, they are arguably variant Half Elves, too.
The bottom line is that 'race' or 'species' or any such term simply does not need to match strict scientific meanings. Eliminating half races is not more inclusive, though. It is arguably less so, since. although it is less so today, there is still considerable prejudice in the world against anyone even seen as mixed heritage. An "Any such individual has to choose between heritages" approach is arguably a step backwards rather than forward.
Cleaning up this thread as it is about half-elves and half-orcs, not the term "species".
And locking it, because the topic is obsolete. Half-elves and half-orcs have not been removed from the game. They are still playable following the guidance outlined in Chapter 2 of the 2024 PHB: Backgrounds and Species from Older Books.
Well, only because Homo Sapiens has rather low genetic diversity. We don't consider a chihuahua and a great dane different species.
If a real-world biologist ran into a D&D world and was forced to classify what they found, they'd decide it's time to invent new terminology because D&D biology is complete nonsense by real world standards.
To a certain degree the determination of what is or is not a different species is arbitrary, particularly in the absence of an ability to analyze the genetics- although I suppose we could consider the divisions WotC establishes to be a word of god on when there's enough genetic disparity. But I think everyone arguing in good faith can agree that halflings present enough differences from humanity that classifying them as a different species of sapient life is at least as valid as trying to lump them in as a human variant.
A people with a phenotype that sees them with a short stature and who even might have developed a sense of vision vastly superior to yours or mine because their retinas and brains have evolved to grant them this would not be considered a different species ...
... but halflings are because?
I perfectly understand that whether something is categorized as a different species is not pat all dependent on its possession of language and culture. Neanderthals are typically considered a different species. They likely possessed both however primitive they may have been.
But we are not talking about a species or subspecies capable of making primitive tools. We are talking about a playable "race" or "species" in a game inspired by one that made use of umbrellas and matches and clocks.
Do you think Tolkien conceived of hobbits as belonging to an entirely different species than that of "Man"? Or just a different culture? Do you think the tales of Beren and Lúthien and of Aragorn and Arwen are tales of cross-"species" romance or just of love between individuals belonging to different cultures?
Given philosophical discussions about what makes us human you cannot pretend were halflings discovered scientists would just be ticking the Different Species box and not at all considering the possibility they might just be human and no less so than are "pygmy" peoples or indigenous peoples capable of seeing stars with the naked eye that you or I need a telescope to see.
What differences do they present? Their short stature? Their only marginally different appearance? What would be unprecedented longevity? If anthropologists uncovered an ethnic group that presented these "differences from humanity" they would not be calling them a different species.
The difference in humans and halfings within D&D is as simple as they don't have common ancestors. Usually with most of the races one god made one of them and another god made the other. Usually different gods made each of the species, thus they are distinct creatures.
I would be perfectly happy with the term "ancestry."
The term "species"?
I do not think it is an accurate term for making a distinction between humans and halflings given the differences between them are as small as some that exist between different ethnic groups with different phenotypes.
It is a term that was not even used that way until the 16th century or so.
I wouldn't even have the term present in a fantasy world with more in common with the Middle Ages that it does with the Early Modern Period short of it being one that is gonzo in nature.
No. But if I wasn’t familiar with zebras and I ran into one at a horse stable, I’d think it was a horse too.
Just because things look somewhat the same doesn’t mean they’re the same species.
I could make a similar statement regarding Mister Spock but I don’t think people argue Vulcans are Human.
You are right. Just because things look somewhat the same does not mean they belong to the same species. We aren't talking about quadrupeds that belong to the same genus though or other non-human animals that merely resemble one another. We are talking about humanoids that unprecedently would be capable of communication at a level as advanced as our own and whose culture would be as advanced as ours.
On that note: It's worth considering how these hobbits may be very well have developed their own understanding of the world and how it works and disagree with what they might see as little more than viewing that world through a "human"-centric lens. It's funny how many see "Human" as analogous with "white" or "western" only for them to fall into the very same assumptions a "white" and "western" world has made about others. It isn't as if for centuries some indigenous group weren't categorized as "fauna" by those then at the forefront of scientific knowledge. (If you need reminding: Science isn't infallible and infinite. It evolves with each discovery.)
As someone else said it: The discovery of hobbits would probably see science reexamining how they categorize things and coming up with entirely new terminology to account for them.
People don't argue that Vulcans are humans. For one they are extraterrestrial. Neither is the way these things are typically handled in science fiction the same as they are typically handled in fantasy. Tolkien and others have conceived of different "races" as mere abstractions much like they are in the real world. Only with the human "race" a singular and particular "race." And "creatures" belonging to not too dissimilar cultures merely "others."
No one is yet to comment on what I have said about Beren and Lúthien and Aragorn and Arwen. Because the notion that these romances existed between two different species sounds silly on the face of it.
Bear in mind that D&D is a setting where some mad wizard or something decided to stick an owl head on a bear's body and it (a) worked, and (b) bred true. However biology works in D&D, it has very little to do with the real world.
Some of the developments and thematic changes that have taken place are a shame. The loss of half-elves and half-orcs being the most pertinent example as they made up an integral part of the D&D setting for those of us who have been around for decades. Not everything about the recent changes is bad at all, in fact I've enjoyed reading the new PHB. However, it is hard to escape that it appears that politics and ideology has influenced some peoples views and to me, that is a shame.
Yet here we are mired in a discussion brought about because Wizards and others insisted on judging D&D as if its world or rather worlds operated under the same rules as ours. It's why they wanted to change the term in the first place—a decision with which I have no problem—and why people are insisting "species" is a more accurate term—a position I find flawed for multiple reasons including the fact we are talking about what is pure fantasy as you have just pointed out.
History however is replete with examples of encounters with remote ethnic groups who were considered "fauna" when first encountered. The scientists of yesteryear had to recalibrate when making such discoveries to arrive at more accurate—not to mention more sensitive—conclusions.
The source material for D&D is not the world around us however. It is fantasy.
As I have said:
Tolkien and others have conceived of different "races" as mere abstractions much like they are in the real world. Only with the human "race" a singular and particular "race." And "creatures" belonging to not too dissimilar cultures merely "others."
And asked:
Do you think Tolkien conceived of hobbits as belonging to an entirely different species than that of "Man"? Or just a different culture? Do you think the tales of Beren and Lúthien and of Aragorn and Arwen are tales of cross-"species" romance or just of love between individuals belonging to different cultures?
I don't think anyone particularly cares to give any of this much thought—from what anthropologists would make of hobbits were they living among us to how literature that has served as the genre's key pillars have treated the subject. I think most just want to be "right." And for the wrong reasons.
No, that's not why the change was made. Honestly, it comes down a very simple calculus: it's hard to implement hybrids well, and they didn't have the time or word count to do it in the PHB, so they left it out. This doesn't mean half-elves don't exist, it just means they aren't in the PHB.
Sorry, but I don't believe your explanation at all. It has nothing to do with the calculus of the word count and quite frankly, given that all that has been said, I don't know why you'd try and make such a claim.
Keep in mind that in Tolkien's writing, Elves, Humans and Dwarves were literally made separately with Dwarves having been made sort of in secret rebellion and humans having been made more as a surprise for the others. And the Gods never intended Elves to come to Middle Earth at all. Orcs were also made from Elves by the god of evil.
We are talking a setting where Gods really do exist, magic really does exist and the world is (likely, DM mileage may vary) literally created by one or more gods and at the very least, in a literally sense, created by the DM or whoever's writing they are using as source material for their world(s). For pretty obvious reasons, no specific mechanics of procreation are given. My official line in my campaigns is "Mommy and daddy loved each other very much, so they went into the cosmic dice chamber and rolled the mystical dice six times. Then they decided where such numbers were to be placed and subsequently chose your race, class and even background! And now, here you are, a brand new character!"
Honestly, half-orcs aren't a huge loss. They mostly existed as a compromise for playable orcish characters when orcs themselves were firmly in the "antagonist NPC" category, and Tieflings are better for exploring the "taboo heritage with potential influence from conventionally negative powers" without some of the more unfortunate stereotyping of orc characterization that has analogies to problematic philosophies put forward irl.
Half Orcs and Half Elves also have Tolkien-ian roots. Elrond was half elven and Saurman's Uruk-Hai were from Saruman's pet breeding program, mating orcs and humans (but since orcs are corrupted Elves, they are arguably variant Half Elves, too.
The bottom line is that 'race' or 'species' or any such term simply does not need to match strict scientific meanings. Eliminating half races is not more inclusive, though. It is arguably less so, since. although it is less so today, there is still considerable prejudice in the world against anyone even seen as mixed heritage. An "Any such individual has to choose between heritages" approach is arguably a step backwards rather than forward.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorCleaning up this thread as it is about half-elves and half-orcs, not the term "species".
And locking it, because the topic is obsolete. Half-elves and half-orcs have not been removed from the game. They are still playable following the guidance outlined in Chapter 2 of the 2024 PHB: Backgrounds and Species from Older Books.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources