The real reason why it'll remain "race" and not "species": It's a fantasy game. Just like there was criticism of 3E psionics for sounding too "sciencey" and not fantastic enough, the word "species" conjures images of biology class, while "race" does not.
Right, wrong, or otherwise, this is a core piece of it. You can create your own game that uses different, "correct" terminology, but that won't do it any favors. If you've never heard of the game Aria, this is part of the reason why. Instead of "skills", the author decided to use the term "expertises". It was an interesting system, but fairly complex. The terminology didn't help.
I not a biologist. I studied engineering and political science. I get the point you're trying to make and I'm not unsympathetic to it. I fully support your right to tilt at windmills. Just don't get upset when folks point out that's what you're doing.
I mean, the real reason is because that's the way it's always been done and will remain. Shadowrun is one system where species and science and magic all exist together and metahumans are referred to as metahumans and different human variants or species in-game, but race in the rules.
AND Shadowrun focuses on societal problems related to race, even though it does so in a clunky and unrealistic way.
Think dragons make sense? Read Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett. Think magic doesn't follow rules? Read anything by Mercedes Lackey. Want to write a 10" thick treatise on something very few people will ever care about? That is your right, as per the 1st Amendment. Want to insult people? According to the 1st Amendment, the government can't tell you not to or punish you for doing so, but the D&D Beyond Moderators can.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Fair point ... but I don't see this point contradicting the points you're quoting from BricingWolf .. it may be a bit of an enigma/paradox, but that's just because it hasn't been solved yet, and the points he makes are valid ( ie: physics etc. are almost identical in all other respects ).
Therefore: dragons fly because the physical laws DO exist BUT they're different, and your conclusion otherwise is false, AND ( as pointed out ) since there arse differences but the basics are the same, I would suggest dragons fly for the following reasons:
clearly a dragon needs to create lift in order to fly, otherwise it wouldn't need wings and wouldn't need to move them, this alone is evidence that the laws are fundamentally the same
clearly gravity exists because if it doesn't do anything it stays on the ground ( just like every other object unless otherwise affected by magic or some other force )
so we can speculate dragons are made from materials that are lighter at the same strength, thus able to fly - BUT this might mean people could lift a dragon (?)
We could also speculate that gravity is lower on planets where dragons exist
We could propose that in addition to gravity and other forces, dragons may have some kind of psionic or magical influence that makes up the difference in forces that would be otherwise required for flight
BUT WHAT WE CANNOT DO is conclude that gravity doesn't exist, because we know that it does.
We cannot conclude that electromagnetic forces don't exist, because chemistry proves they do
We cannot conclude that the strong & weak nuclear forces don't exist, because again we know they do
we can only conclude that some of these are differently expressed, and that other forces ( like divine, psionic, and magical ) coexist and change certain things
An ancient red dragon's scales grant it AC 22, better than +3 plate. Dragon scale mail is not stated to be lighter than normal scale mail. How do dragons fly? Magic!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
So they fall by magic too? That's not just gravity? They have wings and flap them because the magic has to trick gravity into looking the other way, not because they need to generate lift? Doesn't quite work after any analysis.
Look I understand some people don't want to think about this stuff ... so fine, don't << it's that simple ... but for those of us who do, understand that we are not doing it to convince 100% of people, we're not doing it to get you to do something you don't want to do ... so just don't comment if all you have is criticism which doesn't contribute to the discussion ( not you so much Matthias, I'm thinking more of akaslater's comments which have been pointlessly argumentative, as if somehow no idea is even allowed to be discussed without his personal approval of its merit on his and his terms alone ).
my post was initially just about the fact that games should educate and lift people's intellect, not help dumb them down, and so the correct use of words is an important thing. In D&D the word "race" is I think incorrectly used, which is partly because the game came out of race obsessed US culture.
if you don't think this is an issue worth discussing, move on ... if you do think so, contribute your ideas ... if you're here for an argument, get a life.
i love sci-fi and I love fantasy, I'm not trying to ruin fantasy by introducing science, I'm just pointing out that even fantasy has some common rules, and the point of improving D&D rules is to make the science behind the fantasy BOTH consistent and sensible, while also playable. Just because others failed at this task DOES NOT mean it is an impossible task, NOR does it mean it is not a worthwhile task.
if you disagree, please just go away because I'm never going to be interested in convincing you if it's like trying to argue with a religious person.
On the dragon front I'd like to argue that our science can't really explain it. Think UFOs... I know... Aliens, right?
There's very little we actually know when compared to what might actually be out there. To some it might be considered magic, but to those that have (supposedly) witnessed an object go from zero to sub-sonic speed without following what we know of physics, it could be possible. A displacer beast might actually have a gland that causes displacement with the right chemical compounds (that have never been discovered) and a dragon might actually fly if there were some odd sort of anti-gravity dark matter that were powering it.
There's more out there than what our senses can perceive, as proven by the existence of the various types of radiation! There might just be more out there to be discovered.
my post was initially just about the fact that games should educate and lift people's intellect, not help dumb them down, and so the correct use of words is an important thing. In D&D the word "race" is I think incorrectly used, which is partly because the game came out of race obsessed US culture.
Again you are trying to insult people's intelligence while not really understanding the mistakes you're making. The actual definition of race has been posted here a couple of times now, along with the descriptions of just how fitting it is for the given system. Instead of accepting this, and adjusting your thesis like they teach you in science classes, you instead keep hollering about people 'just not understanding' and whatever else. Instead of throwing a fit like this, why not try to actually understand what the other people are trying to say? They're here for conversation, not to try and make this into some sort of a competition like you say they are. I've noticed that those who claim intellectual superiority are usually those nearer the average end of the scale. A little humility on your part would do wonders.
Subsistcyber, with Displacer Beasts, I would also see them having some sort of physical ability in their tail things that vibrates the air enough to change the wavelengths to something that humanoid eyes can't see. I can't remember the exact article, but I think I remember something about cloaking devices that were trying to do just that.
So they fall by magic too? That's not just gravity? They have wings and flap them because the magic has to trick gravity into looking the other way, not because they need to generate lift? Doesn't quite work after any analysis.
Look I understand some people don't want to think about this stuff ... so fine, don't << it's that simple ... but for those of us who do, understand that we are not doing it to convince 100% of people, we're not doing it to get you to do something you don't want to do ... so just don't comment if all you have is criticism which doesn't contribute to the discussion ( not you so much Matthias, I'm thinking more of akaslater's comments which have been pointlessly argumentative, as if somehow no idea is even allowed to be discussed without his personal approval of its merit on his and his terms alone ).
my post was initially just about the fact that games should educate and lift people's intellect, not help dumb them down, and so the correct use of words is an important thing. In D&D the word "race" is I think incorrectly used, which is partly because the game came out of race obsessed US culture.
if you don't think this is an issue worth discussing, move on ... if you do think so, contribute your ideas ... if you're here for an argument, get a life.
i love sci-fi and I love fantasy, I'm not trying to ruin fantasy by introducing science, I'm just pointing out that even fantasy has some common rules, and the point of improving D&D rules is to make the science behind the fantasy BOTH consistent and sensible, while also playable. Just because others failed at this task DOES NOT mean it is an impossible task, NOR does it mean it is not a worthwhile task.
if you disagree, please just go away because I'm never going to be interested in convincing you if it's like trying to argue with a religious person.
Look I am all for science, but the word "race" has many definition, one of them is: any one of the groups that beings can be divided into based on shared distinctive physical traits.
Therefore, the word race is not incorrect. At least, not for a game such as this.
Another thing. If you make a statement in a public forum, you have to accept agreements and disagreements. You can't simply say "if you disagree, go away...". All of us must respect each other's opinion.
I'm thinking more of akaslater's comments which have been pointlessly argumentative, as if somehow no idea is even allowed to be discussed without his personal approval of its merit on his and his terms alone ).
Really? I'm trying to ask some basic questions as it relates to your idea and story telling in hopes of drawing out ideas and merits to your idea. Especially since from the very beginning you've wanted to inject your personal politics into the game. Instead I hear cries of persecution, and then attempts to silence others for their constructive criticism. Got it.
Personally, it's not that I haven't reconciled these ideas of science and magic it's that in whatever D&D world that is created, magic is a part of nature. As such it's something that some beings may have evolved to use. How do Dragons fly? Magic, which they've evloved to make use of to grant specific buffs to themselves to make flight possible. How do Displacer Beasts work? Like the chameleon or octopus it makes use of natural camouflage to blend in, or in the case of the Displace Beast to make a copy of itself, using the latent magic, or whatever, that is around the environment.
In short, if magic exists in any world, it's just another branch of physics. Ergo, magic itelf is a natural science with laws akin to the laws of chemistry.
An ancient red dragon's scales grant it AC 22, better than +3 plate. Dragon scale mail is not stated to be lighter than normal scale mail. How do dragons fly? Magic!
That isn't even an argument. Stronger =\= heavier. And even if Dragon scales are heavy, that doesn't mean their bones are, or their meat, or that magic doesn't make them supernaturally buoyant.
The point remains, regardless. Dragons don't prove that physics are radically different, they just exist as an example of how magic can change how an object interacts with normal physics. Just like telekinesis.
I'm thinking more of akaslater's comments which have been pointlessly argumentative, as if somehow no idea is even allowed to be discussed without his personal approval of its merit on his and his terms alone ).
Really? I'm trying to ask some basic questions as it relates to your idea and story telling in hopes of drawing out ideas and merits to your idea. Especially since from the very beginning you've wanted to inject your personal politics into the game. Instead I hear cries of persecution, and then attempts to silence others for their constructive criticism. Got it.
Personally, it's not that I haven't reconciled these ideas of science and magic it's that in whatever D&D world that is created, magic is a part of nature. As such it's something that some beings may have evolved to use. How do Dragons fly? Magic, which they've evloved to make use of to grant specific buffs to themselves to make flight possible. How do Displacer Beasts work? Like the chameleon or octopus it makes use of natural camouflage to blend in, or in the case of the Displace Beast to make a copy of itself, using the latent magic, or whatever, that is around the environment.
In short, if magic exists in any world, it's just another branch of physics. Ergo, magic itelf is a natural science with laws akin to the laws of chemistry.
According to the definition in anthropology race is a group of people of common ancestry, distinguished from others by physical characteristics.
So I would not say that the word "race" is wrong.
Yeah, it looks like WotC is using the anthropological definition of a race as opposed to a biological one. If OP wants to create a DnD taxonomy project for his own games, that's fine. The problem, IMO, would arise when trying to apply that wholesale to all other games, because I know that not everyone deals with the player races and the monsters the same way. For example, in my games, I've adapted a lot of the lore behind tieflings to make them living constructs of The Abyss as opposed to what the PHB says they are.
Actually yes I can expect that ... what is the point of all the disagreements? Nothing. Will they convince me to give this up? No. Will they help figure out a way to make it work if such is possible? No. Therefore, they are pointless ... go comment on something you agree with.
Actually yes I can expect that ... what is the point of all the disagreements? Nothing. Will they convince me to give this up? No. Will they help figure out a way to make it work if such is possible? No. Therefore, they are pointless ... go comment on something you agree with.
That is the first thing I've seen on this thread that actually makes sense. I second that motion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Since I pop in randomly here and there, technically, using the textbook definition of a term only counts as B evidence. It isn't enough to prove that something is or isn't correct, all it does is prove that one institution (Merriam-Webster, et al) determines that the term means X as of publishing date whatever. As long as we're all being pedantic and splitting hairs over semantics, you need more evidence other than "these people who a lot of folks trust say that X means Y". At least as long as the battleground is about exacting scientific definitions.
Anyway, as of the first post OP says that he'd like D&D to do one thing. And people have said they wouldn't like that with reasons ranging from bad to good. So to everyone involved, is there any reason to continue that specific topic? Honestly, would anyone of any opinion on this topic realistically change their opinion?
Ok, that out of the way, is there any other reason that people don't like magic explained that isn't an emotional connection to the mystery of magic? I want to say, if you feel like a scientific explanation for magic or something would ruin a fantasy world for you then all power to you, that's actually a very good reason. I bring it up because again, I'm not entirely getting the why of why people don't want an explanation for the fantastic. At least other than that's just the way they like it.
Since I pop in randomly here and there, technically, using the textbook definition of a term only counts as B evidence. It isn't enough to prove that something is or isn't correct, all it does is prove that one institution (Merriam-Webster, et al) determines that the term means X as of publishing date whatever. As long as we're all being pedantic and splitting hairs over semantics, you need more evidence other than "these people who a lot of folks trust say that X means Y". At least as long as the battleground is about exacting scientific definitions.
Anyway, as of the first post OP says that he'd like D&D to do one thing. And people have said they wouldn't like that with reasons ranging from bad to good. So to everyone involved, is there any reason to continue that specific topic? Honestly, would anyone of any opinion on this topic realistically change their opinion?
Ok, that out of the way, is there any other reason that people don't like magic explained that isn't an emotional connection to the mystery of magic? I want to say, if you feel like a scientific explanation for magic or something would ruin a fantasy world for you then all power to you, that's actually a very good reason. I bring it up because again, I'm not entirely getting the why of why people don't want an explanation for the fantastic. At least other than that's just the way they like it.
I believe that my own objection is unemotional—I don't think that those sorts of explanations destroy the mystery of magic. I just think that a universe such that is described by D&D, with its magic and gods and demons and such—precludes scientific examination. Such a Universe doesn't run by the mechanistic action of natural law, but by the whims and desires of supernatural forces and beings. A creature created by Ao or the High God or whomever has no need of the sort of biological processes that arise from DNA and cells. Those things are what life in our universe, life that evolved from biochemical reactions, are made of.
Again, it is a public forum. Disagreements offer different points of view, and for everyone who reads the thread, not only for you. Everyone has the right to comment.
Anyway, as of the first post OP says that he'd like D&D to do one thing. And people have said they wouldn't like that with reasons ranging from bad to good. So to everyone involved, is there any reason to continue that specific topic? Honestly, would anyone of any opinion on this topic realistically change their opinion?
Ok, that out of the way, is there any other reason that people don't like magic explained that isn't an emotional connection to the mystery of magic? I want to say, if you feel like a scientific explanation for magic or something would ruin a fantasy world for you then all power to you, that's actually a very good reason. I bring it up because again, I'm not entirely getting the why of why people don't want an explanation for the fantastic. At least other than that's just the way they like it.
If they were able to show how that system could be done convincingly, I could see myself changing my mind, but as it is, he's really only played victim and refused to do anything but repeat his first comments. My opinion isn't really emotional, I just don't think it makes logical sense with how the lore of the worlds is currently set up. As others have said, there are ways to explain magic in the worlds as a field of natural science, but still be inline with the lore (we've even been having side conversations here doing just that). What he is suggesting is completely counter to many points of the lore and build of the world. Taxonomy like he is suggesting would need a family tree of sorts all reaching back to some common ancestor. But many of the races in these worlds were created from gods/goddesses to be how they are from the start, much like as you see in creation myths. He is essentially saying to get rid of loads of official lore so he can insert his homebrew idea officially. We've said again and again that it sounds fine for homebrew, and he is free to post it in the homebrew section, but he refuses to do that because he wants his 'official' standing to be legitimized.
I believe that my own objection is unemotional—I don't think that those sorts of explanations destroy the mystery of magic. I just think that a universe such that is described by D&D, with its magic and gods and demons and such—precludes scientific examination. Such a Universe doesn't run by the mechanistic action of natural law, but by the whims and desires of supernatural forces and beings. A creature created by Ao or the High God or whomever has no need of the sort of biological processes that arise from DNA and cells. Those things are what life in our universe, life that evolved from biochemical reactions, are made of.
Parts of that can be argued, but generally, yes. What he's suggesting is counter to official lore.
Anyway, as of the first post OP says that he'd like D&D to do one thing. And people have said they wouldn't like that with reasons ranging from bad to good. So to everyone involved, is there any reason to continue that specific topic? Honestly, would anyone of any opinion on this topic realistically change their opinion?
Well no, there isn't, but there are two discussions that have emerged in this thread. The OP about specific taxonomy and species, which most think doesn't fit and something we've talked to death with no new ideas being discovered. Then a side discussion about melding science and magic, reconciling physical laws with the existence of magic. Which for my money is a better discussion to be had.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Think dragons make sense? Read Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett. Think magic doesn't follow rules? Read anything by Mercedes Lackey. Want to write a 10" thick treatise on something very few people will ever care about? That is your right, as per the 1st Amendment. Want to insult people? According to the 1st Amendment, the government can't tell you not to or punish you for doing so, but the D&D Beyond Moderators can.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Fair point ... but I don't see this point contradicting the points you're quoting from BricingWolf .. it may be a bit of an enigma/paradox, but that's just because it hasn't been solved yet, and the points he makes are valid ( ie: physics etc. are almost identical in all other respects ).
Therefore: dragons fly because the physical laws DO exist BUT they're different, and your conclusion otherwise is false, AND ( as pointed out ) since there arse differences but the basics are the same, I would suggest dragons fly for the following reasons:
An ancient red dragon's scales grant it AC 22, better than +3 plate. Dragon scale mail is not stated to be lighter than normal scale mail. How do dragons fly? Magic!
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
So they fall by magic too? That's not just gravity? They have wings and flap them because the magic has to trick gravity into looking the other way, not because they need to generate lift? Doesn't quite work after any analysis.
Look I understand some people don't want to think about this stuff ... so fine, don't << it's that simple ... but for those of us who do, understand that we are not doing it to convince 100% of people, we're not doing it to get you to do something you don't want to do ... so just don't comment if all you have is criticism which doesn't contribute to the discussion ( not you so much Matthias, I'm thinking more of akaslater's comments which have been pointlessly argumentative, as if somehow no idea is even allowed to be discussed without his personal approval of its merit on his and his terms alone ).
my post was initially just about the fact that games should educate and lift people's intellect, not help dumb them down, and so the correct use of words is an important thing. In D&D the word "race" is I think incorrectly used, which is partly because the game came out of race obsessed US culture.
if you don't think this is an issue worth discussing, move on ... if you do think so, contribute your ideas ... if you're here for an argument, get a life.
i love sci-fi and I love fantasy, I'm not trying to ruin fantasy by introducing science, I'm just pointing out that even fantasy has some common rules, and the point of improving D&D rules is to make the science behind the fantasy BOTH consistent and sensible, while also playable. Just because others failed at this task DOES NOT mean it is an impossible task, NOR does it mean it is not a worthwhile task.
if you disagree, please just go away because I'm never going to be interested in convincing you if it's like trying to argue with a religious person.
On the dragon front I'd like to argue that our science can't really explain it. Think UFOs... I know... Aliens, right?
There's very little we actually know when compared to what might actually be out there. To some it might be considered magic, but to those that have (supposedly) witnessed an object go from zero to sub-sonic speed without following what we know of physics, it could be possible. A displacer beast might actually have a gland that causes displacement with the right chemical compounds (that have never been discovered) and a dragon might actually fly if there were some odd sort of anti-gravity dark matter that were powering it.
There's more out there than what our senses can perceive, as proven by the existence of the various types of radiation! There might just be more out there to be discovered.
Site Rules & Guidelines --- Focused Feedback Mega Threads --- Staff Quotes --- Homebrew Tutorial --- Pricing FAQ
Please feel free to message either Sorce or another moderator if you have any concerns.
In short, if magic exists in any world, it's just another branch of physics. Ergo, magic itelf is a natural science with laws akin to the laws of chemistry.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
We do bones, motherf***ker!
As the barbarian said of the Theurgy (Knowledge) wizard, "never argue with a fanatic; they can usually out-argue you."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Actually yes I can expect that ... what is the point of all the disagreements? Nothing. Will they convince me to give this up? No. Will they help figure out a way to make it work if such is possible? No. Therefore, they are pointless ... go comment on something you agree with.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Since I pop in randomly here and there, technically, using the textbook definition of a term only counts as B evidence. It isn't enough to prove that something is or isn't correct, all it does is prove that one institution (Merriam-Webster, et al) determines that the term means X as of publishing date whatever. As long as we're all being pedantic and splitting hairs over semantics, you need more evidence other than "these people who a lot of folks trust say that X means Y". At least as long as the battleground is about exacting scientific definitions.
Anyway, as of the first post OP says that he'd like D&D to do one thing. And people have said they wouldn't like that with reasons ranging from bad to good. So to everyone involved, is there any reason to continue that specific topic? Honestly, would anyone of any opinion on this topic realistically change their opinion?
Ok, that out of the way, is there any other reason that people don't like magic explained that isn't an emotional connection to the mystery of magic? I want to say, if you feel like a scientific explanation for magic or something would ruin a fantasy world for you then all power to you, that's actually a very good reason. I bring it up because again, I'm not entirely getting the why of why people don't want an explanation for the fantastic. At least other than that's just the way they like it.
Again, it is a public forum. Disagreements offer different points of view, and for everyone who reads the thread, not only for you. Everyone has the right to comment.
Well no, there isn't, but there are two discussions that have emerged in this thread. The OP about specific taxonomy and species, which most think doesn't fit and something we've talked to death with no new ideas being discovered. Then a side discussion about melding science and magic, reconciling physical laws with the existence of magic. Which for my money is a better discussion to be had.