uuuummm of COURSE they are, but they are so different that the classification of 'species cannot cover their differences. my god what has dnd come to...
Which is why it has been “races” since AD&D fist launched in 1977.
uuuummm of COURSE they are, but they are so different that the classification of 'species cannot cover their differences. my god what has dnd come to...
you..... you do realize that a dolphin and a crocodile are different species (both d&d creature too btw) So how is that classification okay, but calling a playable race a species is "They are too different to be called that."
Dolphins and Crocodiles are far more removed from each other than by “species.” One is a mammal and the other a reptile for crying out loud.
uuuummm of COURSE they are, but they are so different that the classification of 'species cannot cover their differences. my god what has dnd come to...
you..... you do realize that a dolphin and a crocodile are different species (both d&d creature too btw) So how is that classification okay, but calling a playable race a species is "They are too different to be called that."
Dolphins and Crocodiles are far more removed from each other than by “species.” One is a mammal and the other a reptile for crying out loud.
Sure but guess what, we still call them different species in biology we don't ignore calling them that because they are part of different orders. The statement "Dolphins and Crocodiles are different species" holds just as much truth as saying "Silver-back gorillas and Bonobos are different species."
uuuummm of COURSE they are, but they are so different that the classification of 'species cannot cover their differences. my god what has dnd come to...
you..... you do realize that a dolphin and a crocodile are different species (both d&d creature too btw) So how is that classification okay, but calling a playable race a species is "They are too different to be called that."
Dolphins and Crocodiles are far more removed from each other than by “species.” One is a mammal and the other a reptile for crying out loud.
Sure but guess what, we still call them different species in biology we don't ignore calling them that because they are part of different orders. The statement "Dolphins and Crocodiles are different species" holds just as much truth as saying "Silver-back gorillas and Bonobos are different species."
Oh, sure. Just like goldfish and Giant Sequoia are different species.
uuuummm of COURSE they are, but they are so different that the classification of 'species cannot cover their differences. my god what has dnd come to...
you..... you do realize that a dolphin and a crocodile are different species (both d&d creature too btw) So how is that classification okay, but calling a playable race a species is "They are too different to be called that."
Dolphins and Crocodiles are far more removed from each other than by “species.” One is a mammal and the other a reptile for crying out loud.
Sure but guess what, we still call them different species in biology we don't ignore calling them that because they are part of different orders. The statement "Dolphins and Crocodiles are different species" holds just as much truth as saying "Silver-back gorillas and Bonobos are different species."
your example works. but it is crude. it is like measuring the distance of your cross country road trip in centimetres.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
your example works. but it is crude. it is like measuring the distance of your cross country road trip in centimetres.
Yes, or the volume of beer in an entire brewery in cups.
my uncle owns a brewery, and i......may have done this. lol.
How many cups was it?
i cannot remember, but a LOT. it was in pints (cause england). i love that sort of calculations. on a side note, my friend has watched all 30 seasons of the simpsons during lockdown, and i calculated the total watch time. it was 3 MONTHS (daylight hours only). imagine how brain dead he must have been.
anyway, back to the point...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Fine point ceded. Since no one wants to understand biology or the basic fundamentals of taxa.
Just to answer you question though Sposta, yes gold fish and sequoia are different damn species.
Using logic and basic taxa is a crude measurement I'd hate t see what you require for a scientific measurement of "good" standards.
My point is that “species” is just as inaccurate as anything else.
That’s just it, I believe that there cannot possibly be a standardized objective definition of good or evil on a cosmic scale like that. That’s why I use “racial alignment” as more of an indicator or guideline of how a race is generally perceived by human societies, and less an absolute objective truth.
At the end of the day, I think it comes down to whether or not you believe in subjective or objective morality.
If you believe morality is objective the debate is about what is the authority that determines right and wrong. If you believe racism, subconscious or otherwise is so bad because it is immoral then the burden of proof is on you to show where that objective morality is based and comes from.
If you feel morality is objective but immorality is not universal it becomes much easier to justify your actions but an authority for objective morality must still exist. So if objective evil exists then objective good must also exist.
If you believe morality to be subjective then you have no room to say whether racism or sexism is right or wrong because your “good” cannot be the be-all end-all on the subject. You cannot claim something is right or wrong, good or evil because such concepts do not exist and you cannot judge anyone from a moral high ground.
If racism is objectively bad it must have a concrete definition, so you can clearly say “this is racist” as factually as saying 2+2=4 and no one can disagree objectively then that is a definition everyone can work with.
So really, I feel this debate is rooted with people approaching the subject from different moral and philosophical views and we may be using the same words but not meaning the same thing.
For me, racism is the belief one race is inherently superior or inferior to another race simply by virtue of being part of that race. End of story. That is how I approach this debate.
So unless someone can objectively prove to me that orcs and drow are inherently better or worse based on their race alone then I do not see them as racist caricatures or stereotypes. Since there are in-lore examples of members of these races being good, and even building up civilized societies in the setting then the idea of them being racist is objectively false.
If you believe morality to be subjective then you have no room to say whether racism or sexism is right or wrong because your “good” cannot be the be-all end-all on the subject. You cannot claim something is right or wrong, good or evil because such concepts do not exist and you cannot judge anyone from a moral high ground.
Not quite. Defining morality as subjective specifically means that everybody can have their own differing opinions on whether something is right or wrong. That’s what “subjective” means.
If you believe morality to be subjective then you have no room to say whether racism or sexism is right or wrong because your “good” cannot be the be-all end-all on the subject. You cannot claim something is right or wrong, good or evil because such concepts do not exist and you cannot judge anyone from a moral high ground.
Not quite. Defining morality as subjective specifically means that everybody can have their own differing opinions on whether something is right or wrong. That’s what “subjective” means.
Exactly, which means, specifically, your definition is no better or worse than anyone else’s and cannot be taken as real. It is no better than someone else’s and cannot be treated as such. So you, and I, cannot be right or wrong.
Which makes debates on morality entirely pointless if morality is subjective. Murder and assault cannot be evil because there is no objective evil. Racism and sexism cannot be wrong because there is no right or wrong. That is subjective to each individual and no one can say they are wrong.
If you believe morality to be subjective then you have no room to say whether racism or sexism is right or wrong because your “good” cannot be the be-all end-all on the subject. You cannot claim something is right or wrong, good or evil because such concepts do not exist and you cannot judge anyone from a moral high ground.
Not quite. Defining morality as subjective specifically means that everybody can have their own differing opinions on whether something is right or wrong. That’s what “subjective” means.
Exactly, which means, specifically, your definition is no better or worse than anyone else’s and cannot be taken as real. It is no better than someone else’s and cannot be treated as such. So you, and I, cannot be right or wrong.
Which makes debates on morality entirely pointless if morality is subjective. Murder and assault cannot be evil because there is no objective evil. Racism and sexism cannot be wrong because there is no right or wrong. That is subjective to each individual and no one can say they are wrong.
Not so. Everybody can say if they are right or wrong. Don’t confuse “morals” with “ethics” by the way. Morality is subjective to the person, there are many people who have done things they felt were morally justified. Ethics are subjective to a society. When a society comes together and decides what is ethically write or wrong, then society gets to define good and evil.
That’s why Nevada can decide that prostitution and gambling are ethically okay, and Oregon can say they’re not, but pot is okay. The citizenry is free to decide for themselves individually if their personal morals align with their societies’ ethics.
My opinion of right or wrong has absolutely no more import than yours or anyone else’s. But the society(ies) in which we live have their own ethical standards by which we must abide or face the consequences.
If you truly believe morality is subjective then you have no moral high ground for any topic. If some says it is a moral duty to enslave other people you cannot say that they are morally wrong. If someone says it is morally just to rob others of everything they own and destroy their lives over a past injustice someone in their family might have done them you can’t say that’s wrong either because their word has as much value and truth as your own.
If a society says it is morally just to throw gays and lesbians off rooftops and is accepted as part of their culture, you cannot say they are in the wrong. If a government decides to commit genocide you cannot say they are morally bankrupt because they are following their morality.
In order to effectively criticize any of these things from a morality standpoint you would have to argue that morality is objective, that good and evil exist.
If evil does not exist morally then neither does good. It may be unacceptable as part of a society, but society cannot be good or evil and so cannot do wrong.
Edit: As to the bit about ethics, who or what is the authority on what is ethical if there is no morality? Is it the government? A religion? Society in general? And why would ethics be objective if morality is not?
If evil does not exist morally then neither does good. It may be unacceptable as part of a society, but society cannot be good or evil and so cannot do wrong.
If you truly believe morality is subjective then you have no moral high ground for any topic. If some says it is a moral duty to enslave other people you cannot say that they are morally wrong. If someone says it is morally just to rob others of everything they own and destroy their lives over a past injustice someone in their family might have done them you can’t say that’s wrong either because their word has as much value and truth as your own.
Of course I can say. Just because my opinion is no more valid than anyone else’s doesn’t mean I’m not entitled to. That’s what morality means, that I do have an opinion on what is right and what is wrong.
If a society says it is morally just to throw gays and lesbians off rooftops and is accepted as part of their culture, you cannot say they are in the wrong. If a government decides to commit genocide you cannot say they are morally bankrupt because they are following their morality.
Of course I can say they are wrong. That’s because my morality does not have to match my society’s ethics. That is what morality means compared to ethics. That’s kinda the whole point.
In order to effectively criticize any of these things from a morality standpoint you would have to argue that morality is objective, that good and evil exist.
If good and evil were objective, there would be no need for debate. The fact that people debate morality proves that good and evil are not objective.
Like I said before, from an Illithid’s perspective we are talking chattel. We exist to provide them with food (and a means of procreation). To them we are meat. They have no moral compunction against eating us.
To us, an Illithid is a horrible monster.
To us, cows are chattel. We specifically breed and raise them so we can turn them into food. I do not feel guilty for the cheeseburgers I ate for dinner last night. I don’t even need meat to survive, I could be a vegetarian. I eat cheeseburgers because cheeseburger = delicious.
To a cow in the slaughterhouse, we must be horrible monsters.
Am I evil? I don’t think so, but that cow I ate last night might beg to differ....
The big mistake of relativism is not "Mind Flayers have their own ethical code.", it's the jump from there to "and thus we cannot judge them by our ethical codes".
At the end of the day, I think it comes down to whether or not you believe in subjective or objective morality.
If you believe morality is objective the debate is about what is the authority that determines right and wrong. If you believe racism, subconscious or otherwise is so bad because it is immoral then the burden of proof is on you to show where that objective morality is based and comes from.
If you feel morality is objective but immorality is not universal it becomes much easier to justify your actions but an authority for objective morality must still exist. So if objective evil exists then objective good must also exist.
If you believe morality to be subjective then you have no room to say whether racism or sexism is right or wrong because your “good” cannot be the be-all end-all on the subject. You cannot claim something is right or wrong, good or evil because such concepts do not exist and you cannot judge anyone from a moral high ground.
If racism is objectively bad it must have a concrete definition, so you can clearly say “this is racist” as factually as saying 2+2=4 and no one can disagree objectively then that is a definition everyone can work with.
So really, I feel this debate is rooted with people approaching the subject from different moral and philosophical views and we may be using the same words but not meaning the same thing.
For me, racism is the belief one race is inherently superior or inferior to another race simply by virtue of being part of that race. End of story. That is how I approach this debate.
So unless someone can objectively prove to me that orcs and drow are inherently better or worse based on their race alone then I do not see them as racist caricatures or stereotypes. Since there are in-lore examples of members of these races being good, and even building up civilized societies in the setting then the idea of them being racist is objectively false.
Some stuff is absolutely wrong and other things are subjective. People just disagree about what goes in which category.
Which is why it has been “races” since AD&D fist launched in 1977.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Dolphins and Crocodiles are far more removed from each other than by “species.” One is a mammal and the other a reptile for crying out loud.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sure but guess what, we still call them different species in biology we don't ignore calling them that because they are part of different orders. The statement "Dolphins and Crocodiles are different species" holds just as much truth as saying "Silver-back gorillas and Bonobos are different species."
Oh, sure. Just like goldfish and Giant Sequoia are different species.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
your example works. but it is crude. it is like measuring the distance of your cross country road trip in centimetres.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Yes, or the volume of beer in an entire brewery in cups.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
my uncle owns a brewery, and i......may have done this. lol.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
How many cups was it?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Fine point ceded. Since no one wants to understand biology or the basic fundamentals of taxa.
Just to answer you question though Sposta, yes gold fish and sequoia are different damn species.
Using logic and basic taxa is a crude measurement I'd hate t see what you require for a scientific measurement of "good" standards.
i cannot remember, but a LOT. it was in pints (cause england). i love that sort of calculations. on a side note, my friend has watched all 30 seasons of the simpsons during lockdown, and i calculated the total watch time. it was 3 MONTHS (daylight hours only). imagine how brain dead he must have been.
anyway, back to the point...
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
My point is that “species” is just as inaccurate as anything else.
That’s just it, I believe that there cannot possibly be a standardized objective definition of good or evil on a cosmic scale like that. That’s why I use “racial alignment” as more of an indicator or guideline of how a race is generally perceived by human societies, and less an absolute objective truth.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
At the end of the day, I think it comes down to whether or not you believe in subjective or objective morality.
If you believe morality is objective the debate is about what is the authority that determines right and wrong. If you believe racism, subconscious or otherwise is so bad because it is immoral then the burden of proof is on you to show where that objective morality is based and comes from.
If you feel morality is objective but immorality is not universal it becomes much easier to justify your actions but an authority for objective morality must still exist. So if objective evil exists then objective good must also exist.
If you believe morality to be subjective then you have no room to say whether racism or sexism is right or wrong because your “good” cannot be the be-all end-all on the subject. You cannot claim something is right or wrong, good or evil because such concepts do not exist and you cannot judge anyone from a moral high ground.
If racism is objectively bad it must have a concrete definition, so you can clearly say “this is racist” as factually as saying 2+2=4 and no one can disagree objectively then that is a definition everyone can work with.
So really, I feel this debate is rooted with people approaching the subject from different moral and philosophical views and we may be using the same words but not meaning the same thing.
For me, racism is the belief one race is inherently superior or inferior to another race simply by virtue of being part of that race. End of story. That is how I approach this debate.
So unless someone can objectively prove to me that orcs and drow are inherently better or worse based on their race alone then I do not see them as racist caricatures or stereotypes. Since there are in-lore examples of members of these races being good, and even building up civilized societies in the setting then the idea of them being racist is objectively false.
Not quite. Defining morality as subjective specifically means that everybody can have their own differing opinions on whether something is right or wrong. That’s what “subjective” means.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Exactly, which means, specifically, your definition is no better or worse than anyone else’s and cannot be taken as real. It is no better than someone else’s and cannot be treated as such. So you, and I, cannot be right or wrong.
Which makes debates on morality entirely pointless if morality is subjective. Murder and assault cannot be evil because there is no objective evil. Racism and sexism cannot be wrong because there is no right or wrong. That is subjective to each individual and no one can say they are wrong.
Not so. Everybody can say if they are right or wrong. Don’t confuse “morals” with “ethics” by the way. Morality is subjective to the person, there are many people who have done things they felt were morally justified. Ethics are subjective to a society. When a society comes together and decides what is ethically write or wrong, then society gets to define good and evil.
That’s why Nevada can decide that prostitution and gambling are ethically okay, and Oregon can say they’re not, but pot is okay. The citizenry is free to decide for themselves individually if their personal morals align with their societies’ ethics.
My opinion of right or wrong has absolutely no more import than yours or anyone else’s. But the society(ies) in which we live have their own ethical standards by which we must abide or face the consequences.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If you truly believe morality is subjective then you have no moral high ground for any topic. If some says it is a moral duty to enslave other people you cannot say that they are morally wrong. If someone says it is morally just to rob others of everything they own and destroy their lives over a past injustice someone in their family might have done them you can’t say that’s wrong either because their word has as much value and truth as your own.
If a society says it is morally just to throw gays and lesbians off rooftops and is accepted as part of their culture, you cannot say they are in the wrong. If a government decides to commit genocide you cannot say they are morally bankrupt because they are following their morality.
In order to effectively criticize any of these things from a morality standpoint you would have to argue that morality is objective, that good and evil exist.
If evil does not exist morally then neither does good. It may be unacceptable as part of a society, but society cannot be good or evil and so cannot do wrong.
Edit: As to the bit about ethics, who or what is the authority on what is ethical if there is no morality? Is it the government? A religion? Society in general? And why would ethics be objective if morality is not?
I strongly disagree.
Of course I can say. Just because my opinion is no more valid than anyone else’s doesn’t mean I’m not entitled to. That’s what morality means, that I do have an opinion on what is right and what is wrong.
Of course I can say they are wrong. That’s because my morality does not have to match my society’s ethics. That is what morality means compared to ethics. That’s kinda the whole point.
If good and evil were objective, there would be no need for debate. The fact that people debate morality proves that good and evil are not objective.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Like I said before, from an Illithid’s perspective we are talking chattel. We exist to provide them with food (and a means of procreation). To them we are meat. They have no moral compunction against eating us.
To us, an Illithid is a horrible monster.
To us, cows are chattel. We specifically breed and raise them so we can turn them into food. I do not feel guilty for the cheeseburgers I ate for dinner last night. I don’t even need meat to survive, I could be a vegetarian. I eat cheeseburgers because cheeseburger = delicious.
To a cow in the slaughterhouse, we must be horrible monsters.
Am I evil? I don’t think so, but that cow I ate last night might beg to differ....
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The big mistake of relativism is not "Mind Flayers have their own ethical code.", it's the jump from there to "and thus we cannot judge them by our ethical codes".
Some stuff is absolutely wrong and other things are subjective. People just disagree about what goes in which category.