The concept of biological classification rarely considers alterations in its calculation of what a creature is. It doesnt matter if a human altered themselves to be more cat like, its not going to change its species.
That said, this is a fantasy world different from our own, it isnt required that words mean the same things we use them for. Especially scientific naming, as the place isnt really very scientific. Races in dnd were never scientific terms, species in dnd also is probably not a scientific term.
IMO the problem isnt that the definition is inaccurate, most definitions are inaccurate by our worlds standards, its that it sounds weird to most real people now.
I honestly don’t get why this whole terminology thing was important enough to change in the first place. I understand it but I don’t get it. But whatever. If it’s important enough to some people to drive them to change it then so what? So they change it. I don’t understand at all why anyone would care enough to make a fuss against changing it though. I mean it. This whole thing seems silly to me in the first place. It’s a word to describe a variation among different made up people. Who really cares enough about it to be upset that they changed it? Why? Legitimately. Why? That’s not a rhetorical question either. I really do want to know why anyone on earth would care enough about it to be upset about this change in terminology. What possible difference could it make? Like I said I understand why people cared enough tho change it. I may not think it mattered but at least I can understand their reasoning for why it mattered to them. But why should it matter to anyone the other way? Who cares?
Because, the semantics make some people feel better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I honestly don’t get why this whole terminology thing was important enough to change in the first place. I understand it but I don’t get it. But whatever. If it’s important enough to some people to drive them to change it then so what? So they change it. I don’t understand at all why anyone would care enough to make a fuss against changing it though. I mean it. This whole thing seems silly to me in the first place. It’s a word to describe a variation among different made up people. Who really cares enough about it to be upset that they changed it? Why? Legitimately. Why? That’s not a rhetorical question either. I really do want to know why anyone on earth would care enough about it to be upset about this change in terminology. What possible difference could it make? Like I said I understand why people cared enough tho change it. I may not think it mattered but at least I can understand their reasoning for why it mattered to them. But why should it matter to anyone the other way? Who cares?
Because, the semantics make some people feel better.
I’m sorry but I still don’t understand. Could you maybe explain it a little more? Like I said before I understand why some people feel better using a term other than race. I may still think it’s silly but at least it makes sense to me. I can wrap my head around their reasons. But why get upset over species? They could make up a completely new word like “ocozirons” or something like J.K. did with muggle and it still wouldn’t make any difference to me so I got no skin in the game. I care more about the ASIs going away and moving to backgrounds than I do about what word they use. I just would like to understand why “species” should legitimately bother anyone.
I see it like this, as a DM/GM when I wish to explain various civilizations and cultures, using the term “Species” makes me think I’m describing them like a BBEG would, doesn’t sit right.
I see it like this, as a DM/GM when I wish to explain various civilizations and cultures, using the term “Species” makes me think I’m describing them like a BBEG would, doesn’t sit right.
If you're describing civilizations and cultures... why are you talking about species to start with? Most major cultures in D&D-type settings aren't single species to start with.
I see it like this, as a DM/GM when I wish to explain various civilizations and cultures, using the term “Species” makes me think I’m describing them like a BBEG would, doesn’t sit right.
If you're describing civilizations and cultures... why are you talking about species to start with? Most major cultures in D&D-type settings aren't single species to start with.
Eh, there's a lot of variance there. Elven and dwarven nations/settlements with their own culture are quite prevalent in some of their biggest settings like the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, for instance, and even in melting pot places like Neverwinter or Waterdeep within the FR the implication is typically that the majority of the population is human.
As much as some people like to actively attack the suggestion that species and culture can correlate in a setting, it is not an inherently flawed premise to work from, particularly when the default D&D explanation for the origin of the species is "various gods formed the various races/species and placed them on different parts of the map". Which is not to say that going in the other direction is impossible, just that both are legitimate setting choices for spec-fic. Personally I kinda like it for the thought exercise of working out "how might the race traits influence the direction their culture would develop in".
I see it like this, as a DM/GM when I wish to explain various civilizations and cultures, using the term “Species” makes me think I’m describing them like a BBEG would, doesn’t sit right.
If you're describing civilizations and cultures... why are you talking about species to start with? Most major cultures in D&D-type settings aren't single species to start with.
As been stated before, for some people Species just has a connotation that sits differently for different people.
Sure it’s scientifically correct, but i’m not playing a sci-fi game. It feels like it’s setting a player vs D/GM tone and imparts a hesitation in it’s usage.
Whats worng with instead of Species “Person/Peoples” is used? I’ m sure most individuals have no issue with this do they?
I see it like this, as a DM/GM when I wish to explain various civilizations and cultures, using the term “Species” makes me think I’m describing them like a BBEG would, doesn’t sit right.
You can call them whatever the heck you like in your home games. There’s no D&D police that are going to come confiscate your PHB if you use a different terminology for them than what WotC uses. Call them ocozirons if you want to. I didn’t trademark it or anything. So why the hell should it matter what word WotC uses? That’s what I don’t understand.
I see it like this, as a DM/GM when I wish to explain various civilizations and cultures, using the term “Species” makes me think I’m describing them like a BBEG would, doesn’t sit right.
You can call them whatever the heck you like in your home games. There’s no D&D police that are going to come confiscate your PHB if you use a different terminology for them than what WotC uses. Call them ocozirons if you want to. I didn’t trademark it or anything. So why the hell should it matter what word WotC uses? That’s what I don’t understand.
It reminds me of David Attenborough, he would do nature documentaries on different creatures, and how different they were, and how they adapt to world they live in. Kinda stuffy to me at least, but descriptive.
I honestly don’t get why this whole terminology thing was important enough to change in the first place. I understand it but I don’t get it. But whatever. If it’s important enough to some people to drive them to change it then so what? So they change it. I don’t understand at all why anyone would care enough to make a fuss against changing it though. I mean it. This whole thing seems silly to me in the first place. It’s a word to describe a variation among different made up people. Who really cares enough about it to be upset that they changed it? Why? Legitimately. Why? That’s not a rhetorical question either. I really do want to know why anyone on earth would care enough about it to be upset about this change in terminology. What possible difference could it make? Like I said I understand why people cared enough tho change it. I may not think it mattered but at least I can understand their reasoning for why it mattered to them. But why should it matter to anyone the other way? Who cares?
Because, the semantics make some people feel better.
I’m sorry but I still don’t understand. Could you maybe explain it a little more? Like I said before I understand why some people feel better using a term other than race. I may still think it’s silly but at least it makes sense to me. I can wrap my head around their reasons. But why get upset over species? They could make up a completely new word like “ocozirons” or something like J.K. did with muggle and it still wouldn’t make any difference to me so I got no skin in the game. I care more about the ASIs going away and moving to backgrounds than I do about what word they use. I just would like to understand why “species” should legitimately bother anyone.
I don't know if you've seen the web series Gamers II - Dorkness Rising, but there is this scene where the monk pulls out a lightsaber and the DM is like "No, you can't have a lightsaber, it's the wrong system, genre, timezone, the wrong everything", and the player says: "This isn't a 'lightsaber', this is a psionic spirit blade."
On the one hand one can argue that 'a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."; but one can also argue that said quote is false. The 'lightsaber' or 'laser sword' etc. names presume a sciencey origin to the blade being made of light while calling it a 'brilliant/radient energy or psionic/spiritual etc weapon name presumes a more magical origin to the blade being made of light. Despite the blade being made of light in both cases, the magical name better suits a campaign set in the high medieval period where the sciency name better suits a campaign set in a futuristic environment like for example one of those post-apocalyptic stories where the world reset to a more primitive state but remnants of high technology are still present, like Vampire Hunter D or The tv adaptation of Shannara.
The flavor is wrong if the name doesn't suit the setting it is in. Like Golemtech vs Cybertech. Only one of those words belongs in a medieval themed world and not the other.
"Species" just has that feel to it that it's an appropriate word for Starwars/Startrek/Battlestar Galactica etc.; but I just can't imagine Elrond drafting a document of alliance between the species' of Men and Elves rather than the races of Men and Elves.
I could imagine it being between the Nation(s) of Men and Elves, or the Societies of Men and Elves, or the Elven people and Mankind, etc.; but I just don't see him using the term species in that manner.
Species in earlier times I think would in fact be used to describe different kinds of minerals, or fluids etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
I honestly don’t get why this whole terminology thing was important enough to change in the first place. I understand it but I don’t get it. But whatever. If it’s important enough to some people to drive them to change it then so what? So they change it. I don’t understand at all why anyone would care enough to make a fuss against changing it though. I mean it. This whole thing seems silly to me in the first place. It’s a word to describe a variation among different made up people. Who really cares enough about it to be upset that they changed it? Why? Legitimately. Why? That’s not a rhetorical question either. I really do want to know why anyone on earth would care enough about it to be upset about this change in terminology. What possible difference could it make? Like I said I understand why people cared enough tho change it. I may not think it mattered but at least I can understand their reasoning for why it mattered to them. But why should it matter to anyone the other way? Who cares?
Because, the semantics make some people feel better.
I’m sorry but I still don’t understand. Could you maybe explain it a little more? Like I said before I understand why some people feel better using a term other than race. I may still think it’s silly but at least it makes sense to me. I can wrap my head around their reasons. But why get upset over species? They could make up a completely new word like “ocozirons” or something like J.K. did with muggle and it still wouldn’t make any difference to me so I got no skin in the game. I care more about the ASIs going away and moving to backgrounds than I do about what word they use. I just would like to understand why “species” should legitimately bother anyone.
I don't know if you've seen the web series Gamers II - Dorkness Rising, but there is this scene where the monk pulls out a lightsaber and the DM is like "No, you can't have a lightsaber, it's the wrong system, genre, timezone, the wrong everything", and the player says: "This isn't a 'lightsaber', this is a psionic spirit blade."
On the one hand one can argue that 'a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."; but one can also argue that said quote is false. The 'lightsaber' or 'laser sword' etc. names presume a sciencey origin to the blade being made of light while calling it a 'brilliant/radient energy or psionic/spiritual etc weapon name presumes a more magical origin to the blade being made of light. Despite the blade being made of light in both cases, the magical name better suits a campaign set in the high medieval period where the sciency name better suits a campaign set in a futuristic environment like for example one of those post-apocalyptic stories where the world reset to a more primitive state but remnants of high technology are still present, like Vampire Hunter D or The tv adaptation of Shannara.
The flavor is wrong if the name doesn't suit the setting it is in. Like Golemtech vs Cybertech. Only one of those words belongs in a medieval themed world and not the other.
"Species" just has that feel to it that it's an appropriate word for Starwars/Startrek/Battlestar Galactica etc.; but I just can't imagine Elrond drafting a document of alliance between the species' of Men and Elves rather than the races of Men and Elves.
I could imagine it being between the Nation(s) of Men and Elves, or the Societies of Men and Elves, or the Elven people and Mankind, etc.; but I just don't see him using the term species in that manner.
Species in earlier times I think would in fact be used to describe different kinds of minerals, or fluids etc.
Species only feels that way because you are not used to it. The word is far older in origin than Race and, from an etymology point of view, probably fits better with the historical roots of planes like Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms than "Race" does. As people get used to species, it will feel more natural on the tongue. Further I expect that a significant number of players will adopt the phrasing fairly easily, since Wizards did not arrive at this word in a vacuum - they polled the community and species won over other options.
Here is the reality - you can keep using whatever word you want to use, but you have no right to tell Wizards what word they should use. Wizards has basically acknowledged "listen, our game's most famous founder was a racist and when use used the word 'race' he often did so with some really, really problematic views in mind. Nothing really wrong with the word 'race' as a word, but there is something wrong with our historical usage of the word. We did a poll of the community and species won so, guess that is what we are going with."
It really is not a big deal for most people. Sure, those who share, let's call them "Gygax's biological determinism" views (as, if one looks at your posting history, seem to be the views that drove you to make some of your first comments on this forum), might be upset about the changes and think they are awful--but most people fall into the category of either (a) understanding and trying to update their language to meet the new norm, (b) understanding and recognizing the change makes sense for Wizards, but knowing they do not need to update their own language... but also not feeling the need to attack Wizards for Wizards' choice, or (c) not caring about any of the politics behind it and just updating their language to match what the book says (I expect this is the largest group).
I see it like this, as a DM/GM when I wish to explain various civilizations and cultures, using the term “Species” makes me think I’m describing them like a BBEG would, doesn’t sit right.
You can call them whatever the heck you like in your home games. There’s no D&D police that are going to come confiscate your PHB if you use a different terminology for them than what WotC uses. Call them ocozirons if you want to. I didn’t trademark it or anything. So why the hell should it matter what word WotC uses? That’s what I don’t understand.
It reminds me of David Attenborough, he would do nature documentaries on different creatures, and how different they were, and how they adapt to world they live in. Kinda stuffy to me at least, but descriptive.
Of course I know who Attenborough is he worked on great documentaries. Entertaining and educational kind of like adult oriented School House Rock without the cartoons and catchy songs. So it reminds you of Attenborough. So what? And not for nothing but aren’t humans and elves and such all different and don’t they all have to adapt to the worlds they live in? Seems like it applies to me. And elves are kinda stuffy lots of times too so it fits.
I honestly don’t get why this whole terminology thing was important enough to change in the first place. I understand it but I don’t get it. But whatever. If it’s important enough to some people to drive them to change it then so what? So they change it. I don’t understand at all why anyone would care enough to make a fuss against changing it though. I mean it. This whole thing seems silly to me in the first place. It’s a word to describe a variation among different made up people. Who really cares enough about it to be upset that they changed it? Why? Legitimately. Why? That’s not a rhetorical question either. I really do want to know why anyone on earth would care enough about it to be upset about this change in terminology. What possible difference could it make? Like I said I understand why people cared enough tho change it. I may not think it mattered but at least I can understand their reasoning for why it mattered to them. But why should it matter to anyone the other way? Who cares?
Because, the semantics make some people feel better.
I’m sorry but I still don’t understand. Could you maybe explain it a little more? Like I said before I understand why some people feel better using a term other than race. I may still think it’s silly but at least it makes sense to me. I can wrap my head around their reasons. But why get upset over species? They could make up a completely new word like “ocozirons” or something like J.K. did with muggle and it still wouldn’t make any difference to me so I got no skin in the game. I care more about the ASIs going away and moving to backgrounds than I do about what word they use. I just would like to understand why “species” should legitimately bother anyone.
I don't know if you've seen the web series Gamers II - Dorkness Rising, but there is this scene where the monk pulls out a lightsaber and the DM is like "No, you can't have a lightsaber, it's the wrong system, genre, timezone, the wrong everything", and the player says: "This isn't a 'lightsaber', this is a psionic spirit blade."
On the one hand one can argue that 'a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."; but one can also argue that said quote is false. The 'lightsaber' or 'laser sword' etc. names presume a sciencey origin to the blade being made of light while calling it a 'brilliant/radient energy or psionic/spiritual etc weapon name presumes a more magical origin to the blade being made of light. Despite the blade being made of light in both cases, the magical name better suits a campaign set in the high medieval period where the sciency name better suits a campaign set in a futuristic environment like for example one of those post-apocalyptic stories where the world reset to a more primitive state but remnants of high technology are still present, like Vampire Hunter D or The tv adaptation of Shannara.
The flavor is wrong if the name doesn't suit the setting it is in. Like Golemtech vs Cybertech. Only one of those words belongs in a medieval themed world and not the other.
"Species" just has that feel to it that it's an appropriate word for Starwars/Startrek/Battlestar Galactica etc.; but I just can't imagine Elrond drafting a document of alliance between the species' of Men and Elves rather than the races of Men and Elves.
I could imagine it being between the Nation(s) of Men and Elves, or the Societies of Men and Elves, or the Elven people and Mankind, etc.; but I just don't see him using the term species in that manner.
Species in earlier times I think would in fact be used to describe different kinds of minerals, or fluids etc.
I could totally imagine Elrond “forging an alliance between the species of men and elves.” It only seems weird because you have this idea that the word “species” is strictly scientific and not generally descriptive. It’s what my friend calls “the used to factor.” It’s what you’re “used to” and you just can’t shake it. But just like when you get a new car you eventually stop being used to the old one and get used to the new one and then the difference between what you “were used to” and what you “are used to” fades away. If you hear and use the word species in newer less scientific applications you’ll get used to different associations with that word.
Plus on top of that the only reason the word sounds “sciency” and anachronistic to you is because you aren’t familiar with the etymology. It comes from Middle English and was derived from Latin. You know Chaucer? The guy who wrote the really long set of stories about the knight who traveled to a competition and all the different people he met along the road? The story that was so written in Middle English it hurts to read it? The same Middle English that Edward III, and Richard II spoke?
The first recorded use of the word “species” was in the 14th century. Just to contextualize that for you that was roughly around the point in history when the prevalence of the English longbow was making mounted charges by heavy cavalry obsolete. Only the French were too stubborn to realize it yet and kept charging headlong on horseback at them and either getting turned into pincushions or crushed by their own horses that were getting shot out from under them. Good times.
Is that ye olde enough for species to not be scifi for you anymore?
I see it like this, as a DM/GM when I wish to explain various civilizations and cultures, using the term “Species” makes me think I’m describing them like a BBEG would, doesn’t sit right.
You can call them whatever the heck you like in your home games. There’s no D&D police that are going to come confiscate your PHB if you use a different terminology for them than what WotC uses. Call them ocozirons if you want to. I didn’t trademark it or anything. So why the hell should it matter what word WotC uses? That’s what I don’t understand.
It reminds me of David Attenborough, he would do nature documentaries on different creatures, and how different they were, and how they adapt to world they live in. Kinda stuffy to me at least, but descriptive.
Of course I know who Attenborough is he worked on great documentaries. Entertaining and educational kind of like adult oriented School House Rock without the cartoons and catchy songs. So it reminds you of Attenborough. So what? And not for nothing but aren’t humans and elves and such all different and don’t they all have to adapt to the worlds they live in? Seems like it applies to me. And elves are kinda stuffy lots of times too so it fits.
I honestly don’t get why this whole terminology thing was important enough to change in the first place. I understand it but I don’t get it. But whatever. If it’s important enough to some people to drive them to change it then so what? So they change it. I don’t understand at all why anyone would care enough to make a fuss against changing it though. I mean it. This whole thing seems silly to me in the first place. It’s a word to describe a variation among different made up people. Who really cares enough about it to be upset that they changed it? Why? Legitimately. Why? That’s not a rhetorical question either. I really do want to know why anyone on earth would care enough about it to be upset about this change in terminology. What possible difference could it make? Like I said I understand why people cared enough tho change it. I may not think it mattered but at least I can understand their reasoning for why it mattered to them. But why should it matter to anyone the other way? Who cares?
Because, the semantics make some people feel better.
I’m sorry but I still don’t understand. Could you maybe explain it a little more? Like I said before I understand why some people feel better using a term other than race. I may still think it’s silly but at least it makes sense to me. I can wrap my head around their reasons. But why get upset over species? They could make up a completely new word like “ocozirons” or something like J.K. did with muggle and it still wouldn’t make any difference to me so I got no skin in the game. I care more about the ASIs going away and moving to backgrounds than I do about what word they use. I just would like to understand why “species” should legitimately bother anyone.
I don't know if you've seen the web series Gamers II - Dorkness Rising, but there is this scene where the monk pulls out a lightsaber and the DM is like "No, you can't have a lightsaber, it's the wrong system, genre, timezone, the wrong everything", and the player says: "This isn't a 'lightsaber', this is a psionic spirit blade."
On the one hand one can argue that 'a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."; but one can also argue that said quote is false. The 'lightsaber' or 'laser sword' etc. names presume a sciencey origin to the blade being made of light while calling it a 'brilliant/radient energy or psionic/spiritual etc weapon name presumes a more magical origin to the blade being made of light. Despite the blade being made of light in both cases, the magical name better suits a campaign set in the high medieval period where the sciency name better suits a campaign set in a futuristic environment like for example one of those post-apocalyptic stories where the world reset to a more primitive state but remnants of high technology are still present, like Vampire Hunter D or The tv adaptation of Shannara.
The flavor is wrong if the name doesn't suit the setting it is in. Like Golemtech vs Cybertech. Only one of those words belongs in a medieval themed world and not the other.
"Species" just has that feel to it that it's an appropriate word for Starwars/Startrek/Battlestar Galactica etc.; but I just can't imagine Elrond drafting a document of alliance between the species' of Men and Elves rather than the races of Men and Elves.
I could imagine it being between the Nation(s) of Men and Elves, or the Societies of Men and Elves, or the Elven people and Mankind, etc.; but I just don't see him using the term species in that manner.
Species in earlier times I think would in fact be used to describe different kinds of minerals, or fluids etc.
I could totally imagine Elrond “forging an alliance between the species of men and elves.” It only seems weird because you have this idea that the word “species” is strictly scientific and not generally descriptive. It’s what my friend calls “the used to factor.” It’s what you’re “used to” and you just can’t shake it. But just like when you get a new car you eventually stop being used to the old one and get used to the new one and then the difference between what you “were used to” and what you “are used to” fades away. If you hear and use the word species in newer less scientific applications you’ll get used to different associations with that word.
Plus on top of that the only reason the word sounds “sciency” and anachronistic to you is because you aren’t familiar with the etymology. It comes from Middle English and was derived from Latin. You know Chaucer? The guy who wrote the really long set of stories about the knight who traveled to a competition and all the different people he met along the road? The story that was so written in Middle English it hurts to read it? The same Middle English that Edward III, and Richard II spoke?
The first recorded use of the word “species” was in the 14th century. Just to contextualize that for you that was roughly around the point in history when the prevalence of the English longbow was making mounted charges by heavy cavalry obsolete. Only the French were too stubborn to realize it yet and kept charging headlong on horseback at them and either getting turned into pincushions or crushed by their own horses that were getting shot out from under them. Good times.
Is that ye olde enough for species to not be scifi for you anymore?
Nope, still comes off as though it's a borg speaking, not some living individual. If Elron had used Species rather than what was used, he’d sound like a contemptuous a-hole IMO.
And so what if the age a word has been around for centuries. It doesn’t mean everyone cares to use it when as been said before “sooner or later you get used to it’s usage” hasn’t caught on by now.
P.s: the only reason specices was chosen is because the feedback on what would be a better term was limited to the fact that in order to give feedback on it, one had to have a DDB account. ( I wonder what a general public survey of what a better term might be would have looked like, but it is what it is )
so as an edit I have no issue with it being in the books, it just reads and comes off as; if your using it as an NPC, you sound like others are beneath you. ( I grew up in a very diverse community, everyone is their own person and individual, stereotyping showed ignorance, and everyone is equal)
I see it like this, as a DM/GM when I wish to explain various civilizations and cultures, using the term “Species” makes me think I’m describing them like a BBEG would, doesn’t sit right.
You can call them whatever the heck you like in your home games. There’s no D&D police that are going to come confiscate your PHB if you use a different terminology for them than what WotC uses. Call them ocozirons if you want to. I didn’t trademark it or anything. So why the hell should it matter what word WotC uses? That’s what I don’t understand.
It reminds me of David Attenborough, he would do nature documentaries on different creatures, and how different they were, and how they adapt to world they live in. Kinda stuffy to me at least, but descriptive.
Of course I know who Attenborough is he worked on great documentaries. Entertaining and educational kind of like adult oriented School House Rock without the cartoons and catchy songs. So it reminds you of Attenborough. So what? And not for nothing but aren’t humans and elves and such all different and don’t they all have to adapt to the worlds they live in? Seems like it applies to me. And elves are kinda stuffy lots of times too so it fits.
I honestly don’t get why this whole terminology thing was important enough to change in the first place. I understand it but I don’t get it. But whatever. If it’s important enough to some people to drive them to change it then so what? So they change it. I don’t understand at all why anyone would care enough to make a fuss against changing it though. I mean it. This whole thing seems silly to me in the first place. It’s a word to describe a variation among different made up people. Who really cares enough about it to be upset that they changed it? Why? Legitimately. Why? That’s not a rhetorical question either. I really do want to know why anyone on earth would care enough about it to be upset about this change in terminology. What possible difference could it make? Like I said I understand why people cared enough tho change it. I may not think it mattered but at least I can understand their reasoning for why it mattered to them. But why should it matter to anyone the other way? Who cares?
Because, the semantics make some people feel better.
I’m sorry but I still don’t understand. Could you maybe explain it a little more? Like I said before I understand why some people feel better using a term other than race. I may still think it’s silly but at least it makes sense to me. I can wrap my head around their reasons. But why get upset over species? They could make up a completely new word like “ocozirons” or something like J.K. did with muggle and it still wouldn’t make any difference to me so I got no skin in the game. I care more about the ASIs going away and moving to backgrounds than I do about what word they use. I just would like to understand why “species” should legitimately bother anyone.
I don't know if you've seen the web series Gamers II - Dorkness Rising, but there is this scene where the monk pulls out a lightsaber and the DM is like "No, you can't have a lightsaber, it's the wrong system, genre, timezone, the wrong everything", and the player says: "This isn't a 'lightsaber', this is a psionic spirit blade."
On the one hand one can argue that 'a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."; but one can also argue that said quote is false. The 'lightsaber' or 'laser sword' etc. names presume a sciencey origin to the blade being made of light while calling it a 'brilliant/radient energy or psionic/spiritual etc weapon name presumes a more magical origin to the blade being made of light. Despite the blade being made of light in both cases, the magical name better suits a campaign set in the high medieval period where the sciency name better suits a campaign set in a futuristic environment like for example one of those post-apocalyptic stories where the world reset to a more primitive state but remnants of high technology are still present, like Vampire Hunter D or The tv adaptation of Shannara.
The flavor is wrong if the name doesn't suit the setting it is in. Like Golemtech vs Cybertech. Only one of those words belongs in a medieval themed world and not the other.
"Species" just has that feel to it that it's an appropriate word for Starwars/Startrek/Battlestar Galactica etc.; but I just can't imagine Elrond drafting a document of alliance between the species' of Men and Elves rather than the races of Men and Elves.
I could imagine it being between the Nation(s) of Men and Elves, or the Societies of Men and Elves, or the Elven people and Mankind, etc.; but I just don't see him using the term species in that manner.
Species in earlier times I think would in fact be used to describe different kinds of minerals, or fluids etc.
I could totally imagine Elrond “forging an alliance between the species of men and elves.” It only seems weird because you have this idea that the word “species” is strictly scientific and not generally descriptive. It’s what my friend calls “the used to factor.” It’s what you’re “used to” and you just can’t shake it. But just like when you get a new car you eventually stop being used to the old one and get used to the new one and then the difference between what you “were used to” and what you “are used to” fades away. If you hear and use the word species in newer less scientific applications you’ll get used to different associations with that word.
Plus on top of that the only reason the word sounds “sciency” and anachronistic to you is because you aren’t familiar with the etymology. It comes from Middle English and was derived from Latin. You know Chaucer? The guy who wrote the really long set of stories about the knight who traveled to a competition and all the different people he met along the road? The story that was so written in Middle English it hurts to read it? The same Middle English that Edward III, and Richard II spoke?
The first recorded use of the word “species” was in the 14th century. Just to contextualize that for you that was roughly around the point in history when the prevalence of the English longbow was making mounted charges by heavy cavalry obsolete. Only the French were too stubborn to realize it yet and kept charging headlong on horseback at them and either getting turned into pincushions or crushed by their own horses that were getting shot out from under them. Good times.
Is that ye olde enough for species to not be scifi for you anymore?
Nope, still comes off as though it's a borg speaking, not some living individual. If Elron had used Species rather than what was used, he’d sound like a contemptuous a-hole IMO.
And so what if the age a word has been around for centuries. It doesn’t mean everyone cares to use it when as been said before “sooner or later you get used to it’s usage” hasn’t caught on by now.
P.s: the only reason specices was chosen is because the feedback on what would be a better term was limited to the fact that in order to give feedback on it, one had to have a DDB account. ( I wonder what a general public survey of what a better term might be would have looked like, but it is what it is )
Elrond is a contemptuous a-hole, pretty much all the elves of middle earth are. And the depiction of the different types of humanoids in LotR would make them species in the scientific sense. We only have evidence of very limited inter-mixing between elves and humans, all of the different humanoids live in different geographically restricted areas, and they preferentially have families with their own kind. So there is negligible gene flow between the populations.
I see it like this, as a DM/GM when I wish to explain various civilizations and cultures, using the term “Species” makes me think I’m describing them like a BBEG would, doesn’t sit right.
You can call them whatever the heck you like in your home games. There’s no D&D police that are going to come confiscate your PHB if you use a different terminology for them than what WotC uses. Call them ocozirons if you want to. I didn’t trademark it or anything. So why the hell should it matter what word WotC uses? That’s what I don’t understand.
It reminds me of David Attenborough, he would do nature documentaries on different creatures, and how different they were, and how they adapt to world they live in. Kinda stuffy to me at least, but descriptive.
Of course I know who Attenborough is he worked on great documentaries. Entertaining and educational kind of like adult oriented School House Rock without the cartoons and catchy songs. So it reminds you of Attenborough. So what? And not for nothing but aren’t humans and elves and such all different and don’t they all have to adapt to the worlds they live in? Seems like it applies to me. And elves are kinda stuffy lots of times too so it fits.
I honestly don’t get why this whole terminology thing was important enough to change in the first place. I understand it but I don’t get it. But whatever. If it’s important enough to some people to drive them to change it then so what? So they change it. I don’t understand at all why anyone would care enough to make a fuss against changing it though. I mean it. This whole thing seems silly to me in the first place. It’s a word to describe a variation among different made up people. Who really cares enough about it to be upset that they changed it? Why? Legitimately. Why? That’s not a rhetorical question either. I really do want to know why anyone on earth would care enough about it to be upset about this change in terminology. What possible difference could it make? Like I said I understand why people cared enough tho change it. I may not think it mattered but at least I can understand their reasoning for why it mattered to them. But why should it matter to anyone the other way? Who cares?
Because, the semantics make some people feel better.
I’m sorry but I still don’t understand. Could you maybe explain it a little more? Like I said before I understand why some people feel better using a term other than race. I may still think it’s silly but at least it makes sense to me. I can wrap my head around their reasons. But why get upset over species? They could make up a completely new word like “ocozirons” or something like J.K. did with muggle and it still wouldn’t make any difference to me so I got no skin in the game. I care more about the ASIs going away and moving to backgrounds than I do about what word they use. I just would like to understand why “species” should legitimately bother anyone.
I don't know if you've seen the web series Gamers II - Dorkness Rising, but there is this scene where the monk pulls out a lightsaber and the DM is like "No, you can't have a lightsaber, it's the wrong system, genre, timezone, the wrong everything", and the player says: "This isn't a 'lightsaber', this is a psionic spirit blade."
On the one hand one can argue that 'a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."; but one can also argue that said quote is false. The 'lightsaber' or 'laser sword' etc. names presume a sciencey origin to the blade being made of light while calling it a 'brilliant/radient energy or psionic/spiritual etc weapon name presumes a more magical origin to the blade being made of light. Despite the blade being made of light in both cases, the magical name better suits a campaign set in the high medieval period where the sciency name better suits a campaign set in a futuristic environment like for example one of those post-apocalyptic stories where the world reset to a more primitive state but remnants of high technology are still present, like Vampire Hunter D or The tv adaptation of Shannara.
The flavor is wrong if the name doesn't suit the setting it is in. Like Golemtech vs Cybertech. Only one of those words belongs in a medieval themed world and not the other.
"Species" just has that feel to it that it's an appropriate word for Starwars/Startrek/Battlestar Galactica etc.; but I just can't imagine Elrond drafting a document of alliance between the species' of Men and Elves rather than the races of Men and Elves.
I could imagine it being between the Nation(s) of Men and Elves, or the Societies of Men and Elves, or the Elven people and Mankind, etc.; but I just don't see him using the term species in that manner.
Species in earlier times I think would in fact be used to describe different kinds of minerals, or fluids etc.
I could totally imagine Elrond “forging an alliance between the species of men and elves.” It only seems weird because you have this idea that the word “species” is strictly scientific and not generally descriptive. It’s what my friend calls “the used to factor.” It’s what you’re “used to” and you just can’t shake it. But just like when you get a new car you eventually stop being used to the old one and get used to the new one and then the difference between what you “were used to” and what you “are used to” fades away. If you hear and use the word species in newer less scientific applications you’ll get used to different associations with that word.
Plus on top of that the only reason the word sounds “sciency” and anachronistic to you is because you aren’t familiar with the etymology. It comes from Middle English and was derived from Latin. You know Chaucer? The guy who wrote the really long set of stories about the knight who traveled to a competition and all the different people he met along the road? The story that was so written in Middle English it hurts to read it? The same Middle English that Edward III, and Richard II spoke?
The first recorded use of the word “species” was in the 14th century. Just to contextualize that for you that was roughly around the point in history when the prevalence of the English longbow was making mounted charges by heavy cavalry obsolete. Only the French were too stubborn to realize it yet and kept charging headlong on horseback at them and either getting turned into pincushions or crushed by their own horses that were getting shot out from under them. Good times.
Is that ye olde enough for species to not be scifi for you anymore?
Nope, still comes off as though it's a borg speaking, not some living individual. If Elron had used Species rather than what was used, he’d sound like a contemptuous a-hole IMO.
And so what if the age a word has been around for centuries. It doesn’t mean everyone cares to use it when as been said before “sooner or later you get used to it’s usage” hasn’t caught on by now.
P.s: the only reason specices was chosen is because the feedback on what would be a better term was limited to the fact that in order to give feedback on it, one had to have a DDB account. ( I wonder what a general public survey of what a better term might be would have looked like, but it is what it is )
Did we read the same book? Or did you read an abridged children’s version or something? Because Elrond was an *******. I really don’t think his saying “species” instead of “race” would have made him come off as anymor assholish than he already did. I mean he would have to work pretty hard to come off as too much more of an ******* and still qualify as one of the “good guys.” He was pretty much a 6-foot dick with pointy ears.
Here is the reality - you can keep using whatever word you want to use, but you have no right to tell Wizards what word they should use.
Wizards has basically acknowledged "listen, our game's most famous founder was a racist and when use used the word 'race' he often did so with some really, really problematic views in mind. Nothing really wrong with the word 'race' as a word, but there is something wrong with our historical usage of the word. We did a poll of the community and species won so, guess that is what we are going with."
It really is not a big deal for most people. Sure, those who share, let's call them "Gygax's biological determinism" views (as, if one looks at your posting history, seem to be the views that drove you to make some of your first comments on this forum), might be upset about the changes and think they are awful
--but most people fall into the category of either (a) understanding and trying to update their language to meet the new norm, (b) understanding and recognizing the change makes sense for Wizards, but knowing they do not need to update their own language... but also not feeling the need to attack Wizards for Wizards' choice, or (c) not caring about any of the politics behind it and just updating their language to match what the book says (I expect this is the largest group).
Of course I do. I'm the customer. By default that gives as much right as any other customer to do so.
Yeah, I don't believe people anymore when they tell me "so-and-so" was a 'racist'. The term is too commonly ascribed these days to pretty much just normal people who are passive or apathetic about the issue rather than being 'militantly anti-racist' - and yes, I admit to being passive/apathetic about the issue myself.
I don't limit it to 'biological' and lean more towards the metaphysical explanations for it, but yes, I believe the creature types in D&D are clear products of determinism: whether it should be by intelligent design or by biological processes makes no difference to me.
I disagree about which side 'most people' are on. As far as I am concerned there may be more of you on this site to answer polls, but there are more of me overall out in twitter-verse/youtube-universe/etc.
I could totally imagine Elrond “forging an alliance between the species of men and elves.” It only seems weird because you have this idea that the word “species” is strictly scientific and not generally descriptive. It’s what my friend calls “the used to factor.” It’s what you’re “used to” and you just can’t shake it. But just like when you get a new car you eventually stop being used to the old one and get used to the new one and then the difference between what you “were used to” and what you “are used to” fades away. If you hear and use the word species in newer less scientific applications you’ll get used to different associations with that word.
Plus on top of that the only reason the word sounds “sciency” and anachronistic to you is because you aren’t familiar with the etymology. It comes from Middle English and was derived from Latin. You know Chaucer? The guy who wrote the really long set of stories about the knight who traveled to a competition and all the different people he met along the road? The story that was so written in Middle English it hurts to read it? The same Middle English that Edward III, and Richard II spoke?
The first recorded use of the word “species” was in the 14th century. Just to contextualize that for you that was roughly around the point in history when the prevalence of the English longbow was making mounted charges by heavy cavalry obsolete. Only the French were too stubborn to realize it yet and kept charging headlong on horseback at them and either getting turned into pincushions or crushed by their own horses that were getting shot out from under them. Good times.
Is that ye olde enough for species to not be scifi for you anymore?
Well, you asked why someone might be motivated to oppose the change, and that's an answer. Just because you can explain away my concerns doesn't make me change how I feel about them.
Unfortunately, no, I'm not very familiar with Chaucer, sorry.
Race and Species are in the same boat. They both have older meanings/connotation and modern meanings/connotations, and people on either side are uncomfortable with the modern meanings/connotations of either word.
Really, I'm sure there are words that people on both sides can agree are comfortable and could be arrived at with a bit more effort from WOTC to discover them. Like you even said, they probably could even just make up a brand new word, and it would be more suitable than a word that comes with baggage for either side.
So, I'm probably going to regret this, but:
Why do you think Elrond was an A-hole?
It's been a while since I've read the books versus watching the movies as an annual tradition, so maybe Peter Jackson spruced Elrond up a bit from what he is supposed to be; but I don't find him to particularly off-putting myself. Ditto for the elves at large. I don't understand where all this bad blood towards Tolkien's elves comes from.
Worse, I am under the impression that Tolkien didn't just 'make up' his elves, but rather tried to represent the preexisting Germanic lore pertaining to elves from sources like the Edda. So this bad blood against his interpretation of elves seems to me to be bad blood against some of the real mythological lore concerning elves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
1. If a two creatures can reproduce without any sort of shapechanging (wild shape, polymorph, shapeshift, etc.), then they are of the same species.
2. Technically in real life, there aren’t any racial differences significant enough to be reflected as a change in someone’s stat block. African-Americans, Caucasians, Asians, Russians, etc. would all have the same set of stat blocks.
3. The various types of humanoids are wildly different in regards to traits, and therefore have greater biological differences than real life humans, but less biological differences than chimps vs. humans.
4. You could call them different breeds, but that is inherently dehumanizing, so that doesn’t work well for humanoids.
Under these circumstances, is doesn’t make sense to define orcs and elves as different species, as they CAN reproduce. BUT, defining them as different races also doesn’t necessarily make as much sense, since they are so much more different than real-life racial extremes.
However, it’s a lot easier to simply say “racism” than “ancestorism” or “liniagism”, and orc vs. elf racism functions the same way as real life racism.
So, in my opinion, creatures such as elves/orcs, greens/silvers (dragons), and so on, are different races, to make it simple.
At the same time, creatures such as humanoids/dragons are different species, as they can only reproduce with each other through the aid of magic.
(although males cannot reproduce with males [biological sex, not gender identify], they are still counted as the same species due to their nearly identical genomes)
1. If a two creatures can reproduce without any sort of shapechanging (wild shape, polymorph, shapeshift, etc.), then they are of the same species.
2. Technically in real life, there aren’t any racial differences significant enough to be reflected as a change in someone’s stat block. African-Americans, Caucasians, Asians, Russians, etc. would all have the same set of stat blocks.
3. The various types of humanoids are wildly different in regards to traits, and therefore have greater biological differences than real life humans, but less biological differences than chimps vs. humans.
4. You could call them different breeds, but that is inherently dehumanizing, so that doesn’t work well for humanoids.
Under these circumstances, is doesn’t make sense to define orcs and elves as different species, as they CAN reproduce. BUT, defining them as different races also doesn’t necessarily make as much sense, since they are so much more different than real-life racial extremes.
However, it’s a lot easier to simply say “racism” than “ancestorism” or “liniagism”, and orc vs. elf racism functions the same way as real life racism.
So, in my opinion, creatures such as elves/orcs, greens/silvers (dragons), and so on, are different races, to make it simple.
At the same time, creatures such as humanoids/dragons are different species, as they can only reproduce with each other through the aid of magic.
(although males cannot reproduce with males [biological sex, not gender identify], they are still counted as the same species due to their nearly identical genomes)
Two creatures can reproduce without being members of the same species. Donkey+Horse=Mule doesn't make donkeys and horses the same species. It just makes Mules a specific exception to a more general rule. 'Typically', two different species (in real life [or low-magic/fantasy material planes perhaps]) cannot reproduce; however sometimes they can.
That is because the real-life (modern) use of the term race is wrong and a lie. Species won in real-life too, but once upon a time you could talk of eagles, condors, hawks and falcons as being different races of Birds (also as different nations of birds in certain pre-Columbian cultures). Race did basically literally mean species. It didn't mean meaningless cosmetic differences. This older context is how the term is applied in fantasy settings.
Chimps and Humans only have about 1%-4% of biological difference depending on the type of study you read. We are literally sibling clades. The fantasy races are not this or more or similarly closely related. That really isn't how it's meant to work. The majority have no relation at all whatsoever to one another. They are literally products of special creation from different and often competing gods.
Breed, Strain, Variety, Form, et al are all words out of taxonomy. They are used by humans to classify a world full of life amongst which they are unique. None would seem to suit a classification system for a universe/metaverse/polyverse/multiverse/etc. full of, albeit unrelated, sapient beings.
Though I disagree they can actually interbreed (From the lore I am familiar with, their flesh is anathema to one another: though half-elves and half-orcs can interbreed if I am remembering correctly.), Elves and Orcs are a more special case than many of the other creature-types. In some of the lore, from Tolkien to Elder Scrolls, to Exandria, Orcs literally are Elves who have been corrupted by some factor and so really are members of the same species. In other versions of the lore such as from Toril (and greyhawk?), Elves and Orcs each formed from the shed blood of their gods during one particular fight. However, it's also been postulated that Gruumsh and Corellon are actually twin brothers, both formerly formless shapeshifters who were in their favored forms at the time. Elves and Orcs mirror the favored form of their gods that were worn when they were created, and if so, then again, despite appearances, they would literally be not only members of the same species, but actual first cousins too. Again, though this is a rather unique relationship then what are between many other creatures in the setting.
? Are dragons in human form still dragons as far as you are concerned or are they human while in human form?
Consider that as Dragons can take human form; once upon a time another creature-type capable of taking a mortal form took on the form of "elf"; but then got stuck in it. You seem to consider elves to be 'humans', but are they if they are merely bound in that form like calypso in pirates; or are they still the heavenly or Fae beings they once were when their true form was a spirit-form?
The concept of biological classification rarely considers alterations in its calculation of what a creature is. It doesnt matter if a human altered themselves to be more cat like, its not going to change its species.
That said, this is a fantasy world different from our own, it isnt required that words mean the same things we use them for. Especially scientific naming, as the place isnt really very scientific. Races in dnd were never scientific terms, species in dnd also is probably not a scientific term.
IMO the problem isnt that the definition is inaccurate, most definitions are inaccurate by our worlds standards, its that it sounds weird to most real people now.
Because, the semantics make some people feel better.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I’m sorry but I still don’t understand. Could you maybe explain it a little more? Like I said before I understand why some people feel better using a term other than race. I may still think it’s silly but at least it makes sense to me. I can wrap my head around their reasons. But why get upset over species? They could make up a completely new word like “ocozirons” or something like J.K. did with muggle and it still wouldn’t make any difference to me so I got no skin in the game. I care more about the ASIs going away and moving to backgrounds than I do about what word they use. I just would like to understand why “species” should legitimately bother anyone.
I see it like this, as a DM/GM when I wish to explain various civilizations and cultures, using the term “Species” makes me think I’m describing them like a BBEG would, doesn’t sit right.
If you're describing civilizations and cultures... why are you talking about species to start with? Most major cultures in D&D-type settings aren't single species to start with.
Eh, there's a lot of variance there. Elven and dwarven nations/settlements with their own culture are quite prevalent in some of their biggest settings like the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, for instance, and even in melting pot places like Neverwinter or Waterdeep within the FR the implication is typically that the majority of the population is human.
As much as some people like to actively attack the suggestion that species and culture can correlate in a setting, it is not an inherently flawed premise to work from, particularly when the default D&D explanation for the origin of the species is "various gods formed the various races/species and placed them on different parts of the map". Which is not to say that going in the other direction is impossible, just that both are legitimate setting choices for spec-fic. Personally I kinda like it for the thought exercise of working out "how might the race traits influence the direction their culture would develop in".
As been stated before, for some people Species just has a connotation that sits differently for different people.
Sure it’s scientifically correct, but i’m not playing a sci-fi game. It feels like it’s setting a player vs D/GM tone and imparts a hesitation in it’s usage.
Whats worng with instead of Species “Person/Peoples” is used? I’ m sure most individuals have no issue with this do they?
You can call them whatever the heck you like in your home games. There’s no D&D police that are going to come confiscate your PHB if you use a different terminology for them than what WotC uses. Call them ocozirons if you want to. I didn’t trademark it or anything. So why the hell should it matter what word WotC uses? That’s what I don’t understand.
It reminds me of David Attenborough, he would do nature documentaries on different creatures, and how different they were, and how they adapt to world they live in. Kinda stuffy to me at least, but descriptive.
I don't know if you've seen the web series Gamers II - Dorkness Rising, but there is this scene where the monk pulls out a lightsaber and the DM is like "No, you can't have a lightsaber, it's the wrong system, genre, timezone, the wrong everything", and the player says: "This isn't a 'lightsaber', this is a psionic spirit blade."
On the one hand one can argue that 'a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."; but one can also argue that said quote is false. The 'lightsaber' or 'laser sword' etc. names presume a sciencey origin to the blade being made of light while calling it a 'brilliant/radient energy or psionic/spiritual etc weapon name presumes a more magical origin to the blade being made of light. Despite the blade being made of light in both cases, the magical name better suits a campaign set in the high medieval period where the sciency name better suits a campaign set in a futuristic environment like for example one of those post-apocalyptic stories where the world reset to a more primitive state but remnants of high technology are still present, like Vampire Hunter D or The tv adaptation of Shannara.
The flavor is wrong if the name doesn't suit the setting it is in. Like Golemtech vs Cybertech. Only one of those words belongs in a medieval themed world and not the other.
"Species" just has that feel to it that it's an appropriate word for Starwars/Startrek/Battlestar Galactica etc.; but I just can't imagine Elrond drafting a document of alliance between the species' of Men and Elves rather than the races of Men and Elves.
I could imagine it being between the Nation(s) of Men and Elves, or the Societies of Men and Elves, or the Elven people and Mankind, etc.; but I just don't see him using the term species in that manner.
Species in earlier times I think would in fact be used to describe different kinds of minerals, or fluids etc.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Species only feels that way because you are not used to it. The word is far older in origin than Race and, from an etymology point of view, probably fits better with the historical roots of planes like Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms than "Race" does. As people get used to species, it will feel more natural on the tongue. Further I expect that a significant number of players will adopt the phrasing fairly easily, since Wizards did not arrive at this word in a vacuum - they polled the community and species won over other options.
Here is the reality - you can keep using whatever word you want to use, but you have no right to tell Wizards what word they should use. Wizards has basically acknowledged "listen, our game's most famous founder was a racist and when use used the word 'race' he often did so with some really, really problematic views in mind. Nothing really wrong with the word 'race' as a word, but there is something wrong with our historical usage of the word. We did a poll of the community and species won so, guess that is what we are going with."
It really is not a big deal for most people. Sure, those who share, let's call them "Gygax's biological determinism" views (as, if one looks at your posting history, seem to be the views that drove you to make some of your first comments on this forum), might be upset about the changes and think they are awful--but most people fall into the category of either (a) understanding and trying to update their language to meet the new norm, (b) understanding and recognizing the change makes sense for Wizards, but knowing they do not need to update their own language... but also not feeling the need to attack Wizards for Wizards' choice, or (c) not caring about any of the politics behind it and just updating their language to match what the book says (I expect this is the largest group).
Of course I know who Attenborough is he worked on great documentaries. Entertaining and educational kind of like adult oriented School House Rock without the cartoons and catchy songs. So it reminds you of Attenborough. So what? And not for nothing but aren’t humans and elves and such all different and don’t they all have to adapt to the worlds they live in? Seems like it applies to me. And elves are kinda stuffy lots of times too so it fits.
I could totally imagine Elrond “forging an alliance between the species of men and elves.” It only seems weird because you have this idea that the word “species” is strictly scientific and not generally descriptive. It’s what my friend calls “the used to factor.” It’s what you’re “used to” and you just can’t shake it. But just like when you get a new car you eventually stop being used to the old one and get used to the new one and then the difference between what you “were used to” and what you “are used to” fades away. If you hear and use the word species in newer less scientific applications you’ll get used to different associations with that word.
Plus on top of that the only reason the word sounds “sciency” and anachronistic to you is because you aren’t familiar with the etymology. It comes from Middle English and was derived from Latin. You know Chaucer? The guy who wrote the really long set of stories about the knight who traveled to a competition and all the different people he met along the road? The story that was so written in Middle English it hurts to read it? The same Middle English that Edward III, and Richard II spoke?
The first recorded use of the word “species” was in the 14th century. Just to contextualize that for you that was roughly around the point in history when the prevalence of the English longbow was making mounted charges by heavy cavalry obsolete. Only the French were too stubborn to realize it yet and kept charging headlong on horseback at them and either getting turned into pincushions or crushed by their own horses that were getting shot out from under them. Good times.
Is that ye olde enough for species to not be scifi for you anymore?
Nope, still comes off as though it's a borg speaking, not some living individual. If Elron had used Species rather than what was used, he’d sound like a contemptuous a-hole IMO.
And so what if the age a word has been around for centuries. It doesn’t mean everyone cares to use it when as been said before “sooner or later you get used to it’s usage” hasn’t caught on by now.
P.s: the only reason specices was chosen is because the feedback on what would be a better term was limited to the fact that in order to give feedback on it, one had to have a DDB account. ( I wonder what a general public survey of what a better term might be would have looked like, but it is what it is )
for whatever reason it sent the post twice.
so as an edit I have no issue with it being in the books, it just reads and comes off as; if your using it as an NPC, you sound like others are beneath you. ( I grew up in a very diverse community, everyone is their own person and individual, stereotyping showed ignorance, and everyone is equal)
Not quite the tone I want to convey personally.
Elrond is a contemptuous a-hole, pretty much all the elves of middle earth are. And the depiction of the different types of humanoids in LotR would make them species in the scientific sense. We only have evidence of very limited inter-mixing between elves and humans, all of the different humanoids live in different geographically restricted areas, and they preferentially have families with their own kind. So there is negligible gene flow between the populations.
Did we read the same book? Or did you read an abridged children’s version or something? Because Elrond was an *******. I really don’t think his saying “species” instead of “race” would have made him come off as anymor assholish than he already did. I mean he would have to work pretty hard to come off as too much more of an ******* and still qualify as one of the “good guys.” He was pretty much a 6-foot dick with pointy ears.
So, I'm probably going to regret this, but:
Why do you think Elrond was an A-hole?
It's been a while since I've read the books versus watching the movies as an annual tradition, so maybe Peter Jackson spruced Elrond up a bit from what he is supposed to be; but I don't find him to particularly off-putting myself. Ditto for the elves at large. I don't understand where all this bad blood towards Tolkien's elves comes from.
Worse, I am under the impression that Tolkien didn't just 'make up' his elves, but rather tried to represent the preexisting Germanic lore pertaining to elves from sources like the Edda. So this bad blood against his interpretation of elves seems to me to be bad blood against some of the real mythological lore concerning elves.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Let's knock off the Lord of the Rings (and other off topic) discussion and stay on topic
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Here is my two cents:
1. If a two creatures can reproduce without any sort of shapechanging (wild shape, polymorph, shapeshift, etc.), then they are of the same species.
2. Technically in real life, there aren’t any racial differences significant enough to be reflected as a change in someone’s stat block. African-Americans, Caucasians, Asians, Russians, etc. would all have the same set of stat blocks.
3. The various types of humanoids are wildly different in regards to traits, and therefore have greater biological differences than real life humans, but less biological differences than chimps vs. humans.
4. You could call them different breeds, but that is inherently dehumanizing, so that doesn’t work well for humanoids.
Under these circumstances, is doesn’t make sense to define orcs and elves as different species, as they CAN reproduce. BUT, defining them as different races also doesn’t necessarily make as much sense, since they are so much more different than real-life racial extremes.
However, it’s a lot easier to simply say “racism” than “ancestorism” or “liniagism”, and orc vs. elf racism functions the same way as real life racism.
So, in my opinion, creatures such as elves/orcs, greens/silvers (dragons), and so on, are different races, to make it simple.
At the same time, creatures such as humanoids/dragons are different species, as they can only reproduce with each other through the aid of magic.
(although males cannot reproduce with males [biological sex, not gender identify], they are still counted as the same species due to their nearly identical genomes)
Two creatures can reproduce without being members of the same species. Donkey+Horse=Mule doesn't make donkeys and horses the same species. It just makes Mules a specific exception to a more general rule. 'Typically', two different species (in real life [or low-magic/fantasy material planes perhaps]) cannot reproduce; however sometimes they can.
That is because the real-life (modern) use of the term race is wrong and a lie. Species won in real-life too, but once upon a time you could talk of eagles, condors, hawks and falcons as being different races of Birds (also as different nations of birds in certain pre-Columbian cultures). Race did basically literally mean species. It didn't mean meaningless cosmetic differences. This older context is how the term is applied in fantasy settings.
Chimps and Humans only have about 1%-4% of biological difference depending on the type of study you read. We are literally sibling clades. The fantasy races are not this or more or similarly closely related. That really isn't how it's meant to work. The majority have no relation at all whatsoever to one another. They are literally products of special creation from different and often competing gods.
Breed, Strain, Variety, Form, et al are all words out of taxonomy. They are used by humans to classify a world full of life amongst which they are unique. None would seem to suit a classification system for a universe/metaverse/polyverse/multiverse/etc. full of, albeit unrelated, sapient beings.
Though I disagree they can actually interbreed (From the lore I am familiar with, their flesh is anathema to one another: though half-elves and half-orcs can interbreed if I am remembering correctly.), Elves and Orcs are a more special case than many of the other creature-types. In some of the lore, from Tolkien to Elder Scrolls, to Exandria, Orcs literally are Elves who have been corrupted by some factor and so really are members of the same species. In other versions of the lore such as from Toril (and greyhawk?), Elves and Orcs each formed from the shed blood of their gods during one particular fight. However, it's also been postulated that Gruumsh and Corellon are actually twin brothers, both formerly formless shapeshifters who were in their favored forms at the time. Elves and Orcs mirror the favored form of their gods that were worn when they were created, and if so, then again, despite appearances, they would literally be not only members of the same species, but actual first cousins too. Again, though this is a rather unique relationship then what are between many other creatures in the setting.
? Are dragons in human form still dragons as far as you are concerned or are they human while in human form?
Consider that as Dragons can take human form; once upon a time another creature-type capable of taking a mortal form took on the form of "elf"; but then got stuck in it. You seem to consider elves to be 'humans', but are they if they are merely bound in that form like calypso in pirates; or are they still the heavenly or Fae beings they once were when their true form was a spirit-form?
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.