Consistency in terms of names, descriptions etc.
kangaxx
Member Posts: 681
I would love to see the game being more consistent: Why do we need three different names for the same thing: Lycanthropes, Werewolves, Wolfweres? Keep it simple, devs — or are they different?
0
Comments
Lycanthrope - humans that can transform into an animal or gain animal characteristics. Although the term should be used only for humans that transform into wolves, its has been used to describe humans transforming into any kind of animal.
Werewolf - Human that can turn into a wolf.
Wolfwere - Wolf that can turn into a human.
Although, there would be a huge debate on this first point if this was a philosophy board. I believe that the original werewolf myth originated from a Jackal attack. There is a theory of reference called the 'causal theory of reference' which claims that the objects of our references are different than the descriptive definitions that we attribute to them. By this theory a 'werewolf' and a 'Lycanthrope' are actually talking only about Jackals.
However, the theory allows multiple historically linked causal chains and it is reasonably likely we can terminate this one in the 2ed Monster Manual which makes the second two distinctions. But, I'm fairly certain that they use the term 'Lycanthrope' to describe that whole class of beasts (which may or may not include wolfwares). (aside, I can imagine a cyberpunk setting where 'wolfware' is some sort of augmentation that makes cyber more wolf-like.)
But even here we're not quite done because there might be a logical contradiction in saying "Human that can turn into a wolf." (as well as the wolfware description.) This is not Tanthalas' fault. I believe that's the basic description. However, it might be argued that what it 'means' to be a human is to not be a wolf. To make this more clear, ask if it is possible that in some bizarre alternate universe, you could be a chair. This relies on the concept Kripke--generally considered a founder of the causal theory though he eschews all theories as a matter of practice--called an 'a posteriori necessity'. That is, there are necessary truths that we can discover empirically (systematic scientific observation and experimentation) just as there are mathematically necessary proofs we can discover rationally (basically by thinking about it). He equates the possibility that an x (say, me) can be a y (say, a wolf) given that x does not = y (I am not a wolf). If it is possible that an x can be a y, then an x IS, necessarily a y (it looks like an algebra equation for this very reason. The difference is that we discover empirically rather than define conceptually that one thing is different than the other.)
Interestingly, this basic logic is generally considered the only reasonable defense for dualism in contemporary philosophy of mind. This would be good for the philosophy of D&D as it takes a type of mind/body dualism for granted if it weren't for the fact that it precludes not just werewolf and wolfwares as described but also ghosts and specters.
If we're going to be "consistent" we're going to need to go into a lot more detail than most people can stomach.
*that the mind is something distinct from a physical body. D&D assumes Cartesian dualism that assumes conscious free will and the possibility for the separation of the mind and body. The current version in vogue today is known as epiphenomenalism which doesn't allow conscious free will--you could think of conscious experience as akin to the steam/waste of a locomotive--nor does it allow separation as it takes conscious experience to depend on changes in a physical system (body/brain).