Bergman's rule

[Gwaednerth]

So in ecology there are these two rules, Bergman's rule and Allen's rule. Bergman's rule states that species adapted to colder climates will have greater volume than their more equatorial counterparts, and allen's rule stipulates that species living in colder environments will have less of their volume distributed vertically.

Considering these rules, we can see some odd trends in D&D races. Dwarves, for instance, are typically described as northern (and often come with Scottish accents and Norse deities). They follow Allen's rule, because they're short and broad, but not Bergman's rule, because their volume is about the same as a human. Orcs are the natural candidates for northerners, and I think modern interpretations tend to bear that out (though Tolkien's orcs certainly don't). Elves, it seems, should live far to the south. But in that case, they're hardly likely to have the classic fair skin because they'd need more melanin to stave off skin cancer.

So how do other people handle these ecological oddities?

[Potato_Priest]

Dwarves are in fact better suited to northern climates, because, though their volume may be the same as a human, their surface to volume ration is smaller, causing heat to leave them more slowly.

Also, keep in mind that elves and humans are not ecological counterparts. Elves might be more prone to eating vegetables, and when they do eat meat, it is probably of different sources than those mostly used by humans. They are also probably more based upon hunting and gathering, rather than agriculture. Because their niches are different, using these rules to compare the two races is akin to comparing a rhinoceros and a moose using the two rules mentioned above. (If you do use those rules, you would expect the rhino to be the northern species)

[Balyano]

Dwarves are in fact better suited to northern climates, because, though their volume may be the same as a human, their surface to volume ration is smaller, causing heat to leave them more slowly.

Also, keep in mind that elves and humans are not ecological counterparts. Elves might be more prone to eating vegetables, and when they do eat meat, it is probably of different sources than those mostly used by humans. They are also probably more based upon hunting and gathering, rather than agriculture. Because their niches are different, using these rules to compare the two races is akin to comparing a rhinoceros and a moose using the two rules mentioned above. (If you do use those rules, you would expect the rhino to be the northern species)

Correct on dwarves. But on elves IDK. They have the same basic body plan as humans so even with a different niche they should still follow the rule to some degree. (my elves originated in tropical jungles and then spread world wide, warm winter clothing, good furnaces and the inability to breed with the local races has slowed their ''thickening up''.)

And on an irrelevant issue I must disagree about elven diets, based on their faces they look like they would have weak jaws, small teeth, and narrow wastes. I suspect they are adapted to eating cooked meat. Plus they are very dexterous, great for sneaking around undetected by their prey. Keen senses of hearing and sight, see great in the dark old growth forests. Pointy ears suggests that their ear muscles are highly developed, allowing them to point their ears in the direction of a sound and home in on it. Great for locating animals when you can't see them due to undergrowth. And of course elves are proficient with bows. A hunting implement, what kind of herbivorous (or largely herbivorous) creature makes a hunting implement culturally central like that? No elves are ''mostly'' carnivorous, they eat some plants, mostly fruit and nuts, and get a lot of meat in their diets, that's why they don't have giant cities and massive populations. Some of the plants that humans eat may even make them ill, like a dog eating chocolate. An elven diet might give a human cardiovascular disease, a human diet might give an elf diabetes.

[Xuc Xac]

And of course elves are proficient with bows. A hunting implement, what kind of herbivorous (or largely herbivorous) creature makes a hunting implement culturally central like that?

A very long-lived but slowly reproducing one? Humans generally prefer missile weapons over melee because that's a safer way to fight. Elves have a lot more to lose if they get killed. If a human warrior gets killed in his prime, he loses a decade or two of good health and a decade or two of being a weak "elder". His human society will replace him with 5 more warriors in less than 2 decades. A young elf would lose centuries of prime life and elven society would take a century replacing him with one more.

Humans see orcs as the short-lived, fast breeding race that throws their lives away in violent conflicts for little gain. That's how elves see humans.

[Potato_Priest]

And on an irrelevant issue I must disagree about elven diets, based on their faces they look like they would have weak jaws, small teeth, and narrow wastes. I suspect they are adapted to eating cooked meat. Plus they are very dexterous, great for sneaking around undetected by their prey. Keen senses of hearing and sight, see great in the dark old growth forests. Pointy ears suggests that their ear muscles are highly developed, allowing them to point their ears in the direction of a sound and home in on it. Great for locating animals when you can't see them due to undergrowth. And of course elves are proficient with bows. A hunting implement, what kind of herbivorous (or largely herbivorous) creature makes a hunting implement culturally central like that? No elves are ''mostly'' carnivorous, they eat some plants, mostly fruit and nuts, and get a lot of meat in their diets, that's why they don't have giant cities and massive populations. Some of the plants that humans eat may even make them ill, like a dog eating chocolate. An elven diet might give a human cardiovascular disease, a human diet might give an elf diabetes.

These are all good points. Because elves, as you have clearly shown, are more adapted to hunting rather than farming, they probably tend to be lighter than humans, with longer legs in proportion to the rest of their bodies, to assist them in travelling, since most hunter societies tend to be pretty nomadic. Of course, all of this speculation is based on the idea that the different races once existed in a pre-civilization state, and have learned to make cities and such since. In some worlds, this might not be true due to recent creation by gods with little knowledge of ecology.

[Max_Killjoy]

Those sorts of ecological "rules" are fuzzy to begin with, and tend to get even fuzzier once a species is building structures and using tools.

Look at the range of environments occupied by "primitive" humans, and more broadly hominids in general.

[tantric]

then how about halflings and insular dwarfism - that being one explanation for Homo floresiensis. it might also be reasonable to have ogres as humanoids subject to insular gigantism (which produced a lemur larger than a gorilla)

[VoxRationis]

Ogres don't need insular gigantism to function—large anthropoids have evolved without it—but it's a satisfactory explanation.

If we are unsatisfied by dwarven volume compared with human volume, we should recall that the dwarves live underground and therefore have size limitations to contend with. Every inch of additional height or breadth could either entail an exodus to find a larger cave or a tremendous amount of labor to enlarge the tunnels.

I agree that the elves seem like a species that deals with heat. Aside from the fair skin, they actually seem like desert animals with a crepuscular lifestyle. Comments about elven carnivory make sense, though I've actually made dwarves carnivorous in past settings. Certainly the low reproductive rate makes sense for an apex predator.

It would seem odd that all these species share the traits which make humans so supremely adaptable but have biological specialization, though.

[Dusk Raven]

So in ecology there are these two rules, Bergman's rule and Allen's rule. Bergman's rule states that species adapted to colder climates will have greater volume than their more equatorial counterparts, and allen's rule stipulates that species living in colder environments will have less of their volume distributed vertically.

Considering these rules, we can see some odd trends in D&D races. Dwarves, for instance, are typically described as northern (and often come with Scottish accents and Norse deities). They follow Allen's rule, because they're short and broad, but not Bergman's rule, because their volume is about the same as a human.

Do humans follow Bergman's Rule, though? I've heard that peoples such as the Inuit are somewhat stocky but I don't remember reading anything about their volume... also, Dwarves actually do follow Bergman's Rule slightly, as in 3.5 and Pathfinder at least, they seem to be slightly heavier on average than humans, especially females.

As for elves, the traits mentioned seem interesting - having a predatory race that is agile and cunning and not portrayed as brutish like the Orcs would be nice. In addition, given how vital apex predators like wolves are - to the point of being called "keystone predators" - their typical role as guardians of the forests seems apt. And as for their diet, while I've seen some settings that have them favor plants for food or avoid meat outright (Eragon), there are exceptions (such as, if I recall correctly, the Bosmer of the Elder Scrolls universe).

[Farecry]

The only reason elves in Eragon avoid meat was that they shared in the thoughts of so many animals feeling the animals death wasn't something they wanted to feel. It really had nothing to do with protecting animals or food chains.

[Balyano]

Do humans follow Bergman's Rule, though? I've heard that peoples such as the Inuit are somewhat stocky but I don't remember reading anything about their volume... also, Dwarves actually do follow Bergman's Rule slightly, as in 3.5 and Pathfinder at least, they seem to be slightly heavier on average than humans, especially females.

Well, just a quick search, so take it with a grain of salt, but inuit men in 1963 averaged 5'4'' and 140 lbs. vietnamese men average 5'5'' and 117 lbs. That's only one comparison, but it does suggest that humans follow it to some degree, with the polar inuit having greater volume in relation to their height. It's about a 3 point difference in BMI.

[Mechalich]

Well, just a quick search, so take it with a grain of salt, but inuit men in 1963 averaged 5'4'' and 140 lbs. vietnamese men average 5'5'' and 117 lbs. That's only one comparison, but it does suggest that humans follow it to some degree, with the polar inuit having greater volume in relation to their height. It's about a 3 point difference in BMI.

Unfortunately, those stats have more to do with the struggle with obesity afflicting aboriginal North American populations due to living on a high fat diet heavily subsidized by their respective national governments (US and Canada) versus Vietnamese farmers struggling to meet subsistence requirements under a pre-Green Revolution agricultural regime. Besides, comparing a hunter-gatherer civilization to an agrarian one isn't an apples-to-apples comparison anyway. To do it properly you'd have to compare hunter-gatherer groups at different latitudes.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, just a quick search, so take it with a grain of salt, but inuit men in 1963 averaged 5'4'' and 140 lbs. vietnamese men average 5'5'' and 117 lbs. That's only one comparison, but it does suggest that humans follow it to some degree, with the polar inuit having greater volume in relation to their height. It's about a 3 point difference in BMI.

As noted, this is mainly a matter of diet.

People from those "ethnic lineages" who grow up eating a "western" diet tend to be much closer in size to people of any other "ethnic lineage" who grew up eating the same diet, than they are to their own ancestors eating the "local" diet.