General word for sapient creatures?

[Greywander]

We have monsters, we have beasts, but there doesn't seem to be a good word that refers generally to sapient creatures. "Humanoid" might be the closest thing, but it's not quite accurate (it just means "shaped like a human") and feels too human-centric. "Sapient creature" works, but feels too dry and scientific; it just doesn't feel right for a fantasy setting. Anyone know of a good alternative term?

One thing you could do, but this would need to be setting specific, is to combine the setting concepts of "no humans" and "only humans", were humans don't exist as a separate race and instead all intelligent races are referred to as humans. So elves and dwarves and such are different kinds of humans. But that's not a general solution that would work for every setting.

[LibraryOgre]

My preference is "sophont" for "creatures with an intelligence above what is considered animal".

[BRC]

One interesting solution I've seen is to keep "Human" "humanity" ect to refer to all sapients, and come up with another name for "Humans".

I think Dungeon Meshi tends to do this (Although I'm only reading translated versions, and it's subtle enough that I might be misreading it, but it's a good idea regardless), Humans are "Tallmen", As they are taller than halflings, dwarves, gnomes, and elves.

Although for an RPG that can get confusing "You see a Tallman (Which is to say a Human)".

[Mechalich]

We have monsters, we have beasts, but there doesn't seem to be a good word that refers generally to sapient creatures. "Humanoid" might be the closest thing, but it's not quite accurate (it just means "shaped like a human") and feels too human-centric. "Sapient creature" works, but feels too dry and scientific; it just doesn't feel right for a fantasy setting. Anyone know of a good alternative term?

'Mortals' sees a fair bit of use. Obviously, it's somewhat demeaning, and there are edge cases in terms of biologically immortal entities, but it has pretty good coverage.

[Batcathat]

Maybe just "people"? It's not tied to a specific species like humans and it's probably not something one would instinctively use about animals or (probably) monsters.

[stoutstien]

Are you looking for an in-game or out-game tag?

[False God]

After some thinking, I second "people/peoples".

"Peoples" differentiates from "animals" or "beasts" and even "monsters" well, without having to attach any presumptive tags like "intelligent" or "sapient" and feels lay enough that people(see, just used it, flows nicely!) in a non-scientific world would use it in their day-to-day.

[Rynjin]

Maybe just "people"? It's not tied to a specific species like humans and it's probably not something one would instinctively use about animals or (probably) monsters.

This is my general preference as well. "People" vs "animals" vs "monsters".

It gets more interesting when "monsters" (eg. goblins) start acting like "people" and that causes cognitive dissonance among the more established peoples.

[LibraryOgre]

This is my general preference as well. "People" vs "animals" vs "monsters".

It gets more interesting when "monsters" (eg. goblins) start acting like "people" and that causes cognitive dissonance among the more established peoples.

The difficulty some folks have with this is why I tend to say I'm more like Pratchett than like Tolkien.

[Batcathat]

This is my general preference as well. "People" vs "animals" vs "monsters".

It gets more interesting when "monsters" (eg. goblins) start acting like "people" and that causes cognitive dissonance among the more established peoples.

Yeah, the lines are almost guaranteed to get blurry regardless of the vocabulary. Now that I think about it, that could be true of animals as well, if they get intelligent enough.

[mucat]

"Incredible!" breathed Arthur, "the people!.. The things!.."
"The things," said Ford Prefect quietly, "are also people."
"The people..." resumed Arthur, "the... other people..."

- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

[Rynjin]

The difficulty some folks have with this is why I tend to say I'm more like Pratchett than like Tolkien.

It's probably my favorite consistent plot them in The Wandering Inn as well. Goblins and Antinium are considered monsters despite...objectively being not (having access to the level system makes you a person in that setting, or at leats that's the logic that societies use to determine personhood) and on the flipside legendary creatures like dragons and unicorns are revered despite objectively being monsters (they can't level).

That clash of culture is a driving force behind a lot of plots and never fails to deliver as things progress. There are exceptions to every rule, and it really shows a person or culture's character when asking how they DEAL with those exceptions to their arbitrary distinctions or just brush the hypocrisy aside as unimportant.

[King of Nowhere]

We have monsters, we have beasts, but there doesn't seem to be a good word that refers generally to sapient creatures. "Humanoid" might be the closest thing, but it's not quite accurate (it just means "shaped like a human") and feels too human-centric. "Sapient creature" works, but feels too dry and scientific; it just doesn't feel right for a fantasy setting. Anyone know of a good alternative term?

Sentient? It's what i use for my world

[Jay R]

I don't have a single term for sapient creatures. It's going to be hard to find a generic term that includes dragons, treants, many but not all outsiders, awakened trees and animals, etc.

What's clear is that it won't be a biological term. Clearly, intelligence comes from many different developments in a fantasy world.

If such a term exists in-world, it will probably be a legal term; this set of creatures is treated differently under the law. [If you get bitten by a dog, you can sue the dog's owner, but you can't sue the dog.] Under current law, the term is "person". A "person" in legal jargon is any entity that can understand the law, make contracts, be arrested, or get sued. A corporation is therefore a "person", but not a "human person". I therefore suspect that the legal term we are looking for is "person" / "persons".

"Humanoid" might be the closest thing, but it's not quite accurate (it just means "shaped like a human") and feels too human-centric.

Slight offshoot: My gnome character refers to elves, dwarves, humans, goblins, etc. as "gnomoids". He also tends to refer to his size as "normal" and human-size as "large", although I am always careful to add an explaining clause, to avoid confusing other players. "This sword was built for somebody normal sized -- maybe a hobbit or goblin."

[Chronos]

If you want a word for specifically sapient beings that have physical bodies (as opposed to, say, outsiders), then C. S. Lewis, in Out of the Silent Planet, gave us the word "hnau". Well, maybe: When the protagonist asked one of the Martians whether angels were included in the category of hnau, the Martian basically dodged the question and said that was a matter for a philosopher. But it's definitely a word that encompasses humans, all three species of sentient Martians, and the sentient Venusian species.

[Imbalance]

"Humanoid" tends to connotate toward a shape descriptor at my table. It's the adjective I use when the characters first see an upright, bipedal being with the same common proportions and accompaniment of limbs as a basic human specimen. I'll add relevant details from there, such as "humanoid but with wings," or "shorter humanoids cavorting around a campfire," or "a huge humanoid lumbers into view," etc.

I tend not to use "sapient," as I don't think that's something a PC can tell with basic perception, but may be revealed enough through interaction.

"Sentient," is a term that I've heard sometimes by others struggling to suss out the best way to describe societal beastmen, though I prefer it for constructs that become self-aware or awakened creatures. I'll describe the varied population of Neverwinter, for example, as "people," regardless of composition, but a specific person is an elf, a dwarf, or a human, etc. For explanatory, role-playing purposes, If the people are civilized, the people are people. If not, I don't call them such.

[Greywander]

Maybe just "people"? It's not tied to a specific species like humans and it's probably not something one would instinctively use about animals or (probably) monsters.

This feels a bit awkward at first, but it's growing on me. The legal precedent for "person" also lends a bit more credibility to people/person as an official term, and not just a colloquialism.

Oddly, the word "person" implies that personality is the defining factor of whether something is considered a person or not. Not intelligence, nor a soul, or most of the other qualifiers we would typically use to set ourselves apart from mere animals or robots or such.

Slight offshoot: My gnome character refers to elves, dwarves, humans, goblins, etc. as "gnomoids". He also tends to refer to his size as "normal" and human-size as "large", although I am always careful to add an explaining clause, to avoid confusing other players. "This sword was built for somebody normal sized -- maybe a hobbit or goblin."

I'm pretty sure I've seen or read something where a halfling refers to humans as "twicelings".

[Anymage]

As players/message board users, "sapient creature" works fine to cover the vast swath of creatures with the intelligence and moral agency to make and understand decisions.

As characters within the game? Real world humans have a long history of deciding which humans are actually people and which other humans are not-people. With different groups differing on who does or does not fall under that umbrella. With fantasy creatures thrown into the mix you'll likely see different creatures having differing opinions on who does or does not merit moral consideration, even if we on the outside would consider them all sapient creatures.

[paladinofshojo]

I always thought this is what the term “sentient” is for, no?

[halfeye]

I always thought this is what the term “sentient” is for, no?

"Sentient" means "has senses"; an amoeba qualifies, if only barely.

[Anonymouswizard]

'People' is probably what you'll get most people to agree on. 'Folk' would also work for a similar reason, and could work as a replacement for race/heritage as a game term.

In the setting I'm working on it's 'godblessed',but I'm trying to play into religion a lot more than RPGs normally do. So a recurring (but not universal) belief in the setting's faiths is that sapience (or your preferred term) has to be given by a divine being and can't arise naturally. The sapience of Outsiders is an open question, considering they tend not to appear in situations that are conductive to finding out.

[Vahnavoi]

I always thought this is what the term “sentient” is for, no?

It is a term used, yes. It is a term used under the premise that animals and such are non-sentient automatons, but this doesn't hold even in our world, nevermind mythology or fantasy with the occasional talking animal.

"Sapient" is barely an improvement, replacing "sentient" in vocabulary of those who grudgingly accept that non-humans are aware, but want to maintain a distinction between them and humans.

Personally, I use local language equivalent to "folk" and "people", defined roughly as species with culture groups, which is actually more stringent than sentient or sapient but still includes some real-life animals. But, if I want a catch-all phrase in English for living thinking beings, it is, well, "living thinking beings". Things that think but aren't living are "spirits" or "d(a)emons".

[Zuras]

Some sci-fi series use the term “sophont”.

[Batcathat]

Oddly, the word "person" implies that personality is the defining factor of whether something is considered a person or not. Not intelligence, nor a soul, or most of the other qualifiers we would typically use to set ourselves apart from mere animals or robots or such.

That is kind of a good point. At least in real life, getting everyone to agree on exactly what constitutes intelligence and what a soul is if even exists is bordering on impossible (both issues have much clearer answers in a lot of RPGs, obviously) so having personhood defined by who seems like a person (ie. has a personality) is reasonable. It's also pretty much what Turing tests and similar things test for.

[Morgaln]

To be honest, I have serious trouble applying the term "people" to something like, say, a beholder, or a demon, even though these are clearly sapient.

I'm trying to determine why that is and the closest I can come on a short notice is that people, to me, implies something like a society that isn't inherently inimical to other life (particularly humanoid life, I guess, considering I am a humanoid). That definition is incomplete, arbitrary and highly subjective, though. I'll have to give this more thought.

[Lord Torath]

I'm pretty sure I've seen or read something where a halfling refers to humans as "twicelings".

Rusty and Co.

[Rynjin]

To be honest, I have serious trouble applying the term "people" to something like, say, a beholder, or a demon, even though these are clearly sapient.

I'm trying to determine why that is and the closest I can come on a short notice is that people, to me, implies something like a society that isn't inherently inimical to other life (particularly humanoid life, I guess, considering I am a humanoid). That definition is incomplete, arbitrary and highly subjective, though. I'll have to give this more thought.

This is the exact cognitive dissonance I was talking about that leads to interesting thoughts at the table. Or in general to a certain extent.

If your argument for a Beholder and a Demon not being people is that they're Evil...does that make Evil humans, or elves, or what have you not people either? Is being Good or at least Neutral a prerequisite for personhood in your view?

[Morgaln]

This is the exact cognitive dissonance I was talking about that leads to interesting thoughts at the table. Or in general to a certain extent.

If your argument for a Beholder and a Demon not being people is that they're Evil...does that make Evil humans, or elves, or what have you not people either? Is being Good or at least Neutral a prerequisite for personhood in your view?

No, evil is not a problem. I can imagine evil people that are part of a society (whether they contribute or parasite on it is irrelevant here), and I can imagine societies that are predominantly evil. However, I have trouble seeing certain fantastical creatures as ever being part of such a society, at least in a D&D setting. Which is weird, because there are tons of other settings that have demons as part of society and I wouldn't have any problem calling them people in those settings.

As I said, my thoughts really aren't coherent on the matter. All I can say is that I can't, currently, think of sapient and people as synonymous, but I can't define the lines in a sensible manner. So I'm not trying to argue I'm right, I'm just stating my gut reaction. IT#s certainly an interesting philosophical question to ponder.

[Vahnavoi]

Let me try to help:

"People" and "folk" imply a social group. Demons and beholders, as often described, are anti-social to the extreme.

This relates to alignment, of all things, and the distinction between eusocial, social and solitary animals. This is not the Good-Evil axis, it's the Law-Chaos axis, where on one end we have collective groups and cultures and at the other solitary individualists, with small naturalist tribe or family groups in the middle.

[Imbalance]

That distinction, in my opinion, is dependent on whether the lore supports individual free will. People can choose to be good or evil, and also choose to change. Demons, in most cases, are written as having been created by evil entities for evil purposes. They may have been created with sapient minds, but perhaps lack the agency to behave in any way contrary to their given alignment. Unless the lore supports the possibility of an individual overcoming their creator's will and achieving self-choice, they are not a person. Further, if the lore does support it, is a self-determining demon really a demon at all?

Beholders - aberrations, more broadly - are the very definition of not-people. That's their whole point, to be the antithesis of normality. Individuals with sapience enough to choose how to behave may even integrate into a society in a fashion, but I would call it a facsimile of personhood, at best. I can imagine it, either way. There is precedent for a beholder crime boss, after all. Can you picture a beholder priest of Selune? Parishioners know it as Reverend Moon-Eye... How about a restaurant run by illithids? Known far and wide for the fact that customers frequently go insane or have their brains casually sucked out by passing wait staff. And you might wonder why anyone would ever eat there, but even more famous is the food. The soup is to die for! Best of all it's all you can eat for free, breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Dine-in only.