General word for sapient creatures?

[Vahnavoi]

For the record, it's perfectly possible to run demons and such as anthropomorphized natural evils, meaning they might look like people but actually belong in the same bin with volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and plagues. Their "sapience" or question of their "free will" are red herrings in that context. They might appear to have such qualities, but it's just a diversion from th fact that they cause death and suffering by their nature.

As for aberrations, that category is a mixed bag and many of the published examples don't live up to their hype. Mindflayers, for example, are very much people - the kind of snooty people who think they can treat others however they wish because they're smarter than you. They pretty much exist to deconstruct the notion that being lawful and intelligent means being good.

[paladinofshojo]

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

Well I guess some beings have more “senses” than others

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.

I mean, yes you can make that argument philosophically, but in a legal/social sense we absolutely operate under the assumption that animals are non-sentient automatons.

Otherwise, the vast majority of humanity would have a lot to answer for given our exploitation and wholesale slaughter of billions of cows, chickens and pigs each year.

[Vahnavoi]

I mean, yes you can make that argument philosophically, but in a legal/social sense we absolutely operate under the assumption that animals are non-sentient automatons.

Otherwise, the vast majority of humanity would have a lot to answer for given our exploitation and wholesale slaughter of billions of cows, chickens and pigs each year.

It is not simply a philosophical argument, it's a biological one. Given our current understanding of how human life works and how other animal life works, there just isn't a hard binary of sentience, and these findings are beginning to be reflected in both social attitudes and laws. Both now and in history, some animals have been treated before the law and in the minds of humans as person. Even when that isn't the case, there are contemporary ethical guidelines for treatment of animals based on the notion that they can and do suffer, meaning careless slaughter of animals can does get people punished all the time.

The ethical burden for meat-eating is even older, with several major religions promoting veganism under the belief that killing and eating animals is morally wrong. In conclusion, you are simply observing that some people and some legal systems continue to operate under an obsolete idea of animal sentience that isn't and wasn't universally agreed upon at any point.

[Bohandas]

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

I thought sentient required qualia, not just senses

[paladinofshojo]

It is not simply a philosophical argument, it's a biological one. Given our current understanding of how human life works and how other animal life works, there just isn't a hard binary of sentience, and these findings are beginning to be reflected in both social attitudes and laws.

And this isn’t philosophical debate with extra steps?

The crux of the argument is that “do animals deserve better treatment?” Not “do animals process reality similar to us?” correct? The former is purely philosophical whereas the second is can be interpreted as either biological or philosophical depending on one’s own personal beliefs.

Both now and in history, some animals have been treated before the law and in the minds of humans as person. Even when that isn't the case, there are contemporary ethical guidelines for treatment of animals based on the notion that they can and do suffer, meaning careless slaughter of animals can does get people punished all the time.

I may be mistaken, but from my understanding, the treatment of animals largely depended on the religious significance of the animal. For instances, cats in Ancient Egypt were considered to be avatars of the goddess Bast so mistreating them was an automatic death sentence. Or how certain animals were dubbed “unclean” by some arbitrary law (a ruminant that doesn’t chew its own cud, etc.)

Furthermore, religious conviction also arguably caused a great amount of suffering to animals as well, considering how Jewish and Muslim dietary laws demand that an animal must be killed with their throats slit with a prayer to consecrate the carcass under God’s name. As well as the literal interpretation of Genesis giving Adam (and by extension, humanity) dominion over all animals seems to imply that it is our god given right to do with them as we see fit.

I am not denying that there haven’t been philosophers and theologians arguing that animals feel pain/shouldn’t be eaten/be treated humanely… what I am saying is that historically, such rhetoric has always been a minority, as it is even today.

The ethical burden for meat-eating is even older, with several major religions promoting veganism under the belief that killing and eating animals is morally wrong.

I may be mistaken, but I don’t think any religion has ever promoted veganism in itself.

The closest analog I can think of is Jainism, which is lacto-vegetarian with a caveat of not eating any root or underground vegetables such as potatoes, garlic, onion, etc. to prevent the entire plant from getting uprooted and killed.

In conclusion, you are simply observing that some people and some legal systems continue to operate under an obsolete idea of animal sentience that isn't and wasn't universally agreed upon at any point.

Are you implying that meat eaters and the societies that encourage the consumption of meat are a minority? Because I vehemently disagree with that observation friend.

[Vahnavoi]

I thought sentient required qualia, not just senses

You can add that to the definition. But do you have a good argument for why creatures with homologous sensory organs don't also experience homologous sensory qualia, that doesn't end up with it being impossible for you to prove other humans aren't philosophical zombies?

---

And this isn’t philosophical debate with extra steps?

In the sense that science is natural philosophy, yes. But that isn't a counterargument to what I said, because in that context empirical facts are also topics of philosophical discussion.

The crux of the argument is that “do animals deserve better treatment?” Not “do animals process reality similar to us?” correct? The former is purely philosophical whereas the second is can be interpreted as either biological or philosophical depending on one’s own personal beliefs.

The two are causally linked in minds of people: proponents for better treatment of animals do so because animals process reality in ways similar to us. To the degree animal cognition is amenable to empirical study, the ethical question is also a practical matter, which is already reflected in laws of various countries.

I may be mistaken, but from my understanding, the treatment of animals largely depended on the religious significance of the animal. For instances, cats in Ancient Egypt were considered to be avatars of the goddess Bast so mistreating them was an automatic death sentence. Or how certain animals were dubbed “unclean” by some arbitrary law (a ruminant that doesn’t chew its own cud, etc.)

Furthermore, religious conviction also arguably caused a great amount of suffering to animals as well, considering how Jewish and Muslim dietary laws demand that an animal must be killed with their throats slit with a prayer to consecrate the carcass under God’s name. As well as the literal interpretation of Genesis giving Adam (and by extension, humanity) dominion over all animals seems to imply that it is our god given right to do with them as we see fit.

You aren't wrong, these facts are just independent to the fact that animals have also been treated as persons at various points of time and space, and the fact that animals can be shown to be sentient to the degree anyone who is not you can be shown to be sentient.

I am not denying that there haven’t been philosophers and theologians arguing that animals feel pain/shouldn’t be eaten/be treated humanely… what I am saying is that historically, such rhetoric has always been a minority, as it is even today.

Whether or not some view is or has historically been a minority does not decide whether a belief holds or not. At some point, majority of people thought the world is a few thousand years old at most, and some still do. They were simply shown to be wrong in context of later empirical study.

I may be mistaken, but I don’t think any religion has ever promoted veganism in itself.

The closest analog I can think of is Jainism, which is lacto-vegetarian with a caveat of not eating any root or underground vegetables such as potatoes, garlic, onion, etc. to prevent the entire plant from getting uprooted and killed.

Are you operating under some very specific definition of veganism that I'm not aware of? Because if not, then Jainisn isn't an analog, it just an example of what I'm talking about. Other such sects have existed elsewhere.

Are you implying that meat eaters and the societies that encourage the consumption of meat are a minority? Because I vehemently disagree with that observation friend.

No. My claim was and is that the idea that animals are non-sentient automatons doesn't hold even in reality. Whether people who believe such a thing are minority or majority isn't the relevant point. Meat-eating is even further removed. For contrast, I actively hunt and eat animals that I consider to be sentient and maintain that I can do that ethically. The same kind of attitude would befit any barbarian tribe in a roleplaying game that happens to hunt intelligent animals or magical beasts for subsistence.

[Satinavian]

TDE uses "Kulturschaffende", which literally means "beings creating culture" and that is what it means in world as well.
(IRL the word also exists, but has the slightly different meaning of "person working in a culture related field".)

Now that kinda works, but it is not exactly the same as "sapient". It does have limits particularly with unique/artificial creatus or anthropomorphic manifestations of concepts. Those just can't have a culture. But it still catches nearly all intelligent living beings.

There are still some other edge cases, but those are kind of debated in-world as well, so it is not really a problem.

[MoiMagnus]

I'd suggest a name build around the concept of "souls", since it's something that can actually be magically quantified and detected in D&D-like universe, and closely match the concept you seek.

Not being a native speaker myself, my suggestion is probably going to sound weird, but something like "a soulful / the soulfuls" or maybe "a soully / the soullies" could work.

And yes, this doesn't solve the question of animal sapience, but it just refers to "the same solution as the one you picked for animal soul and afterlife". And generally if in your universe, animals have souls indistinguishable from "weird magical species", there is not much reasons to have a name that include all those species but not animals.

(For example, in one of my homebrew universes, the answer to the animal soul question is that "while the large majority of animals and machines don't have souls, it happens frequently that some of them to gain a soul through their social relationships with soulful individuals".)

[Jay R]

I don't if if this will affect the emotional response to referring to non-humans as "people", but as near as I can tell, in legal language, the plural is "persons", not people.

And I see that I made a mistake in my earlier post. Under the law, humans are "natural persons", as opposed to corporations, which are "corporate persons".

Also, it's a legal term. If a society didn't accept that, say, beholders, had rights and duties under the law, they would not be "persons".

Another annoying complexity is whether or not it is measured by species or by individual. A dog or a tree is not legal person (in our world). Would an awakened dog or tree be a "person"?

I would also point out that defining the limits is not a simple question. The definition of "man" (meaning human) accepted by many scientists used to be tool-user. When Jane Goodall demonstrated that chimpanzees used tools to get food, they changed the definition.

[Greywander]

When it comes to deciding what is or isn't a person, I typically see it being based on either intelligence or something to do with the soul. Of those two, I think the latter is more fitting for fantasy, while the former seems more appropriate for sci-fi. That said, I think basing personhood off of intelligence carries some unfortunate implications that carry over into real life (though I would hope we all understand that a fictional setting isn't the same thing as real life and can be different). It's not like we can see souls in real life, so you can say almost whatever you want about how a soul does or doesn't make something a person and it won't really mean anything in a real life context. But intelligence is something we can measure through IQ tests, or at the very least compare two things and determine which one is more intelligent.

I think my main issue with using intelligence as the determining factor for personhood is that tends to lead to non-binary personhood. Things are a lot easier when a thing either is or is not a person. But intelligence is not binary, and if that's our basis for personhood then it raises a lot of ethical questions. Especially intelligent animals might be granted partial or full personhood (which raises questions about the ethical treatment of animals), meanwhile less intelligent humans such as children or the mentally disabled might find their personhood revoked. And let me tell you, a world where children aren't considered people is almost guarantied to be very dark. It can also become a serious ethical question whether to save an innocent human or a group of animals, depending on the number and intelligence of those animals (their combined "personhood" might outweigh that of a human). Or similarly, it could be considered more ethical to give the last dose of a life-saving treatment to a wizened physics professor instead of a young child because the professor is smarter and thus "more" of a person.

Now, these could all be concerns for soul-based personhood, but only if you deliberately choose to make them so. Since we can't see souls in real life, we can essentially make up whatever we want to about the nature of souls, not just with regards to personhood but in all aspects. It's not like anyone can say, "That's not what souls are really like." Perhaps if the setting was based off of a specific religion someone could point out that our representation of that religion is inaccurate, but that's about it.

Something else to consider is that personhood might not be as significant as we make it out to be. If there's a group of creatures, say, demons, or maybe goblins, or whatever, and they're "not technically persons" but they're still sapient and not immediately hostile, they might be granted "honorary personhood", and treated like normal people. Being a person could be something as abstract as the gods being able to gain power from your worship. If you're not a person, the gods don't gain power when you worship them, but if you are a person, they do. Something like that hardly seems worth caring about for anyone that isn't a god.

One of the ideas I like to play with in worldbuilding when it comes to personhood is to treat it as some sort of divinity ranking. Animals are more divine than plants, humans are more divine than animals, angels are more divine that humans, and gods are more divine than angels. Something like that. I think this plays really well into the mystical angle of fantasy, and allows for some interesting worldbuilding. For example, it isn't just because humans are smart that we can use tools, but that the use of tools is like a lesser form of the Divine Art of Creation. A god (or perhaps The God) can create an entire universe out of nothing, and while a human isn't nearly so powerful they can at least create a small thing out of something else using a tool. Animals then can't use tools not because they don't know how but because they lack the divinity require for that level of creation. This one isn't exactly binary, but personhood still exists in discreet states that can be considered incomparable to one another, so at least when it comes to humans vs. animals it's still pretty much binary.

Now, when it comes to "person" as a creature type, it makes more sense to be an additional tag that can be applied on top of another creature type rather than a standalone type. Some fey are basically animals, while others are people, for example. But the more I've thought about this, the more I think it makes sense for all creature types to work this way. D&D 5e has experimented with giving creatures multiple types, but always chickens out before things make it to print. And what's weird is that it would actually work if they did, and not only that but you could also have a fully untyped creature and it would still just work. This might not be true for other systems, though. But if I was making an original system, that's probably how I'd do it.

Which I guess raises a new question. Previously, I would have defined "Beast" as a natural, non-person creature from the Material Plane, a "Monstrosity" as an unnatural creature from the Material Plane, and a "Humanoid" as a person from the Material Plane. If we're incorporating "Person" as a creature type, then it might make more sense to create a new creature type that refers to natives of the Material Plane (or whatever the human realm is in your setting). A "Humanoid" would then become a "Material Plane Native, Person", while a "Beast" might just be a "Material Plane Native" without the "Person" type. Though it might still be helpful to retain "Beast" as a creature type (e.g. for spells or other effects that affect beasts in particular, rather than just non-persons in general). This also make it less confusing what the creature type of an awakened animal would be (they'd be "Beast, Person" of course).

[Misereor]

We have monsters, we have beasts, but there doesn't seem to be a good word that refers generally to sapient creatures.

What is wrong with "sapients"? (Serious question)
Only problem is with what definition of sapience you want to use. The more modern definition of "capacity for abstract reasoning" is rapidly becoming outdated as we discover that a lot of animals are much smarter than we thought, but the older definition of "possessed of wisdom" could be used for an RPG, though it is somewhat less useful in any kind of scientific context.

[Grim Portent]

I generally use person, persons and people, and extend them to any species which is of at least near-human intelligence and any individuals who are of near-human intelligence despite being of a normally less intelligent species.

Near-human intelligence itself is a bit trickier, but broadly speaking it's one of those 'you know it when you see it' type of things. Any creature capable of significant communication with humans is an obvious candidate, but there's a lot of other things that would probably also qualify.

[Vahnavoi]

Not being a native speaker myself, my suggestion is probably going to sound weird, but something like "a soulful / the soulfuls" or maybe "a soully / the soullies" could work.

The adjective form for having a soul is simply "souled" in modern English. But you don't really have to use that, since "soul" can already refer to an individual and "souls" to people. So if the distinction you care about is having a soul, just say soul.

[paladinofshojo]

In the sense that science is natural philosophy, yes. But that isn't a counterargument to what I said, because in that context empirical facts are also topics of philosophical discussion.

The problem with empirical facts is interpretation usually leads to philosophical biases… for instance, yes, I can trigger an electric shock to a mammalian system like a dog or a rodent which would lead to an increase of cortisol and endorphins which are the hormones responsible for managing stress and pain respectively…. These are empirical facts, I can make inferences on these facts such as, yes, non-human mammals may process pain similarly to humans….

But there are other factors you need to consider too, how would you judge awareness of the system here? A human can communicate their pain, most can even quantify their pain, and even if they have healed from whatever caused it, they can remember the pain far longer than the actual response of the stimuli causing the increase of said hormones. The problem is, as of yet, there is no way to empirically prove that non-human animals are capable of this behavior.

The two are causally linked in minds of people: proponents for better treatment of animals do so because animals process reality in ways similar to us. To the degree animal cognition is amenable to empirical study, the ethical question is also a practical matter, which is already reflected in laws of various countries.

Again, this is misusing the concept of empirical data for an agenda, the truth of the matter is that it is near impossible to project human psychology upon non-human organisms. I cannot disprove that dogs have existential crises over their own mortality any more than you can prove it. This is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one.

You aren't wrong, these facts are just independent to the fact that animals have also been treated as persons at various points of time and space, and the fact that animals can be shown to be sentient to the degree anyone who is not you can be shown to be sentient.

Okay… let me ask you, how exactly were animals historically treated as persons?

I am arguing that these cases they weren’t treated as people, but rather treated as beings of reverence due to some religious significance placed upon them by a human belief system, not because of some inherent quantity within them that made them eligible for personhood.

Whether or not some view is or has historically been a minority does not decide whether a belief holds or not. At some point, majority of people thought the world is a few thousand years old at most, and some still do. They were simply shown to be wrong in context of later empirical study.

Again, the problem here is that this is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one. It’s never going to have an actual end to it.

Are you operating under some very specific definition of veganism that I'm not aware of?

From my understanding, veganism means COMPLETE avoidance of all animal byproducts (no meat, dairy products, or eggs) as such Jain cuisine, which uses a lot of dairy, would immediately be disqualified.

Because if not, then Jainisn isn't an analog, it just an example of what I'm talking about. Other such sects have existed elsewhere.

Actually this is incorrect, as Jain cuisine uses a lot of dairy, as do Buddhist and most Indian cuisines (a lot of Indian cuisines even incorporate chicken, and goat meat as well) and even the vegetarian cuisine uses a lot of yogurt and puneer.

The concept of veganism is a relatively recent phenomenon, the term actually came around the 1940s I believe.

But moreover, it was almost impossible to be able to survive without any animal products in a pre-industrialized world… due to the simple fact that you had to get all 24 essential amino acids from somewhere. Plant products do have amino acids, but unlike animal products, they are not complete, as such you may only be able to get about 5 or 6 of the 24 amino acids you’d need from one plant source and have to swap to another one. This is why back in the day, vegans had to be very strict with their diet to prevent any protein deficiencies or imbalances. As they’d have to swap lentils, legumes, and vegetables around to ensure that they were getting all the amino acids they’d need.

Nowadays though this isn’t so much of a problem, as you can get foods which are fortified.

No. My claim was and is that the idea that animals are non-sentient automatons doesn't hold even in reality. Whether people who believe such a thing are minority or majority isn't the relevant point. Meat-eating is even further removed.

I don’t think you’re understanding my point here. What I am saying is that most people do not believe that animals are non-sentient automatons… However, the vast majority of people are willingly and actively participating in the active genocide of several billion beings per year just by going to the supermarket and buying a pound of chicken or beef or pork.

The only reason that people are capable of holding this dichotomy is because they don’t have to see the slaughter themselves. Thus, meat is literally an item, a commodity, it is so disconnected from life that we might as well see animals as automatons.

For contrast, I actively hunt and eat animals that I consider to be sentient and maintain that I can do that ethically.

Putting aside the fact that most people will not hunt their own meat and thus choose to distance themselves from this topic because they value their own convenience over the lives of animals…

You don’t see anything contradictory about considering life to be sentient and ending a being’s existence to sustain your own? If you tried this logic with humans you’d be dubbed a psychopath but with animals you’re allowed to maintain this dichotomy?

[Rynjin]

You don’t see anything contradictory about considering life to be sentient and ending a being’s existence to sustain your own? If you tried this logic with humans you’d be dubbed a psychopath but with animals you’re allowed to maintain this dichotomy?

Your frequent misunderstanding of the difference between the words "sentient" and "sapient" makes it impossible to have a serious conversation about this with you.

[Imbalance]

Sentient? Sapient? Unfathomable shades of intellect or consciousness from the Far Realm? Doesn't matter to nature. Everything is food to something.

[Vahnavoi]

The problem with empirical facts is interpretation usually leads to philosophical biases… for instance, yes, I can trigger an electric shock to a mammalian system like a dog or a rodent which would lead to an increase of cortisol and endorphins which are the hormones responsible for managing stress and pain respectively…. These are empirical facts, I can make inferences on these facts such as, yes, non-human mammals may process pain similarly to humans….

But there are other factors you need to consider too, how would you judge awareness of the system here? A human can communicate their pain, most can even quantify their pain, and even if they have healed from whatever caused it, they can remember the pain far longer than the actual response of the stimuli causing the increase of said hormones. The problem is, as of yet, there is no way to empirically prove that non-human animals are capable of this behavior.

There are animal species, from close-to-human ones such chimpanzees and gorillas, to far-off species such as grey parrots, which can be taught to communicate with humans in human language to communicate concepts such as being in pain. We also have empirical evidence down to neurological level of animals sensing and processing information in ways homologous to humans. If those aren't sufficient empirical proof of animal sentience to you, there is also no empirical evidence that all other people around you aren't philosophical zombies.

Again, this is misusing the concept of empirical data for an agenda, the truth of the matter is that it is near impossible to project human psychology upon non-human organisms. I cannot disprove that dogs have existential crises over their own mortality any more than you can prove it. This is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one.

You are wrong. It is in fact extremely easy to project human psychology on animals and our only and best reason to think such projections don't always hold is that they lead to predictions that can empirically be proven false.

Here. Let me walk you through this: the only person whose sentience and internal experience you can directly confirm is your own. Everyone else's sentience and internal experience is inferred through principle of similarity. The only argument for another person to, say, experience seeing, is that they have eyes just like you, and a brain just like you, and react to things passing by them just like you... so since these things cause the experience of seeing in you, it makes sense to presume they do so in that another person.

Which gets back to what was already said: we can teach some animals to talk, we can show animals sense and process information homologously to human down to neurological level. The basics of it are as simple as checking if the animals has eyes , just like us, and a brain, just like us, and then passing a mirror infront of them to see if they react to their just like we would if it was us seeing ourselves in the mirror.

When an animal does not react like we would, then we can conclude its cognition is, in fact, different from ours. Maybe its eyes don't work, meaning it is blind and thus unable to experience sight. Maybe its brain is not like us after all, so it lacks concept of self, or some other aspect of cognition that makes us react like we do. These further claims can then be put to further empirical test, to see which holds best.

The only philosophical biases at work there are those underpinning all science: that cause follows effect, that similar physical systems in similar conditions lead to similar results, that our senses can give us accurate information of the outside world, so on and so forth. The topic is of special interest to people because of ethical beliefs obligating better treatment of sentient beings, but those beliefs are in addition to empirical study, not vital to it. Pointing out why we do the study doesn't invalidate the study, you don't need to buy any of the ethical notions to show animals are sentient. Simply accepting there is causal relationship between senses and qualia is enough.

Okay… let me ask you, how exactly were animals historically treated as persons?

Various places and times in medieval Europe, animals were put on trial for crimes, just like humans, because both legal and societal beliefs of what personhood is and whether animals have moral nature were different from today. In contemporary India, usage of dolphins in aquariums was banned by law because "Whereas cetaceans in general are highly intelligent and sensitive, and various scientists who have researched dolphin behavior have suggested that the unusually high intelligence; as compared to other animals means that dolphins should be seen as ‘non-human persons’ and as such should have their own specific rights and is morally unacceptable to keep them captive for entertainment purpose."

I could spend all night hunting for examples, especially from various hunter-gatherer cultures, but these two scattershot examples serve for my purposes just fine. Why? Because it's easier to show when, in the Western world, the idea of animals as non-sentient automatons, became popular. It is commonly attributed to Rene Descartes in the 17th century. Considering you are aware of traditions older than that, aforementioned Jainist sect included, this alone should be enough to show neither "animals are non-sentient automatons" nor "animals aren't persons" have been some universal historical defaults. You are quick to complain of philosophical agenda, but the very reason we're having this discussion is because I came into this thread to point out a particular philosophical agenda that's warping the discussion.

I am arguing that these cases they weren’t treated as people, but rather treated as beings of reverence due to some religious significance placed upon them by a human belief system, not because of some inherent quantity within them that made them eligible for personhood.

You are trying to make a distinction that the people you're talking of either didn't make or didn't care about.

Again, the problem here is that this is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one. It’s never going to have an actual end to it.

No. It is both a philosophical and scientific debate, and right here, right now, it has simple and obvious end:

One, either you accept aforementioned causal relationship between senses and qualia, in which case there is plenty of scientific evidence for animal sentience,

OR

Two, you don't accept such causal relationship, and now have to explain how you would prove sentience of any other person.

Solving the ethical questions around these doesn't have to be done.

From my understanding, veganism means COMPLETE avoidance of all animal byproducts (no meat, dairy products, or eggs) as such Jain cuisine, which uses a lot of dairy, would immediately be disqualified.

Okay. Under such strict definition, Jainism fails to qualify. This is entirely irrelevant to rest of the discussion, because we are both in agreement that Jainism promotes plant-based diet out of respect for all living things. I skip a few paragraphs here because they aren't relevant to the point and forum rules don't allow for deeper discussion anyway.

I don’t think you’re understanding my point here. What I am saying is that most people do not believe that animals are non-sentient automatons… However, the vast majority of people are willingly and actively participating in the active genocide of several billion beings per year just by going to the supermarket and buying a pound of chicken or beef or pork.

The only reason that people are capable of holding this dichotomy is because they don’t have to see the slaughter themselves. Thus, meat is literally an item, a commodity, it is so disconnected from life that we might as well see animals as automatons.

I understood your point just fine, it's just isn't counter to mine.

You don’t see anything contradictory about considering life to be sentient and ending a being’s existence to sustain your own? If you tried this logic with humans you’d be dubbed a psychopath but with animals you’re allowed to maintain this dichotomy?

No, I don't see anything contradictory in that. Or more specifically: the fact that such belief contradicts with belief systems of other people proves no internal contradiction in it. Disapproval of other people is immaterial to the point, being called a psychopath is not a logical issue. As noted earlier, while ethics are a motivation for us to study animal cognition, the empirical proof for animal sentience is independent of ethics. The fact that animals are sentient does not itself obligate anyone to stop eating and killing them.

To bring this back to roleplaying games, consider a AD&D Paladin. A Paladin is an armed servant of Good; pacifism is explicitly fallacious in a world where embodied Evil walks the Earth. A Paladin can kill other sentient being in defense of self and other and, indeed, can be obligated to do so if it is necessary to bring greatest good for the greatest number of good sentient creatures, and least worst for all else. I will also note that AD&D does not have sweeping statements of intelligence of animals in general: there are in fact animals in AD&D who are persons, with their own languages, and even Good alignment at times.

This means, among other things, that if there is a Red Dragon who is causing suffering and death to such animals, a Paladin is entitled or even obligated to kill that dragon, skin it and use its hide as armor, rip off its teeth and use them as swords, and feet its eggs to the hungry animals. This, despite the fact that a Red Dragon is not only sentient, but also highly intelligent, possibly more so than the Paladin!

Some modern moralist might object to that, from their moral framework, but I don't.

At the extreme other end: I am perfectly willing to entertain a game world where humans, as species, are deemed irredeemably evil for their crimes against other animals, and as such deserving of being killed to extinction. Statements leading to "in conclusion, moral value of human life is negative" are not on-the-face absurd to me.

[Catullus64]

I'm a fan of Pillars of Eternity's "kith."

[Greywander]

"Kith" is actually a real word. You may have heard it in the phrase, "kith and kin", which basically means, "friends and family" (or possibly "country and family").

I don't like "sapient" for fantasy, but it's fine for sci-fi. It's a too science-y sounding word to me.
I think "person" works and has legal precedent, but it still feels a little awkward.
But I feel like "kith" is actually perfect for a fantasy setting.

Then again, I also feel like fantasy settings should resurrect antiquated imperial measurements and other such things. Too much fantasy these days has a setting that is modern in almost everything except the technology level. To truly get in the spirit of medieval fantasy, you need to dig out some of the medieval eccentricities that have since fallen out of disuse. I'm not saying the PHB should be written in Old English or anything, but it's like how if you have something set in the 90s then you should throw in some 90s slang and things like pogs and stuff.

The only awkwardness in using "kith" is that it only really makes sense if the person using it is also a person. It would make sense for a human to refer to an elf as kith, but it wouldn't make sense for, say, a god to refer to humans or elves as kith, because other gods would be their kith. It still works for the purpose of something like a PHB, since we can assume the reader is probably human and thus the kith to the reader would be things like humans, elves, dwarves, and so on. Or we could just roll with taking an existing word and reusing it with a slightly altered meaning, something TTRPGs do all the time.

[Bohandas]

You can add that to the definition. But do you have a good argument for why creatures with homologous sensory organs don't also experience homologous sensory qualia, that doesn't end up with it being impossible for you to prove other humans aren't philosophical zombies?

You're moving the goalposts. Humans and ameobas, (and remember that was the context of my commwnt) do not share any homologous sensory organs (nor any homologous organs at all except for the standard eukaryotic cellular organelles)

[Vahnavoi]

@Bohandas: if your point is to exclude just amoebas, the goalpost stays where you put it, given the statement that amoebas do not have any homologous senses holds true. I'll leave it to halfeye to tell if they disagree or why. I asked you the question because it relates to the discussion between me and paladinofshojo. Even if amoebas do not have any homologous sense, other animals obviously do, so in absence of an argument for why homologous senses don't lead to homologous sensory experience, involving qualia in definition of sentience doesn't do much.

[gatorized]

Raman if you can communicate with them. Varelse otherwise.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Raman if you can communicate with them. Varelse otherwise.

Hah. I get this reference.

---------

Quite setting specific, but my homebrew setting uses 3 terms:

Mortals are all ensouled creatures, those with Sparks. This includes most, if not all, "people" and "monsters", excepting really only the undead, demons, elementals, and celestials/devils[1]. Animals and plants technically belong, but are known to be of such lesser order that mostly their inclusion is ignored. If people want to be specific, they distinguish between spoken mortals and unspoken mortals (ie those who can learn languages and those who cannot). Mortals all have free will as a core property and are not bound unless they choose to be. The name comes because of the First Law: All that lives must eventually die. You cannot have a Spark and be truly immortal (although you can live for a long time). And the Second Law: Only those that can die can create. All the stuff of existence (anima) comes from mortals. Everything else is either a symbiote or a parasite on the natural order.

Namebound (or Named) are those whose natures are formed by a fragment of the True Name of one of the planes. Elementals, lucians (angels, devils, and celestials generally), Ascendants (mortals who traded their Spark for a Name). Being Named means you're not mortal...but it also means that your nature is tied to the nature of the Word from which your Name derives. And you must have a source of energy to continue to exist as more than just a non-sapient, non-individual force (e.g. the true elementals). For Ascendants, this means being tied to worship...and your nature bends to resemble the way you are worshipped. So most Ascendants have to keep a tight reign on their churches to the best of their abilities. The true gods are "fed" by the universe itself, but are very limited in how they can interact with reality directly.

Demons (and undead, which are lesser demons) are those whose souls are infested or eaten by the jotnar, the anti-life entropy spirits from Outside that leak in through the Oblivion Gate at the heart of the Abyss. They exist in tension--the jotnar wants to consume everything and the intelligent undead (and demons) have to feed it other souls so it doesn't eat them. And eventually, they lose. It's a fragile balance. And most of them cannot exist (unless summoned and supported by mortal magic) very long outside the Abyss--the universe itself rejects them. At least if they're strong enough to matter. Most "regular" undead are the result of jotnar infecting dead bodies (whether summoned into them or arising due to weaknesses in the walls between planes caused by blood magic, much death, or other catastrophes).

But most normal people say "people". There's the "people" and the "others/beasts/monsters". And what is included is very much a cultural matter.

[LibraryOgre]

Raman if you can communicate with them. Varelse otherwise.

I was trying to remember those.

[Composer99]

Personally:
- Within the fiction of the game, I think "people" or "folk" work fine in fantasy settings. "Sophont" is somewhat new to me but works for sci-fi settings, although I'd also be fine with "sapient".
- "Out of game" if I want a ruleset or mechanics to refer to creatures who share more-or-less human-like characteristics with respect to mind/cognition, for the purpose of interacting with other rules or mechanics, I like the idea of referring to them as speaking creatures. In D&D or D&D-like games, that to my mind looks like having an Intelligence score of 3 or higher and the ability to communicate using at least one language.

[Clistenes]

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)".

In the Dungeon Meshi manga Tallmen (humans), Halfoots (halflings), Ogres, Dwarves, Gnomes and Elves are all considered "Human" because they have a relatively recent common ancestor and their skeletons are almost identical except for their height. Also, they can interbreed (however, most half-breeds are infertile; Tallmen, Halfoot and Ogres, the so-called "short-lived races" can produce fertile offspring among themselves, and Dwarves produce fertile offspring when they mate with Gnomes, but Elves can't produce fertile offspring with anybody else, and the mix of a short-lived and long-lived race is always infertile).

Orcs and Kobolds, however, aren't considered "human", since dissection shows important differences in their insides, particularly in their skeleton, and they can't interbreed with "human" races.

Tallman + Halfling => Fertile offspring.
Tallman + Ogre => Fertile offspring.
Halfling + Ogre => Fertile offspring.
Tallman + Dwarf => Infertile offspring.
Halfling + Dwarf => Infertile offspring (but halfling girls think dwarven men are super-hot).
Ogre + Dwarf => Infertile offspring.
Tallman + Gnome => Infertile offspring.
Halfling + Gnome => Infertile offspring.
Ogre + Gnome => Infertile offspring.
Dwarf + Gnome => Fertile offspring (it seems the dwarven king has a gnome grandfather).
Elf + Anybody else => Infertile offspring (Tallmen of both genders are really into elves, and at least some halfling men find elven women to be pretty, but elves think that having sex with a halfling is akin to pedophilia).
Orc => Can't interbreed with other races.
Kobold => Can't interbreed with other races.

In not-Japan (there always is a not-Japan country in japanese fantasy) the native Tallmen are super-racist, and they don't consider anybody human save the Tallmen... also, it is legal to buy and sell other races as slaves (I don't know if it is legal to enslave Tallmen too...).

Elves (or at least the elves from the Western Continent) are quite racist too, and they think themselves the superior race because of their powerful magic and long lives; they tend to assume that everybody is less intelligent than they are, and they treat short-lived races like children. Younger elves tend to be progressive and try to be less racist, but they have a hard time doing it... Like, deep down they think other races are inferior, but they try not to verbalize it...

In a short there is a group of young elves trying to decide which is the least racist-sounding way to call the short-lived races, and they end asking an older elf, who says "I just call them inferior races...".

Elves hate half-elves (tallman/elf half-breeds) because they get the best traits of both elves and tallmen, being superior to both, and that threatens their self-perception as the superior race.

Funny thing, the best ability of Tallmen is their constitution: They can march and fight in armor for a longer time than other races can do it without armor... but most Tallmen are unaware of it, and they just think that other races prefer lighter armor and that they are lazy asses who hate walking...