Implicating human → humanoid
Link to implication
Reason:
Alright, I already posted this in another thread (with a few minor differences) and this encompasses many things, so bear with me. This primarily involves human, humanoid, animal_ears, centaur/naga/etc. which seems like a lot, but it all falls into the same framework. I believe this may give us a chance to clearly define these while cleanly incorporating them into our current system.
Current Definitions:
- human - Purebred boring human.
- humanoid - non-human...humans. Originally meant to encompass D&D-style humanoids (elf, gnome, orc, ogre, etc.) to distinguish them from other anthro, but it's usage is a bit broader than that now. So far only orc implies humanoid, and it's definition was never really that clear to begin with so nobody has really touched it since then..
- Animal ears - Perpetual limbo. A headache. So far we've established they are 1) not human 2) not anthro 3) probably humanoid 4) furry. Great, but how do we treat them? Well...we leave it at that. Currently they are species-less and rarely come up if we search for the species itself (cat for cat ears).
Proposed definitions:
- Human: Fully human and ambiguously human (human-looking but the elf-ears are hidden inside a helmet, generic human-shaped silhouette, etc.). "The way real intended".
- Humanoid: All human hybrids, period.
- Imply elf/halfling/whatever else -> humanoid
- Imply animal_ears -> humanoid
- Imply centaur -> humanoid
- Imply human -> humanoid (this thread)
- Change human_on_anthro, human_on_feral, etc. to humanoid_on_anthro, humanoid_on_feral, etc.
- Imply dog_ears -> dog, wolf_ears -> wolf, cat_ears -> cat, etc..
- We have a lot of posts that are tagged this way already and they are cleaned up every so often. They are still cat-like so I believe they belong under cats. It is unintuitive to keep them separate and that is why we need to put so much effort into fixing them.
Benefits:
- It follows our current system enough that retagging work is minimized.
- Particularly for humanoid_on_* because we would only add to those rather than removing
- It's simple, straightforward, and probably intuitive.
- We now have a humanoid_on_feral/etc. tag!
- We have a way to distinguish centaurs from humans.
- We now have a way to include animal_ears within some of our framework.
Want humans only? Use human.
Want non-human humanoids only? Use humanoid -human.
Thoughts:
- centaur would be considered non-feral
- centaur on feral would have to be considered bestiality because humanoid_on_feral would.
- This might include naga/etc. I don't actually know enough about them to judge this myself.
- We may want to consider implicating human -> humanoid -> mammal (instead of human -> humanoid, mammal) but I'm not exactly sure yet. Technically a "humanoid" character would at least be part human and thus be part mammal. It seems to make sense in theory. However, I'd like your opinion on this.
Tag summary:
- human -> humanoid (this thread)
- elf, gnome, etc. -> humanoid
- animal_ears -> humanoid
- centaur -> humanoid
- Alias: human_on_feral -> humanoid_on_feral
- move bestiality implications
- Alias: human_on_anthro -> humanoid_on_anthro
Tentative:
Updated