How to address racism in a fantasy setting without it dragging down the game?

[prabe]

Not speaking for @Umbran and not speaking about anything other than 5E, but that's the way it's phrased in the 5E PHB (which I happened to have next to me for entirely other reasons). Not otherwise taking a side here, other than I thought @Celebrim was talking about his own world and how things worked there, when he was talking about the animals and plants being about as sentient as animals in a fairy tale, which is cool. In my own world, speaking with animals gets a lot of "Hi!" responses. ;-)

 

[Celebrim]

Not speaking for @Umbran and not speaking about anything other than 5E, but that's the way it's phrased in the 5E PHB (which I happened to have next to me for entirely other reasons).

I don't have my books with me to verify, but I think this is the 1e text:

"When cast, a Speak With Plants spell enables the cleric to converse, in very rudimentary terms, with all sorts of living vegetables. Thus, the cleric can question plants as to whether or not creatures have passed through them, cause thickets to part to enable easy passage, require vines to entangle pursuers, and similar things. The spell does not enable the cleric to animate non-ambulatory vegetation. The power of the spell lasts for 1 melee round for each level of experience of the cleric who cast it. All vegetation within the area of effect are under command of the spell. The material components for this spell are a drop of water, a pinch of dung, and a flame."

And this is the 3e text:

"You can comprehend and communicate with plants, including both normal plants and plant creatures. You are able to ask questions of and receive answers from plants. A regular plant’s sense of its surroundings is limited, so it won’t be able to give (or recognize) detailed descriptions of creatures or answer questions about events outside its immediate vicinity.

The spell doesn’t make plant creatures any more friendly or cooperative than normal. Furthermore, wary and cunning plant creatures are likely to be terse and evasive, while the more stupid ones may make inane comments. If a plant creature is friendly toward you, it may do some favor or service for you."

So yes, you are right in that I'm describing how I run my own game, but I had thought I was running my own game based on what the game rules suggested per the above. And those rules suggest that plants are thinking slow plant thoughts about things plants would be concerned about even when a cleric or druid isn't speaking to them. And that suggests an animistic universe inspired by beliefs that anything that moves must be propelled by some intelligence. Since plants grow, they are in some sense alive.

When I grew up in the Caribbean, these beliefs weren't in fact just part of the ancient past, but many older people still held them in part or whole. For example, some laborers asked to cut down a particular large and ancient tree, would, before laying on the ax or saw, say something like, "Please do not be angry with me Mister Tree. I have to cut you down, because the white man has ordered it." And so forth.

I think some idea of how pervasive animism is to my campaign can be perceived through this post:

Playing like Celebrim - Dryad Flavor Text and Unique Mechanics

I've been toying with writing up my monster house rules in a MM format for at least my own use. This would be a portion of the Dryad write up. I thought I'd post it as inspiration. Even if you aren't using 3.X rules much less my house rules, the concepts here might be useful to you. Dryad...

www.enworld.org

However, it's not like dryads are unique to my campaign. They are a standard monster in D&D that has been around a long time.

 

[Umbran]

No, but I assert that it thinking and expressing whatever squirrel thoughts we'd expect a squirrel to have in a fairy tale or fantasy. For example, it's quite possible and maybe even probable that fantasy animals are as sentient as the animals of Kipling's 'Jungle Book'.

The normal, non-giant, non-swarm beasts typically have an Int of 2 or 3.

Meanwhile, Bagheera speaks like this: “Yes, I too was born among men. I had never seen the jungle. They fed me behind bars from an iron pan till one night I felt that I was Bagheera - the Panther - and no man’s plaything, and I broke the silly lock with one blow of my paw and came away; and because I had learned the ways of men, I became more terrible in the jungle than Shere Khan.”

So, while I think you could have a world in which every animal was fully sentient... I do not believe the stock stats in the rules are aimed to be such.

Really? Is that edition specific, because I don't remember that.

I haven't gone and checked every edition. The 5e text says, "You imbue plants within 30 feet of you with limited sentience and animation, giving them the ability to communicate with you and follow your simple commands. You can question plants about events in the spell's area within the past day, gaining information about creatures that have passed, weather, and other circumstances. "

 

[prabe]

So yes, you are right in that I'm describing how I run my own game, but I had thought I was running my own game based on what the game rules suggested per the above. And those rules suggest that plants are thinking slow plant thoughts about things plants would be concerned about even when a cleric or druid isn't speaking to them. And that suggests an animistic universe inspired by beliefs that anything that moves must be propelled by some intelligence. Since plants grow, they are in some sense alive.

When I grew up in the Caribbean, these beliefs weren't in fact just part of the ancient past, but many older people still held them in part or whole. For example, some laborers asked to cut down a particular large and ancient tree, would, before laying on the ax or saw, say something like, "Please do not be angry with me Mister Tree. I have to cut you down, because the white man has ordered it." And so forth.

So, the 5E text says it imbues the plants with sentience, which does imply they're not sentient otherwise. The 3.5E text only mentions that a plant will ordinarily have only a limited sense of its surroundings. The 1E text doesn't mention any limitations at all on a plant's sentience or perceptions. I don't think your campaign is in 5E, so I think you're not conflicting with the spell's text in your understanding of the setting. Also, it's your setting, if you want plants and animals to be a little more intelligent with spoken with than the rules imply, have at it.

And now I have books to put back on the shelf.

 

[Celebrim]

The normal, non-giant, non-swarm beasts typically have an Int of 2 or 3.

Meanwhile, Bagheera speaks like this: “Yes, I too was born among men. I had never seen the jungle. They fed me behind bars from an iron pan till one night I felt that I was Bagheera - the Panther - and no man’s plaything, and I broke the silly lock with one blow of my paw and came away; and because I had learned the ways of men, I became more terrible in the jungle than Shere Khan.”

So, while I think you could have a world in which every animal was fully sentient... I do not believe the stock stats in the rules are aimed to be such.

I'm aware of the limited intelligence typically assigned to animals. In some cases, that's actually lower than animals seem to possess in the real world (which in D&D terms might go up to 5 or even 6). It's certainly lower than the intelligence displayed by intelligence in movies, such as Zorro's horse, Lassie or any number of other animal companions.

But I would suggest that at most tables, in practice when "speak with animals" comes up, animals speak in some fashion. This is because it's just not very interesting otherwise, and it's almost always more fun for DM's to make NPCs interesting than to make them boring. It's also actually very difficult to successfully pretend to be stupid. What does "Int 2 or 3" really represent anyway? In D&D terms I suggest it de facto represents little or no ability to learn or analyze. So it's quite possible to run an animal that is loquacious, and yet represent it's low intelligence by a complete inability to understand anything out of context of its normal behaviors.

I haven't gone and checked every edition. The 5e text says, "You imbue plants within 30 feet of you with limited sentience and animation, giving them the ability to communicate with you and follow your simple commands. You can question plants about events in the spell's area within the past day, gaining information about creatures that have passed, weather, and other circumstances. "

That's really interesting. It seems that the 5e designer has contemplated the problem of plant intelligence and deliberately reduced the sentience implied by earlier editions. Was he or she worried about the problem of screaming broccoli?

 

[Celebrim]

Also, it's your setting, if you want plants and animals to be a little more intelligent with spoken with than the rules imply, have at it.

Agreed. But, I've been running my game since 1e, and so I thought was running them in a fashion that was coherent with the rules, and at most only a little emphasizing or focusing on things that the rules implied that other DMs didn't want to make central to the games they were running. It seems however the rules have changed out from under me.

 

[prabe]

Agreed. But, I've been running my game since 1e, and so I thought was running them in a fashion that was coherent with the rules, and at most only a little emphasizing or focusing on things that the rules implied that other DMs didn't want to make central to the games they were running. It seems however the rules have changed out from under me.

If you're running 5E, they are. I thought you weren't, in which case the 5E rules wouldn't be really relevant.

OTOH, I get the impression that the setting has enough internal consistency that minor conflicts with occasional rules elements wouldn't matter to me, as a player. Obviously YMMV.

 

[Umbran]

In some cases, that's actually lower than animals seem to possess in the real world (which in D&D terms might go up to 5 or even 6).

Emphasis on seem. My wife's a veterinarian, and we could have a long discussion about animal intelligence, but I think that'd be a bit of a derailing.

But I would suggest that at most tables, in practice when "speak with animals" comes up, animals speak in some fashion. This is because it's just not very interesting otherwise, and it's almost always more fun for DM's to make NPCs interesting than to make them boring. It's also actually very difficult to successfully pretend to be stupid. What does "Int 2 or 3" really represent anyway?

Most of my experience has been the GM making it interesting because the player assumes they're getting Bagheera, when really, they're getting something less than Doug, from Up. So, if you are talking to a squirrel, and you ask something that isn't about other squirrels, nuts, or common predators in the area, it's a bit of a slog.

PC: "Did the priest of Grummsh go by recently?"
Squirrel: "Wha?"
PC: "Man. Smell bad. Tusks. See him?"
Squirrel: "Oh. That way."
PC: "How long ago?"
Squirrel: ...
PC: "Five minutes? Ten?"
Squirrel: "Five my nuts?!? No have my nuts! "
PC: sigh

That's really interesting. It seems that the 5e designer has contemplated the problem of plant intelligence and deliberately reduced the sentience implied by earlier editions. Was he or she worried about the problem of screaming broccoli?

If I had to hazard a guess, I think it is less about reducing the sentience implied, and more answered the question, "How much can a plant even now" by telling you it now has a limited sentience to know things with. So, less about screaming broccoli, and more about level setting: The plant has limited sentience. It is not Treebeard.

 

[Celebrim]

Emphasis on seem. My wife's a veterinarian, and we could have a long discussion about animal intelligence, but I think that'd be a bit of a derailing.

Could be. I think a lot of the problem is that people assume intelligence is a single thing on a single scale and not actually a collection of specific algorithms working together. I've known some quite intelligent people who nonetheless couldn't do basic addition without a calculator. I think animals are like that only more so.

Most of my experience has been the GM making it interesting because the player assumes they're getting Bagheera, when really, they're getting something less than Doug, from Up. So, if you are talking to a squirrel, and you ask something that isn't about other squirrels, nuts, or common predators in the area, it's a bit of a slog.

PC: "Did the priest of Grummsh go by recently?"
Squirrel: "Wha?"
PC: "Man. Smell bad. Tusks. See him?"
Squirrel: "Oh. That way."
PC: "How long ago?"
Squirrel: ...
PC: "Five minutes? Ten?"
Squirrel: "Five my nuts?!? No have my nuts! "
PC: sigh

To be honest, I suspect even "Bagheera" would have problems with some of the concepts the PC is trying to convey in the above conversation. I probably would run the squirrel (or panther) pretty much exactly like that myself if asked about concepts that aren't in the skill set of squirrels or panthers, such as recognizing a human caste by mode of dress, or units of time. Bagheera's speech you recorded earlier makes no mention of specific periods of time. He has a concept of what "iron", "bars", and "locks" are because he's experienced them directly for a long period, but even real world animals can grasp a lock conceptually in some sense. If a squirrel had been a pet, it might have a concept of "cage", "French fry", or "peanut butter". It would still have no grasp of "five minutes".

If I had to hazard a guess, I think it is less about reducing the sentience implied, and more answered the question, "How much can a plant even now" by telling you it now has a limited sentience to know things with. So, less about screaming broccoli, and more about level setting: The plant has limited sentience. It is not Treebeard.

Early editions already made clear that plants would have limited understanding, so that's not a big change. For example, 1e made clear that any such communication would be "rudimentary", and 3e made clear that plants and limited senses so you could not ask a question like, "What was the man wearing?", and expect an answer for any number of reasons (a plant can't see and probably can't imagine clothes). But even the question, "How can the plant even know?", implies the baseline assumption that plants know nothing which was not present in earlier editions. One way or the other, it involves a change to a more 'scientific' baseline assumption, that plants aren't normally thinkers and for one to think, it requires magical assistance. This is a big change conceptually from the assumptions of earlier editions, which assumed plants could think in limited plant-y ways, and that the magic was only allowing you to breach the communication gap between you and the plant.

Maybe it's just what I'm used to and comfortable with, but if "speak with plants" is granting the intelligence, how does a plant have any memory of what happened before the spell was cast on it in order to speak about it? How did the formerly unthinking plant record what the weather was like yesterday if yesterday it had no thoughts?

 

[Umbran]

Maybe it's just what I'm used to and comfortable with, but if "speak with plants" is granting the intelligence, how does a plant have any memory of what happened before the spell was cast on it in order to speak about it? How did the formerly unthinking plant record what the weather was like yesterday if yesterday it had no thoughts?

Um... I know this will be unsatisfactory but... MAGIC?

Perhaps less glibly, to go for a no-prize: events in the world have an impact on plants. While you store much of what happens to you in a day in your brain, a plant registers the impacts over its entire self. The rudimentary sentience reads those impacts and translates them (generally accurately, as far as a plant is concerned) into knowledge of the past.

Or, if you want to go animistic, there's the tiniest of minor spirits in a plant, a life force, which is what makes it alive - much as a human has a soul, only of far lesser magnitude. The spell grants it enough cognizance and perspective of a non-plant to be able to communicate what the spirit has experienced.

Either way... it is magic. You don't actually have to know the answer, unless/until the PCs are going to interact with that answer. If you want magic to be mysterious, don't answer questions about it!