Awakened Animals

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

Going off at a slight tangent, I've sometimes wondered how kind an act awakening an animal is. It strikes me, in particular, that being a single awakened animal of a particular species would be a very lonely existence - especially when it comes to mating. I mean, we may all fancy a fling with a dumb blonde ... but that dumb?

To get back closer to the OP's point, even if a pair are awakened, if the granted intelligence doesn't breed true (and my instinct would be that it shouldn't), then how sad would it be to know that all your offspring will revert to your former state of ignorance?

I do quite like Lord Pendragon's option, with offspring reverting to type only after several generations.

Alternatively, you could have small colonies breeding true provided that both parents are awakened - perhaps through frequent incest (after all just because awakened animals are intelligent it doesn't mean they have to hsare our morals) - and looking out for their less blessed cousins. In fact a small band of intelligent foxes planning revenge on the local hunt has a certain appeal.

 

[Andor]

Well obviously it's all campaign dependant, that doesn't mean it's not worthy of discussion.

And while there is some justice in fears of a Dr.Doolittle campaign, I have to note that for the most part talking animals are far more common in fantasy books and movies than they are in DnD. And awakened animals are NOT familiars or special mounts. They in fact lose their status as animal companions (if they ever were) and are completly independant of the druid that awakened them.

...

Another possibility inheritance wise would be to have it pass down to one in each generation. So that makes them present without being commonplace.

...

I'm not sure the fighter class really gives all that much to an animal. Rogue can be effective.
"The mouse runs up your leg and bites you in the butt for a point of damage."
'HA!'
"Plus 8d6 sneak attack"
'Urgle?'

The big hinderence of course would be the lack of hands. So sorcerer is better than wizard because you can skip the book. Self contained classes are best. Psi-Warrior could be truely frightening.

....

How do people value the lack of hands? I once played in a game where the GM wanted weird characters. So I decided I was a druid who had gotten killed as an apprentice by goblins and reincarnated by his master. One roll on the reincarnation table later I was a Panther. I took still spell and cast everything as a level higher and was eagerly awaiting wild shape so I could turn into a monkey and have hands. A Panther has some pretty nice stat bonuses, but no hands so the GM decided it was a wash and no Level Adjustment was applied. Is there a concensus on how to figure level adjustments for non-anthropomorphic races?

.....

What roles would intelligent animals tend to fall into? Staying with men and working as companions, or spies? Or staying in the wild and playing king of the forest?

 

[Klaus]

IMHO, the Awakening condition doesn't breed true. After all, if you use a Wish to oncrease your Strength, your children won't inherit the inherent bonus, would they?

As for classes, I'd say the most common should be Barbarian, followed closely by Ranger (with a Natural Attack weapon style), Druid (with a something in exchange for Wild Shape), Rogue (for small animals like cats and dogs) and possibly Sorcerer.

Of course, the thought of an Awakened baboon with Monk levels beg further examination.

 

[Sejs]

IMC, Awakening doesn't breed true, but it does result in offspring that have a bit of an advantage. They're not sentient, even if both parrents were awakened, but they're smart for their type. The litter of an awakened dog would all end up being on the level of Lassie. A smart animal, but ultimatly still an animal.

Besides, if intelligence did breed true, it wouldn't be the animals you'd have to look out for. It'd be the trees.

 

[Sejs]

(if a rabbit begs for its life and the Paladin kills it anyway for food, is he now evil?)

No.

Killing something for the purpose of sustenance is a straight-up neutral act, even if the meal asks you not to.


The paladin (and of course it's a paladin... when is it ever not a paladin?) should grant mercy of course, given that it was asked and honestly so, but the act itself is not evil, nor should he become so. Single acts, yada yada yada.


Mind you, I can't think of many a paladin who would say "Sorry, Mister Rabbit, I'm still gonna eat you" when confronted with the above situation rather than giving pause and saying something more along the lines of "A talking rabbit? How curious".

 

[Tonguez]

I've got a campaign setting (in which only one adventure has been played so far) where the main nation is ruled by Druids who worship a incarnate Half-Celestial Wolf. Firstly her pups (all celestial dogs) have free reign to wonder the city being feed by the populace or otherwise scavenging. There are also a few awakened wolves who form part of the military forces of the nation (as border patrol alongside a cadre of werewolf-rangers), in fact I used one such awakened wolf as the NPC sheriff of the town the PCs were visiting. So it can work, but does need to be carefully controlled.

As to the No Hands disadvantage I've always played it as a -1 Level Adjustment. In the past I've played a Dolphin Ranger and DM'd an awakened Boar Barbarian. I also think rogue and scorcerer might work as would druid. Also don't forget the Psionic classes my weirdest character was a Willowisp Psion and that was fun

 

[Tonguez]

Besides, if intelligence did breed true, it wouldn't be the animals you'd have to look out for. It'd be the trees.

eek now that is a scary thought

Any as an example anyone remember the Batman of the Future episode which featured an Awakened Gorilla that disliked humans. I love the closing scene of that episode and the choice the Gorilla makes...

 

[Bardsandsages]

No.

Killing something for the purpose of sustenance is a straight-up neutral act, even if the meal asks you not to.


The paladin (and of course it's a paladin... when is it ever not a paladin?) should grant mercy of course, given that it was asked and honestly so, but the act itself is not evil, nor should he become so. Single acts, yada yada yada.


Mind you, I can't think of many a paladin who would say "Sorry, Mister Rabbit, I'm still gonna eat you" when confronted with the above situation rather than giving pause and saying something more along the lines of "A talking rabbit? How curious".

Ah, but here is the moral quandry, if the thing that makes us human, and therefore above animals, is our awareness of self and ability to think and reason, then wouldn't the awakened animal be just as "human" as the Paladin (if not from a physical state then a mental one). And if the paladin DID kill and eat the rabbit, would he not then be a hypocrite for tracking down a vampire who kills humans to feed? After all, a vampire needs blood to survive, and unlike a human cannot chose to become a vegetarian. If it's OK for a human to kill and eat an awakened deer, why would it be evil for a Mind Flayer to eat a human brain?

 

[Wystan]

What roles would intelligent animals tend to fall into? Staying with men and working as companions, or spies? Or staying in the wild and playing king of the forest?

King Louie in the Jungle Book Comes to mind.

An Awakened Orangutan

 

[Sejs]

Ah, but here is the moral quandry, if the thing that makes us human, and therefore above animals, is our awareness of self and ability to think and reason, then wouldn't the awakened animal be just as "human" as the Paladin (if not from a physical state then a mental one). And if the paladin DID kill and eat the rabbit, would he not then be a hypocrite for tracking down a vampire who kills humans to feed? After all, a vampire needs blood to survive, and unlike a human cannot chose to become a vegetarian. If it's OK for a human to kill and eat an awakened deer, why would it be evil for a Mind Flayer to eat a human brain?

Moral relativistic quandries are why God gave us Detect Evil.

Both examples you mentioned arn't just evil because of their diet. Hell, in theory a human could be a cannibal and still be good, as long as the eating was for survival purposes alone.

Both the vampire and illithid mentioned are evil critters above and beyond their choice of nosh. Heck, the BoED has as one of the example NPCs a redeemed illithid who's as good as good can be. Still eats brains.