-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Breeding of Enhanced Animals by Druids (BEAD)
- Thread starter Speaks With Stone
- Start date
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
I rather like the idea that wildshaped druids breeding with animals might have produced lycanthropes. That idea would fit very nicely with a kind of Frankensteinesque morality tale about forbidden choices producing abominations and could add a rather chilling layer to an otherwise ordinary "track down the werewolf" type adventure.
As for awakened animals breeding together, I don't see why not. In fact, I can see some mythology that could account for some of the monsters in D&D at the moment.
Worgs could be the result of an evil druid awakening wolves to breed his own private army.
In contrast (and explaining the exception to the abomination theory of lycanthropes explained above) it could be said that certain awakened bears demonstrated nobility and goodness such that Ehlonna (or some other god) blessed them with the ability to take human form so that their form could reflect the maturity of their spirits (OK, so it's speciesist, so what?). And thus were wearbears created. The nobility of their origins is now demonstrated in that unlike the abominations of werewolves and wererats created against the commands of the gods and always in the thrall of evil, no-one has ever known an evil were-bear. Furthermore, werebears have no in between form like werewolves and wererats, thereby further demonstrating the difference between the them (and fitting with the story for the bears were granted human form and bear forms only--not some twisted mockery of nature's beauty).
As for awakened animals breeding together, I don't see why not. In fact, I can see some mythology that could account for some of the monsters in D&D at the moment.
Worgs could be the result of an evil druid awakening wolves to breed his own private army.
In contrast (and explaining the exception to the abomination theory of lycanthropes explained above) it could be said that certain awakened bears demonstrated nobility and goodness such that Ehlonna (or some other god) blessed them with the ability to take human form so that their form could reflect the maturity of their spirits (OK, so it's speciesist, so what?). And thus were wearbears created. The nobility of their origins is now demonstrated in that unlike the abominations of werewolves and wererats created against the commands of the gods and always in the thrall of evil, no-one has ever known an evil were-bear. Furthermore, werebears have no in between form like werewolves and wererats, thereby further demonstrating the difference between the them (and fitting with the story for the bears were granted human form and bear forms only--not some twisted mockery of nature's beauty).
IMHO, I think this is one of those things/topics that should NOT have a "blanket answer" - but rather, this is should an individual thing per campaign.
Why? As several posters already pointed out it _can_ add to myth and creation stories. At the same time, however, it can also change the tone (no telling where the players' minds will go once you start talking about breeding with animals and what not - regardless of the breeder's physical form).
I think it's safe to say that this is one of those campaign decisions that do not need to be detailed unless/until it actually comes up
Bottom Line: This decision has the potential to add to the game but also has the potential to detract from it. Most people haven't even thought about or considered it. For those that have, it should be left as a campaign-specific decision/implementation.
Now, having said all that, I can only presume the original poster is at the point where he is giving it thought and consideration and is thinking about implementing it for his campaign. No argument given should be a blanket-statement to cover all campaigns so we are really talking about his campaign and his campiagn alone.
So ...
a) You are talking about two separate issues here (from what I can see in my cursory glances) - wildshaped druids breeding with animals and awakened animals breeding
b) does allowing either of these breedings add to your campaign? ie could they add to your creation myth (or do you already have creation myth solidifed), could they add plot lines that you want to use ?
c) do you know your players well enough that this won't be taken into some immature tangent once you start explaining/revealing that the creature they face is the love child of their druid ally and his pet dog?
d) is the druid mythos leinient enough to not view breeding in this manner wrong?
e) (insert something witty and smart here -- I'm just too tired right now to think of something though, almost 5am..
)
--
From a real-world biological standpoint, wildshaped druids and animals would not produce offspring because the druid (aside from appearance and ability) is still a humanoid and the animal still an animal (or magical beast or whatever). Awakened animals could interbreed IF they are of the same genus (or some other level of biological classification that I don't recall). If they are not then they can not produce ofspring. If they are of the exact same species their offspring could reproduce into further offspring thus continuing the chain.
I'm reminded of the horse and the mule. They can reproduce together because they are of the same genus. But because they are not the same species, their jack-ass offspring are sterile. (it's late and I may be giving things the wrong name but that's the basic idea).
But campaigns are not the real-world, I am merely including this for comparison.
Now that I am thourghly disguested by the thought of someone LOVING thier pet (as someone so elequantly put it earlier) I am going to read myself to sleep and hopefully put the mental image out of my head.
Why? As several posters already pointed out it _can_ add to myth and creation stories. At the same time, however, it can also change the tone (no telling where the players' minds will go once you start talking about breeding with animals and what not - regardless of the breeder's physical form).
I think it's safe to say that this is one of those campaign decisions that do not need to be detailed unless/until it actually comes up
Bottom Line: This decision has the potential to add to the game but also has the potential to detract from it. Most people haven't even thought about or considered it. For those that have, it should be left as a campaign-specific decision/implementation.
Now, having said all that, I can only presume the original poster is at the point where he is giving it thought and consideration and is thinking about implementing it for his campaign. No argument given should be a blanket-statement to cover all campaigns so we are really talking about his campaign and his campiagn alone.
So ...
a) You are talking about two separate issues here (from what I can see in my cursory glances) - wildshaped druids breeding with animals and awakened animals breeding
b) does allowing either of these breedings add to your campaign? ie could they add to your creation myth (or do you already have creation myth solidifed), could they add plot lines that you want to use ?
c) do you know your players well enough that this won't be taken into some immature tangent once you start explaining/revealing that the creature they face is the love child of their druid ally and his pet dog?
d) is the druid mythos leinient enough to not view breeding in this manner wrong?
e) (insert something witty and smart here -- I'm just too tired right now to think of something though, almost 5am..
)--
From a real-world biological standpoint, wildshaped druids and animals would not produce offspring because the druid (aside from appearance and ability) is still a humanoid and the animal still an animal (or magical beast or whatever). Awakened animals could interbreed IF they are of the same genus (or some other level of biological classification that I don't recall). If they are not then they can not produce ofspring. If they are of the exact same species their offspring could reproduce into further offspring thus continuing the chain.
I'm reminded of the horse and the mule. They can reproduce together because they are of the same genus. But because they are not the same species, their jack-ass offspring are sterile. (it's late and I may be giving things the wrong name but that's the basic idea).
But campaigns are not the real-world, I am merely including this for comparison.
Now that I am thourghly disguested by the thought of someone LOVING thier pet (as someone so elequantly put it earlier) I am going to read myself to sleep and hopefully put the mental image out of my head.
Wippit Guud
First Post
How do Legendary Animals fit into all of this?
Vaxalon
First Post
Please remember that a male human, polymorphed or wildshaped into animal form, does not produce animal semen; as per the polymorph rules, any body part that is separated reverts to its original form.
So a polymorphed or wildshaped human breeding with an animal would have the same chance of fertility as anyone else trying to impregnate an animal.
Dragons, being magical creatures, have their own rules.
So a polymorphed or wildshaped human breeding with an animal would have the same chance of fertility as anyone else trying to impregnate an animal.
Dragons, being magical creatures, have their own rules.
Speaks With Stone
First Post
Ah, but with the new wildshape rules, there are some instances where the whole separation from your body is not universally held. Poison separated from you retains its efficacy.
But really, if the wildshape breeding question is that disturbing, shift gears to the idea of someone reincarnated as a dog. They are intelligent and able to talk, but otherwise a dog in all other respects (except for type, which is magical beast).
With enough druids reincarnating creatures, there could be a lot of cultural mixing among the human races as well as within the animals. Imagine the orc reincarnated as an elf mating with an elf. It should breed a true elf, though perhaps its upbringing would be non-standard.
Would not this indicate that a reincarnated individual could breed with an animal, but its offspring would be a true animal and not magical? On the other hand, if intelligence is in anyway passed on genetically, there would be some argument for a boost in intelligence, but probably not language skills.
But really, if the wildshape breeding question is that disturbing, shift gears to the idea of someone reincarnated as a dog. They are intelligent and able to talk, but otherwise a dog in all other respects (except for type, which is magical beast).
With enough druids reincarnating creatures, there could be a lot of cultural mixing among the human races as well as within the animals. Imagine the orc reincarnated as an elf mating with an elf. It should breed a true elf, though perhaps its upbringing would be non-standard.
Would not this indicate that a reincarnated individual could breed with an animal, but its offspring would be a true animal and not magical? On the other hand, if intelligence is in anyway passed on genetically, there would be some argument for a boost in intelligence, but probably not language skills.
Well, the arguement that the type doesn't change is not an end all to the question. As Speaks with Stones has pointed out, the type changes for Reincarnate. The type also changes with Shapechange and high level druids get that spell. And it specifically says in the spell description ...
The question remains, does Rel want this to pass on to his games? Hopefully some of these arguements have helped.
Good luck Rel and Speaks with Stones. Let us know how it turns out.
The question remains, does Rel want this to pass on to his games? Hopefully some of these arguements have helped.
Good luck Rel and Speaks with Stones. Let us know how it turns out.
I think the idea is interesting enough that it is worth pursuing. Speaks is trying to develop a plan that may be consistent with his character. I think ahat alone justifies allowing it. Unless the idea disrupts the game balance, I don't see any reason to forbid it. Let the story play itself out and see how it goes. Have fun.
The question to me is whether a druid would be able to create intelligent, and possibly strengthened, predators without destabilizing the ecosystem. A pack of uber wolfs would be valuable defenders of a forest, if they don't kill off all the deer first. I would require a Knowledge (Nature) skill roll to figure out the best course of action. Some studying time and a good skill roll could help the druid make the right decision. Perhaps druids like treants because they are more predictable. Who knows?
I also like the idea of a legendary animal. Perhaps Speaks could search for a ritual that would allow him to summon/create a legendary animal. It would fit your needs nicely. A legendary bear would be strong enough to fight off threats to its range, but not smart enough to take up rabbit farming. Very funny, BTW.
The question to me is whether a druid would be able to create intelligent, and possibly strengthened, predators without destabilizing the ecosystem. A pack of uber wolfs would be valuable defenders of a forest, if they don't kill off all the deer first. I would require a Knowledge (Nature) skill roll to figure out the best course of action. Some studying time and a good skill roll could help the druid make the right decision. Perhaps druids like treants because they are more predictable. Who knows?
I also like the idea of a legendary animal. Perhaps Speaks could search for a ritual that would allow him to summon/create a legendary animal. It would fit your needs nicely. A legendary bear would be strong enough to fight off threats to its range, but not smart enough to take up rabbit farming. Very funny, BTW.
Last edited:
