Talking Animals?

[Raven Crowking]

II don't see a particular reason why animals like ravens, octopi, cats, dogs, elephants, parrots, dolphins, and apes shouldn't have intelligences in the range of 3-7. Intelligence 1 should be preserved for insects, amphibians, and probably all or most fish and reptiles. Intelligence 2 should be most birds, most herbivorous mammals, and any thing but a bird or mammal that seems to show some problem solving ability (jumping spiders, some snakes, cuttlefish, etc.). Intelligence 3 should probably be most omnivore mammals and small carnivores including birds and perhaps a few smarter herbivores. Intelligence 4 should be intelligence on the range of raven, most parrots, cats and octopi. Intelligence 5 should indicate something with the intelligence of a dog, elephant, or dolphin. Animals that approach or in limited ways equal human intelligence like gray parrots, gorillas, chimpanzees should have intelligence 6. Among smarter species, there is probably room for intelligence plus or minus one, so a very smart gorilla might have intelligence 7.

I will Yoink this for RCFG, if you don't mind.


RC

 

[Akaiku]

Sadly, in my playing experience, talking animals are always shape changed somethings or a sign that says, "Here there be druids."

The existence of the awaken spell in 3rd ed has actually made it so it's harder to argue that such animals can talk normally.

That said, I did once play an awakened wolf monk. "Of course wolfs can talk; most just don't have anything to say to you."

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

My illusionist/bard/gnome paragon's next feat will be the one where all spellcasting levels serve to level up my familiar, a thrush who currently only speaks Gnomish. Since she already scolds my character plenty, I expect her to be a complete holy terror once I teach her Common ...

And if I were to design the next edition of D&D, I'd stick Animal, Talking and Animal, Anthromorphic right into MM1.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Sadly, in my playing experience, talking animals are always shape changed somethings or a sign that says, "Here there be druids."

The existence of the awaken spell in 3rd ed has actually made it so it's harder to argue that such animals can talk normally.

That said, I did once play an awakened wolf monk. "Of course wolfs can talk; most just don't have anything to say to you."

As I recall, Toto says something very similar in the Emerald City of Oz novel (if that's the one where he finally starts talking) when someone asks why he didn't talk before now.

After that, of course, he chatters his head off in every appearance, proving that terriers are better seen than heard.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Why don't more people [gamers] use them? Well, they're girly.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I voted "sometimes."

Besides the familiars- which only talk to their spellcasters- and "furry" races, I have been known to use talking critters. Sometimes its by design, sometimes its by PC action. And of course, to Gnomes, many animals are talking animals...

(The most fun I had with it? An awakened reptile who spoke "Elvis"...)

And yes, I was raised to read classic legends, fables and myths, as well as the older fantastic novels by writers like J.R.R.T, Lewis Carroll, C.S. Lewis, and so forth.

 

[fissionessence]

In a campaign I was running, the players heard post-war rumors that the warriors from the city of Ver'Kheru that could transform into tigers. They also heard rumors that the king himself was a tiger, and they weren't really sure what to make of either of these. Eventually, they actually met the king who, as it turned out, was a really big talking tiger, and they took a morally ambiguous quest from him. They also had encountered at least one guard from the city who was a weretiger. They also met a villain who they didn't know was also a talking animal because of illusion magic employed by said villain . . . unfortunately that campaign had to be cut short, but the talking animals (including the tiger king, the illusion-wielding serpent, and many others who were either dead or hiding) were immortal creations that had been created by the god of nature to serve as his noble and natury exarchs . . . but they were corrupted by an evil god and these animals collectively turned on all the gods, mostly destroying the gods and then turned on each other. The tiger and the snake were the main two remaining, and had an old feud and a shared goal of achieving godhood themselves . . .

So yeah, I tend to like talking animals, but only if the animals in question have really good reasons to be talking [story-wise]. (I'm not a fan of talking familiars.)

~ fissionessence

 

[CapnZapp]

Voted never (meaning 0.1% not necessarily 0%)

It's not that I dislike the concept, only it's part of other genres, other games.

Just as I'm not having spaceships, World War I horrors or sitting alone in your hut rotting away from gangrene in my game of Dungeons & Dragons, I prefer to keep anthropomorphic and/or speaking animals to other games too.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If you are interested in using talking animals in a D&D 3.5 game, I recommend that you check out my article, Animal House, in the next issue of Dragon Roots.

DRAGON ROOTS