Vermin as Animals

[Celebrim]

Very clever. But as I said before, campaign-specific details should be the exception, not the rule.

While those are campaign specific details, my usage of campaign specific details was merely conveinent for me to make my point - not the point itself.

The point of the above was that the D&D universe is by default a place that is part of an infinite multiverse, where there are 4 basic elements, an ethereal plane, a world in a crystal sphere surrounded by aether, a world that is seldom more than a few 10's of thousands of years old and typically has a fully recorded written history, a universe the law of conservation of energy may be broken by acts of will alone, a universe where the physical laws of the universe are quite possibly the whims of spirits, and heros may survive falls of great distance better than steel. That is the rule, and anything else is an exception.

There is no gaurantee that genetics exist because there is no gaurantee that molecules of deoxyribonucleic acid can be formed of atoms of earth, water, fire and air. There is no gaurantee that nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, or hydrogen exist, and certainly not in the form we know them. There is no gaurantee that blackpowder is explosive, because there is no gaurantee its components even exist. There is no 'potasium elemental plane' by default, no evidence of or need for evolution, no general or special relativity, no quantum mechanics, no semi-conductors, etc. There is no particular reason not to call dolphins 'fish', even if they happen to be fish that have live young and give milk, because there is no familial relationship required between dolphins and mammals nor necessarily a lack of one simply because they have different cladistics than other fish.

In short, by default, the entire body of knowledge of this world could be and in most cases certainly is wrong when applied to the D&D world. We are ignorant of all deep lore, all deep science, and all deep learning regarding the D&D universe. We know little more about its science than 4 years olds know about the science of this world.

 

[Steinhauser]

All true. The D&D universe is certainly not goverend by science as we know it, and it would be silly to suggest otherwise.

However, there is still an underlying and unwritten rule that unless a phenomenon is explained outright as a magical, divine, planar, elemental, supernatural, psionic, or otherwise unearthly effect, that phenomenon will almost always adhere to the normal rules of science and common sense. In the D&D universe anything is certainly possible, but if a given thing is not explicitly noted as an otherworldly possibility, it will be assumed to work just like the real world. D&D blacksmiths may be working with elemental earth and fire, but their procedures for making common peasant items are the same as ours - unless a campaign-specific rule states otherwise.

A dolphin, too, would not be considered a fish, unless a spell that affected fish specifically deemed it so. (Not to mention the "porpoise" entry in the MM names it a mammal.)

Thus, vermin should by all means be considered animals. There is nothing sufficiently magical or otherworldly about the either to justify the split types. Giving them a subtype even keeps them vermin while letting them be animals; there is no flavour lost.

 

[Celebrim]

However, there is still an underlying and unwritten rule that unless a phenomenon is explained outright as a magical, divine, planar, elemental, supernatural, psionic, or otherwise unearthly effect, that phenomenon will almost always adhere to the normal rules of science and common sense.

I agree. But there is another underlying and unwritten rule that you are ignoring here, and that is that the D&D universe is described by its rules. If the rules explicitly note a difference between the game universe and the real one, then its a difference regardless of whether or how the rules explain this difference.

Whether or not the rules grant some 'otherworldly' distinction or not, they clearly make a distinction between animals and vermin. You can't use 'animal handing' to train vermin. You can't use spells that target animals on vermin unless they explicitly say that you can. If you have animal empathy as an ability or are granted an animal companion, those abilities don't refer to vermin. Vermin and animals are different under the rules, hense in the D&D world for whatever reason there must be some distinction between them. That the original reason is probably a metareason doesn't change this.

Now sure, in my house rules there is a homebrew feat, "Vermin Friend" that basically lets you change all the rules that read "Animal" into "Animal or Vermin". So, then you can train vermin with Animal Handling, gain a vermin Animal Companion, use a vermin as an Animal Messenger for the purposes of the spell, and so forth. That's because I don't think that there is too much broken by treating Vermin as Animals. But on the other hand, there is certain some advantage to be gained by being able to do so.

A dolphin, too, would not be considered a fish, unless a spell that affected fish specifically deemed it so.

Generally speaking, the rules wouldn't reference fish - they'd reference creatures with the Aquatic subtype. So, the distinction you make here would not be one that the people of the D&D universe would tend to make. What's important to their world for the purposes of classification is whether or not the creature had the Aquatic subtype. The D&D taxonomic tree would be something like: Living Creature -> Animal -> Aquatic -> Dolphin. If you are the D&D version of Aquaman, you don't get a power that says 'Control fish, ceteceans, etc.'. You get a power that says something like, "Control Animals with the Aquatic subtype." Hense, in the D&D world - as in the real ancient world - dolphins are probably included when you list out 'fish', where fish means to the average inhabitant of the D&D universe, "Animals with the Aquatic subtype". There is no need really for 'fish' to mean anything else to them because there is no reason to think the usage of 'fish' as we use it to classify things has any meaning.

Thus, vermin should by all means be considered animals. There is nothing sufficiently magical or otherworldly about the either to justify the split types. Giving them a subtype even keeps them vermin while letting them be animals; there is no flavour lost.

It seems to me that you want to have this both ways. You want to argue that things are just like the real world except where there are exceptions. And you want to argue that we should remove exceptions when they don't match the real world.

 

[Steinhauser]

If the rules explicitly note a difference between the game universe and the real one, then its a difference regardless of whether or how the rules explain this difference.

True, the rules-as-written are, and always will be, just that. But that's why I'm in the house rules section. I want to find a explaination for an explicit rule that is otherwise poorly explained and ultimately arbitrary. In other words, any compelling reason to keep the rule as it is.

Hense, in the D&D world - as in the real ancient world - dolphins are probably included when you list out 'fish', where fish means to the average inhabitant of the D&D universe, "Animals with the Aquatic subtype".

What does "Creatures with the Vermin type" mean to the average D&D inhabitant? "Spiders, crawly things...worms..." Then it gets fuzzy, because unlike Aquatic, which is clearly defined as creatures living in the water, Vermin doesn't mean anything concrete.

It seems to me that you want to have this both ways. You want to argue that things are just like the real world except where there are exceptions. And you want to argue that we should remove exceptions when they don't match the real world.

I guess what I'm after is a measure of consistency. The Aquatic subtype is self-explainatory; the vermin one is arbitrary. If snails are vermin and octopodes animals, what would the D&D conversion of its common ancestor (whether or not animals actually did evolve in the D&D world) be considered? If vermin were simply classified as "all invertebrates," that'd be better, and it could be cleanly houseruled with a feat like the one you mentioned.

But the other kind of consistency I'm after is over the range of "real world" animals. Animals are better represented than vermin. Animals have Intelligence scores (roughly) representative of their real-world faculties; vermin are mindless, like zombies.

 

[Celebrim]

But the other kind of consistency I'm after is over the range of "real world" animals. Animals are better represented than vermin. Animals have Intelligence scores (roughly) representative of their real-world faculties; vermin are mindless, like zombies.

Oddly, this is the area where I'm inclined to make a house rule because I don't agree.

I believe that real world animals have an upper end intelligence of around 5-6, and that some of them have a highly limited (by human standards) but real and useful innate capacity for language and culture.

The following creatures would certainly have above 2 intelligence in my games: felines, canines, dolphins, whales, elephants, monkeys, apes, racoons, parrots, crows, octopi and possibly also rats, pigs, bears, and ferrets.

Likewise, I wouldn't want to overstate the mental capabilities of a jumping spider, but as a creature capable of learning, memory, and modifying its own behavior it has an intelligence higher than zero. However, the vermin rules seem to allow more leeway for a Int 1 vermin than Animal rules allow for Int 3animals.

I should say that my desire for animals to have above 2 intelligence is not motivated by a desire for 'realism' alone and that in fact, 'realism' is not the most compelling reason here for having animals above 2 intelligence. By far the most compelling reason for intelligent animals is that the source material - myths, legends, fairy tales - all assume that animals are inherently intelligent and are if given cause capable of speach, complex reasoning, and so forth. The source material assumes a animistic world where the cause of every sort of motion of every sort is the violition of some intelligent being. That is to say the wind moves because it wills itself to move, and water flows down to the sea because it wills itself to do so. When you hold this world view it is natural to percieve animals as intelligent actors, and the stories that inform my setting have intelligent animal actors advancing the plot.

It's worth noting that the Mindless trait in D&D does not and never has represented a complete lack of intelligence. Rather it represents an alien and perhaps unfathomable intelligence which is so far from the way humans percieve the world that it cannot be compared to it.

As for how residents of the D&D universe would tell the two apart, all D&D universe vermin have Darkvision, whereas D&D universe animals have low-light vision. Several easily performed spells would also constitute good tests.

If snails are vermin and octopodes animals, what would the D&D conversion of its common ancestor (whether or not animals actually did evolve in the D&D world) be considered?

I find the question rather meaningless, in as much as it is deeply rooted in cladistics. If animals don't evolve, then the phrase 'common ancestor' is meaningless. If they don't evolve, then they need not have a common ancestor and if no common ancestor exists then it would be impossible and meaningless to describe one. Without evolution, every creature is potentially a unique and independent creation. Something created snails. Something created octopi. If there is no evolution at all, two snails of different species aren't even related to each other necessarily and don't necessarily share a common ancestor. It just happens that whatever creates creatures has a fondness for the snail concept and replicated it a couple of times. And, obviously, the creator has an inordinate fondness for beetles.

Besides which, I've already answered this question as it pertains to my campaign. The common ancestor of snails and octopodes is a tree. Of course, an student of the arcane could tell you that the Great World Ash is not a literal three dimensional tree since it is in fact infinite in size and multi-dimensioned and has no definite up or down, and that its apparant treeness is simply a product of that being the only way a mortal mind can cope with its reality. And they could also tell you that the tree is not the ancestor of snail and octopodes in anything like the same sense that its the ancestor of the Gods, in as much as the six divine families are literally begotten of the tree whereas snails and octopodes are manifested by tree in the same sort of way that for example a fire manifests light and heat.

it gets fuzzy, because unlike Aquatic, which is clearly defined as creatures living in the water...

I don't think that people in the D&D universe would define 'Aquatic' in this way at all. I think that rather they would define 'Aquatic' as, "Having a particular affinity for the element water." or perhaps, "Being animated by a water spirit."

 

[Steinhauser]

I believe that real world animals have an upper end intelligence of around 5-6, and that some of them have a highly limited (by human standards) but real and useful innate capacity for language and culture.

This is actually a very interesting thought. Personally, I wouldn't grant more than 3-4 Intelligence, and then only for dolphins and higher primates, if I was motivated by realism alone. (The animals capable of learning human language.)

I do agree - what's best for campaign-specific storytelling should overrule both the written rules and any real-world consistency.

However, the vermin rules seem to allow more leeway for a Int 1 vermin than Animal rules allow for Int 3animals.

You're absolutely right, and higher-thinking animals were already on my list of rules to question. Though I never played editions older than 3E, I believe I heard that it used to be the case in 1 or 2ed.

It's worth noting that the Mindless trait in D&D does not and never has represented a complete lack of intelligence. Rather it represents an alien and perhaps unfathomable intelligence which is so far from the way humans percieve the world that it cannot be compared to it.

On the contrary, I have never seen it referred to representing anything other than a completely autonomous, robotic lack of decision-making intelligence - whether predicated on absolute obedience (zombies) or instinct so base as not to require a brain (oozes, plants).

As for how residents of the D&D universe would tell the two apart, all D&D universe vermin have Darkvision, whereas D&D universe animals have low-light vision.

I guess this is another thing that rankles me. Spiders, scorpions, bees, worms, none of them actually have Darkvision in the real world, as such a thing does not exist. Now while it's concieveable that such a thing might be a banal reality in a world that includes an underdark, I still think Darkvision should be the exception and not the rule. Of course not all animals have low-light vision either.

I find the question rather meaningless, in as much as it is deeply rooted in cladistics. If animals don't evolve, then the phrase 'common ancestor' is meaningless.

I only used the phrase because I didn't know the name of the real-world species that qualified as such.

Say you were implementing a "snailopus" and it was an octopus-snail hybrid (for lack of a better way to explain it in D&D terms). Such things once existed in the real world and were on the cusp of what D&D might call either "animal" or "vermin". What, then, would the person who converted the creature from real world to D&D statistics call it?

I don't think that people in the D&D universe would define 'Aquatic' in this way at all. I think that rather they would define 'Aquatic' as, "Having a particular affinity for the element water." or perhaps, "Being animated by a water spirit."

I think the common D&D denizen would immediately jump to their most obvious shared trait - the fact that each and every one lives in or around water. That's also what someone creating or converting a creature would do - which is why I mentioned it. Deciding between animal and vermin isn't as cut and dry as deciding if your creature is aquatic.

 

[Celebrim]

You're absolutely right, and higher-thinking animals were already on my list of rules to question. Though I never played editions older than 3E, I believe I heard that it used to be the case in 1 or 2ed.

How I play 3e is heavily influenced by 1e - some would say too much. But yes, in 1st edition, the range of animal intelligence overlapped non-animals.

On the contrary, I have never seen it referred to representing anything other than a completely autonomous, robotic lack of decision-making intelligence - whether predicated on absolute obedience (zombies) or instinct so base as not to require a brain (oozes, plants).

That's because you've only played 3e. I'll try to look for some 3e examples.

I guess this is another thing that rankles me. Spiders, scorpions, bees, worms, none of them actually have Darkvision in the real world, as such a thing does not exist. Now while it's concieveable that such a thing might be a banal reality in a world that includes an underdark, I still think Darkvision should be the exception and not the rule. Of course not all animals have low-light vision either.

I actually agree with you on this, however, I also agree that in the D&D world, darkvision is rather banal. However, I would personally prefer Vermin to be equipped with tremorsense by default rather than darkvision. I don't have a particular thing against mundane creatures having darkvision, but I also don't see a particular need for it.

I only used the phrase because I didn't know the name of the real-world species that qualified as such.

I'm not sure anyone does. The common ancestor of Mollusca is completely unknown to science and probably will remain unknown because its Cambrian or even Precambrian and is quite possibly softbodied. The phylum is so diverse that its difficult to imagine exactly what such a common ancestor looked like. I would imagine something that looked like a Limpet but wasn't is the most likely candidate, but I don't think anyone knows.

Say you were implementing a "snailopus" and it was an octopus-snail hybrid (for lack of a better way to explain it in D&D terms). Such things once existed in the real world and were on the cusp of what D&D might call either "animal" or "vermin". What, then, would the person who converted the creature from real world to D&D statistics call it?

Probably whatever he wanted, but as a more primitive version of a snail, vermin seems the most likely category. Of course, that's itself a modern scientific viewpoint, as we have to divorse ourselves from thinking this psuedo-Limpet creature is the ancestor of anything or comparable to anything. If you really cared about the question, you would try to answer questions like, "Does it have Darkvision? Does it have an intelligence score above 0? Is it graceful, controlled and purposeful in its movements? Does it have advanced eyes or an advanced brain?, etc."

I think the common D&D denizen would immediately jump to their most obvious shared trait - the fact that each and every one lives in or around water. That's also what someone creating or converting a creature would do - which is why I mentioned it. Deciding between animal and vermin isn't as cut and dry as deciding if your creature is aquatic.

I'm not sure that deciding if your creature is aquatic is that cut and dried either. According to the RAW, dolphins don't have the aquatic subtype. But like your hypothetical D&D denizens, I would also tend to want to define them as Aquatic if they lived in or around water both because it is 'intuitive' as you suggest, but more importantly because it has a metagame purpose. For example, I probably wouldn't allow a person to use Baneful Polymorph to turn someone into an aquatic creature except in water, and vica versa. I likewise would want a Trident of Commanding Sea Creatures to effect everything with the Aquatic Subtype, including dolphins. And so forth.

Have you ever read 'Moby Dick'?

 

[Will]

What really broke my head was trying to figure out why gnolls are humanoids and centaurs are monstrous humanoids.

Um. Hrm.

 

[Steinhauser]

However, I would personally prefer Vermin to be equipped with tremorsense by default rather than darkvision.

I wholeheartedly agree; I think I remember reading a Monte Cook article about this once.

If you really cared about the question, you would try to answer questions like, "Does it have Darkvision? Does it have an intelligence score above 0? Is it graceful, controlled and purposeful in its movements? Does it have advanced eyes or an advanced brain?, etc."

Case-by-case ruling is the best it's going to be with the current system. There's still going to be a theoretical animal that is on the cusp of animal and vermin and will defy D&D "taxonomy." I guess it really doesn't seem like a problem if you're not an extreme purist, though.

I'm not sure that deciding if your creature is aquatic is that cut and dried either. According to the RAW, dolphins don't have the aquatic subtype.

Actually reading the SRD description of the Aquatic subtype, it states, "An aquatic creature can breathe underwater. It cannot also breathe air unless it has the amphibious special quality." So I suppose "lives in and around water" is already too broad for the subtype - it must actually be able to breathe underwater too. Still, that's quite cut-and-dry.

Have you ever read 'Moby Dick'?

Once, but I was quite young, and neither grasped nor retained most of it.

What really broke my head was trying to figure out why gnolls are humanoids and centaurs are monstrous humanoids.

It's true, according to the list of types and subtypes, there is nothing to preclude centaurs from being humanoids. Except, I suppose, its lack of a subtype. The same goes for minotaurs. (They were humanoid in that campaign setting where they were a standard race. Was it Dragonlance?) In my opinion the monstrous humanoid and giant types are both similar to the vermin type - redundant, and could easily be subtyped.

 

[Will]

Interestingly, in Pathfinder they made giants a subtype of humanoid... though centaurs are still monstrous humanoids.

(I've been thinking of retyping them as Humanoid (augmented human) )