D&D General Why can Giant Eagles, Giant Elk, and Giant Owls speak?

[dave2008]

I love Princess Mononoke where the giant animals of the forest could talk. They were spirits of course.

But the weren't really. They at least had physical / mundane (though giant) bodies. I mean they were killed by guns and the like. They were very much like D&D intelligent giant animals.

 

[dave2008]

Their lungs are probably complex enough to generate lots of the same noises we can, but the ones they're going to have problems with are m's, t's, p's, and other plosives.

I agree with those saying that it might be because of their big brains, but I also think it has a bit of magic to do with it. Like, Tarrasques probably have huge brains, but they're not smart, don't speak, and so on.

Of course it is magical. Animals don't have the physical ability to speak like humans, no matter how intelligent they are. There are existing animals intelligent enough to speak, but they don't have the physical tools to do it.

 

[dave2008]

The Tarrasque probably has a very small brain, at least in proportion to the rest of its body. Much like a t-rex;

View attachment 123898

You have to balance proportionality of the brain with the rest of its body. Consider a blue whale;

View attachment 123899

The whale has a much larger brain than a human, and blue whales are quite intelligent for mammals. However, most people would admit that humans are smarter than whales.

If the giant owl maintains the same proportional size of its brain to that of the rest of its body, it shouldn't attain intelligence exponentially higher than a normal owl. So yes, there must be some element of magic involved with how it can speak its own language and understand several others.

Brains are complex and I don't think it would be wise to compare a Tarrasque to a T-rex. We also know from birds that the size / intellectual capacity of the brain is not directly related to body size: Bird Brains. And that is not even getting into fantasy animal brains

 

[dave2008]

In Middle-earth the giant eagles were actually mystical beings, ... They were, in a sense, the embodiment of an archetype of the natural, animal world, of which dragons were the twisted form.

I don't think that is correct. We know from the Silmarillion that Melkor was envious of the eagles ability to fly and failed to create flying creatures for a long time. He eventually succeed with dragons. He may have stolen the secret from the eagles or made them in their image (in a way). However, the first dragons did not have wings and could not fly. Flying dragons appear 300+ years after the Glaurung, the first dragon (and one of the mightiest).

 

[Xeviat]

Not all of the giant animals can talk. Dire wolves can't. Giant Boars can't, so no Mononoke Boar tribe for you. It's inconsistently applied and it lead me to think there were myths and legends that were being drawn on for the giant animals that can talk. Giant Eagles and Giant Owls could talk in 3E, but they were magical beasts back then so that made sense; maybe they were just made beasts in 5E because they seem too nice to be "monstrosities".

Also, I absolutely love Princess Mononoke. It inspired so much of my D&D setting, and I have long had dire/giant animals be old and intelligent.

 

[Raduin711]

But the weren't really. They at least had physical / mundane (though giant) bodies. I mean they were killed by guns and the like. They were very much like D&D intelligent giant animals.

The giant animals in Princess Mononoke were Kami, which is often translated into English as being a spirit or a god or deity, but in truth there is no direct translation. It's a very broad term that covers pretty much everything from deities to rocks and trees. There is a spiritual nature to them for sure.

 

[Xeviat]

The giant animals in Princess Mononoke were Kami, which is often translated into English as being a spirit or a god or deity, but in truth there is no direct translation. It's a very broad term that covers pretty much everything from deities to rocks and trees. There is a spiritual nature to them for sure.

Yeah, many gods in Animistic traditions are physical. Heck, gods in D&D can be killed. Also, the iron of the bullets was part of the problem, they might have been immune to wooden weapons.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

They create an incentive for Rangers and Druids to learn these languages. One PC Ranger is learning G. Eagle and a PC Druid knows G. Owl. Oh, an Ancients Paladin has Elk heraldry, something might develop there.

Helps a bit with Conjure Animals without needing Speak with Animals, but really it's just another way to reflect character personality.

 

[Mercurius]

I don't think that is correct. We know from the Silmarillion that Melkor was envious of the eagles ability to fly and failed to create flying creatures for a long time. He eventually succeed with dragons. He may have stolen the secret from the eagles or made them in their image (in a way). However, the first dragons did not have wings and could not fly. Flying dragons appear 300+ years after the Glaurung, the first dragon (and one of the mightiest).

Poor wording on my part. I didn't mean to imply that dragons were the twisted form of eagles, but of the archetype of nature and the animal world.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Brains are complex and I don't think it would be wise to compare a Tarrasque to a T-rex. We also know from birds that the size / intellectual capacity of the brain is not directly related to body size: Bird Brains. And that is not even getting into fantasy animal brains

Considering the tarrasque looks a lot more like a dinosaur than a bird, I think the comparison is fair.