So some birds use tools and have a sense of humor. Cephalopods can do basic math, maybe? Some primates can learn sign language. Whales have actual, distinct cultures.
--I feel like you could easily argue that some animals have a basic form of sentience. In some cases (dolphins and the like), the evidence is so overwhelming that it's less of an argument and more just stating a fact.
What would change if some animals had an intelligence score of 3? What problems would crop up? What animals would you include on the list?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd argue that even the most clever of animals still only have an Intelligence of 1 or 2. In Pathfinder, the event of hitting Intelligence of 3 essentially turns animals into Magical Beasts and makes them a part of the alignment system as active participants.
Honestly, I'd suggest letting certain animals types learn additional tricks, rather than open Pandora's box on the matter.
I'd argue that even the most clever of animals still only have an Intelligence of 1 or 2. In Pathfinder, the event of hitting Intelligence of 3 essentially turns animals into Magical Beasts and makes them a part of the alignment system as active participants.
Well... not always.
For example, paladin mounts are still animals despite having their Int increased to 6; at 11th level, they gain the celestial template and are treated as magical beasts for spell-targeting purposes.
ACs generally can have their Int boosted to 3, which lets them break out of the AC feat list; but it doesn't change their type.
But yeah, if you were to take the base animal and increase its Int to 3, it would cease to be an animal because, as the animal type is defined, they can't have Int of 3 or higher.
Of course, not always. But I was just talking about normal animals. When PCs get involved (and magic), the rules ... bend.
The only hope I can see here is that Speak with Animals will enable an animal to do one thing it could not have done otherwise: answer questions. Its attitude and willingness to answer questions do not seem to be affected, but there is a definite uptick in its ability to understand and respond to the caster.
I'd argue that even the most clever of animals still only have an Intelligence of 1 or 2. In Pathfinder, the event of hitting Intelligence of 3 essentially turns animals into Magical Beasts and makes them a part of the alignment system as active participants.
I would agree, to a point. But I feel like the sacred status of Int3 is only sacred because of our current perspective.
Honestly, I'd suggest letting certain animals types learn additional tricks, rather than open Pandora's box on the matter.
I don't think "attack" and "guard" really cover "use this very specific and complicated series of hunting techniques to catch and eat this one type of prey, specifically." Especially when the trainer, in the wild, is another animal.
Gorillas can learn sign language. This is a fact.
If that alone, not even touching some of the profound information these individuals have been able to convey with their newfound ability, does not set them apart from, say, a buffalo or a weasel, in a very drastic way, I don't know what does.
Whales pretty clearly mourn their dead, have complex languages that vary from one geographical location to another, and do crazy things like use echolocation to perform murder-surgery on certain prey animals to get at the most nutrient dense organs in the body. I just...Int2? Really? So a housecat and a dolphin: for all intents and purposes, the same, intellectually speaking? I dunno.
You warn against opening Pandora's Box. That's exactly what I'm talking about. What's inside the box? It's all well and good to warn me with "what if's", but do you have an example?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree, to a point. But I feel like the sacred status of Int3 is only sacred because of our current perspective.
I think that standard we are using now is the correct perspective. Intelligence reflects the ability of a creature to learn. Having an Intelligence score at all means that a creature is able to acquire, process and implement new information. It is merely limited (in Pathfinder) in the ways that it is morally responsible for the implication. Having a score below 3 simply means that the creature is not intelligent enough to understand the ramifications of its actions on a moral level.
I don't think "attack" and "guard" really cover "use this very specific and complicated series of hunting techniques to catch and eat this one type of prey, specifically." Especially when the trainer, in the wild, is another animal.
Creatures can, and do, learn complex hunting techniques in the wild. "Attack" and "Guard" aren't used for that. They are tricks that specify who and what the animal is supposed to attack or guard. There are more complex tricks.
Gorillas can learn sign language. This is a fact.
If that alone, not even touching some of the profound information these individuals have been able to convey with their newfound ability, does not set them apart from, say, a buffalo or a weasel, in a very drastic way, I don't know what does.
Yes, you can teach certain creatures how to communicate with you in the real world. To what degree and what depth will greatly vary. We can even argue that the advanced training that an animal (gorilla for example) goes through in order to learn how to communicate (which would require a rank in linguistics, and an Intelligence score of 3) might have just been responsible for boosting their Intelligence up to 3 in order to do so.
Whales pretty clearly mourn their dead, have complex languages that vary from one geographical location to another, and do crazy things like use echolocation to perform murder-surgery on certain prey animals to get at the most nutrient dense organs in the body. I just...Int2? Really? So a housecat and a dolphin: for all intents and purposes, the same, intellectually speaking? I dunno.
Let's try an keep things in perspective. When we put an animal intelligence at 1 or 2, we are comparing it to the processing capacity of a human being. Other aspects of a creatures development and ability to out 'peform' other creatures in certain areas can be attributed to racial HD or racial traits. It does not necessarily have to be reflected in a single stat.
You warn against opening Pandora's Box. That's exactly what I'm talking about. What's inside the box? It's all well and good to warn me with "what if's", but do you have an example?
Well, the most obvious thing is that having to reassess animal intelligence by species is going to throw the entire Intelligence score system out of sync with the other scores. There are simply too many gradients to adequately rank each animal according to what we've seen in the real world and the science is always changing and updating on it.
Then, we get into the whole issue about morality and the souls of animals (yes, they do have souls in the Pathfinder universe), and whether or not it is 'right' to consume 'semi-sentient' creatures, which brings in another real world issues into the game that simply do not belong in most of the gameplay. We have to find out where the animals will sit on the alignment spectrum and whether new gradients of alignments should exist for them.
It is much easier, and streamlined, to accept that the animals within the Pathfinder universe have an intelligence range of 1 or 2, and reaching 3 does something special to them. We don't need direct reality to gameplay comparisons.
Really, the implications are huge.
Well, the most obvious thing is that having to reassess animal intelligence by species is going to throw the entire Intelligence score system out of sync with the other scores. There are simply too many gradients to adequately rank each animal according to what we've seen in the real world and the science is always changing and updating on it.
A valid point. And hey, I'm usually the first person to go "don't complicate or change the game just for the sake of reality". But I'm not talking about the difference between a dog's intelligence and a cow's. I'm talking about the difference between instinct and complex learned behavior, and that's it. I'm curious what the implications would be if you took a few primates, a few birds and some marine mammals (maybe some cephelopods, maybe) and bumped them from a 2 to a 3.
Then, we get into the whole issue about morality and the souls of animals (yes, they do have souls in the Pathfinder universe), and whether or not it is 'right' to consume 'semi-sentient' creatures, which brings in another real world issues into the game that simply do not belong in most of the gameplay. We have to find out where the animals will sit on the alignment spectrum and whether new gradients of alignments should exist for them.
I think those issues are only as problematic as you let them be.
I mean, there is real-world debate as to whether or not it's right to eat animals of any kind, full stop. So I think you still choose to either include or avoid that discussion in a game (I certainly never have, though I've played on the horrors of "factory farming" and cannibalism a couple times).As far as alignment, yeah I dunno. What alignment is a small child? Neutral, probably. With spikes of incredible kindness and astounding cruelty. You *could* get into the issue...or you could just go "they're neutral". But I suppose I'm talking about my own games, specifically, where I'm comfortable and even prefer to leave huge swathes of information undefined. For a published S&S game, I can see how it would be harder.
...some of the actions ...actually fall under the category of evolved behaviors and instincts, which are distinct from learned behaviors.
Biologists have firmly declared the behaviors I'm talking about in birds, apes, etc. to be learned behaviors. It is acquired knowledge, passed down from one generation to the next.
I dunno. It's such a niche alteration, I bet you could houserule it this way and play a game every week for a year and never see anything change.
My stories are usually a more subtle, less obvious subgenre of fantasy, and I like to blur the line between the natural and the supernatural a lot. This might help boost things in that direction a bit.
I'm talking about the difference between instinct and complex learned behavior, and that's it. I'm curious what the implications would be if you took a few primates, a few birds and some marine mammals (maybe some cephelopods, maybe) and bumped them from a 2 to a 3.
Wouldn't some of that difference simply be made up in the racial HD and racial traits given to specific animals? I mentioned that in my previous reply.
Regardless, the direct implication of bumping up a few animals to an intelligence of 3 is ... How does the world react to a new sentient species? Or several of them. Now, animals are not just the domain of nature deities, but all manner of other deities will seek out their attention. Evil deities will see a new race (races) of being to corrupt and add souls to their domains. Good deities will see a new race (races) to enlighten and uplift. Both will seek to drag the new race (races) into the eternal struggle of the Outer Planes.
That line between Int 2 and 3 is a huge step. Either you bump it up to between 3 and 4, or you create more problems.
If some animals had Int 3 - I think it works better to work out some actual examples.
Suppose there was a 'clever crow' species with Int 3 on average. They can talk to each other so news like 'hey, there's a downed cow on Farmer Brown's land' gets transferred a lot faster. Cooperation becomes easier. They're going to be much more effective scavengers, and if the human example is anything to go by probably effective enough to squeeze other animals out of their ecological niche. They may make some art if they get enough of a surplus to waste time that way.
Marine mammals with Int 3 might be more likely to adapt their behaviour to fight back against hunters, but that seems less likely to make a difference to the world. They have communication already and they have no effective means of tool use whatever their Int.
Gorillas with Int 3 might make more use of stolen tools. It could move them from 'animals whose only means of remaining alive is hanging out in remote areas of the world' to 'really dumb goblinoids'.
Sorry, I should clarify: I'm not saying "what would happen in a setting if some animals were suddenly sentient?"
I'm posing "some animals could be considered/are sentient as they currently exist in the world, so--assuming that as a given--what would that Int3 do in the system?"
My example isn't a special type of "clever crow". It's just regular crows. Regular marine mammals. Regular gorillas. There's tool use, language, culture, even the beginnings of philosophy.
I don't think most GMs have the experience with animals or the expertise to handle this realistically in the game. Mostly such critters are just a clever sock puppet to help the PCs with additional nudges (GM intervention, information) or as an interesting encounter with some moral/ethical quandering.
For sure. I mean, I didn't really see the subject matter for what it was until fairly recently. A few more recent documentaries sort of made me step back and take it all in...and then, of course, a different part of my brain was like "this is good storytelling material."
Your question strikes to the heart of what makes humans think they are special. There are some real, philosophical, and religious answers to those real world questions and as a game the group can explore these questions safely within the game through roleplay.
The DnD3.5/PF1 model is far rougher and inaccurate than Newtonian Physics. It doesn't have the precision or accuracy for complicated models.
I think that is the crux of it; the difference would be fairly minor in terms of actual gameplay. I mean, this is a fantasy ttrpg. How many in-depth encounters are there with primates? The orangutans are just there as part of the backdrop while the PC's track down the ghost of the weretiger high priest or what-have-you.
As for the model, of course it's rougher. I'm certainly not suggesting this for the sake of "because it's more realistic". While it may well be, I was thinking that it could possibly offer an incentive for otherwise less optimal animal companions or summoned creatures; like, the raven could perform a more complex task than the falcon or the eagle, so it might become a real option, even though it's less combat-viable.
I don't understand the "be careful, it's a slippery slope" angle at all, though. That would be like saying "be careful. If you allow wizards to cast a spell called 'fireball', you'll have to account for sudden pressure change and carbon monoxide levels in enclosed spaces, and the social ramifications of severe scarring in certain cultures" --you know? You only have to go as deep into it as you feel like. After that, dismiss the rest in the name of simplicity.
I'd refer you to the Homebrew forums for ideas on this topic.
I don't think I'm looking for anything from anyone just yet, but there are a few encounter ideas knocking around in my head already, yeah. Maybe even a full adventure or two.
Mechanically, very little changes. There's the Diplomacy issue, but that's no bad thing. They're easier to train. Otherwise I don't see that it matters much.
PF has a myriad non-Animal creatures with Int > 2 and somehow the game still works. So I'm not sure that there's a problem.
Honestly, just change the creature type to magical beasts for any 'animal' with intelligence of 3 or higher. That will solve the problem on all ends.
Honestly, just change the creature type to magical beasts for any 'animal' with intelligence of 3 or higher. That will solve the problem on all ends.
I'm not sure I understand. What problems, and what ends?
What I'm talking about is the fact that some *animals* may well be better represented with Int3 and the basic levels of sentience that come with it.
As Sandslice mentions, there are already Int 6 animals in the game, such as a Nature Oracle's Bonded Mount.
And I previously mentioned, general rules get messy when characters and magic get involved. I am not making a universal statement about all animals in all situations when I quote the general rules for animals.
there are general rules for each type and changing it to Magical Beast changes those basic assumptions. it's *magicial*
Normally, I'd agree with you but...
I'd argue that sentience is extraordinary enough to make the cut.
I'm not sure I understand. What problems, and what ends?
What I'm talking about is the fact that some *animals* may well be better represented with Int3 and the basic levels of sentience that come with it.
The problem is with having to reclassify so many 'animals' and creating unique rules to handle such exceptions to the general rule that animals possess Intelligence less than 3.
I'd argue that some 'animals' might just be better represented with racial abilities or additional HD to grant them skill points that better reflect their basic levels of sentience. OR, we can just call them magical beasts, say that they are animals that are displaying a level of sentience higher than most other animals, and leave it at that. We already have rules to do this with.
I'm kind of surprised. I just received some new information and thought about how it would affect this. But I feel like maybe I've touched some kind of nerve.
I'd argue that there are no magical beasts in our world that I know of. I would also argue that some animals are sentient.
The more I think about it, the less it's really an issue of mechanics and the more minor of a subject it is in the grand scheme of the game.
If I gave you the impression that you've touched a nerve, I can assure you that you have not. I am not emotionally involved with the conversation and simply prefer that we use existing mechanics to express these ideas, rather than tamper with the core ability scores and basic assumptions built into a creature type.
The gist of it is: do you want those clever chimps and dolphins and whatever to be affected by spells that affect animals? If so, animal. If not, something else.
If I gave you the impression that you've touched a nerve, I can assure you that you have not. I am not emotionally involved with the conversation and simply prefer that we use existing mechanics to express these ideas, rather than tamper with the core ability scores and basic assumptions built into a creature type.
Oh okay, good.
And I guess, with my games being more houserule than official anything, I'm obviously more of a mind to tweak and adjust. I feel like the basic assumptions built into this particular creature type are incorrect, and don't really see any major problems with correcting them.The gist of it is: do you want those clever chimps and dolphins and whatever to be affected by spells that affect animals? If so, animal. If not, something else.
I mean. Yeah. They're animals, right? Just because an animal is a lot more intelligent than we once thought doesn't mean they're suddenly not animals.
Like, if D&D was invented 150 years ago when some people claimed that elephants are incapable of feeling pain and there was a rule within the game that represented such...I'd kind of want to change it when I found out that claim was false.
I mean. Yeah. They're animals, right? Just because an animal is a lot more intelligent than we once thought doesn't mean they're suddenly not animals.
I don't know about this. Treating a creature as if it is sentient in almost all the ways that matter should elevate them above the Animal type. Intelligence of 3 opens up a world of possibilities to such creatures, which include but are not limited to: taking any feat they can qualify for, take ranks in any skill, become part of the moral fabric of the multiverse and taking a role in it, ability to take CLASS LEVELS, etc, etc.
Why is this important? Well, let's take the ability to take any feat they can qualify for. Well, Additional Traits suddenly grants the 'animal' the potential to acquire spell-like abilities (like cantrips). You could brush that aside and say that animals can't take traits via a feat, but its another houserule.
'Animals' with an intelligence of 3 SHOULD be considered Magical Beasts. If only for the potential they now have access to, not just extraordinary abilities, but magical ones too. If you allow for Animals to have intelligence up to 3, you should bump the minimum requirements to Intelligence of 4 to unlock stuff normally reserved for PCs/NPCs.
Whether or not they're still animals would probably come down to why animal only abilities work on animals. Spells granted by a nature deity may not be intended to effect a dog who wears a suit and works in construction. Some abilities may be intended for those who can't develop an alignment other than neutral, making a more advanced creature an unacceptable target.
I agree with those saying that it's probably easier to say smart animals are categorically different. Whether that means treating them as magical beasts, or making "humanoid" the smart animal category, would come down to which makes more sense or requires less work.
"...man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons." --Douglas Adams "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
Sure, it opens up some potentially silly stuff. But I think it's pretty easy to say that, while it's technically possible, it just doesn't really happen. Due to a lack of motivation, maybe. Or their intrinsic nature; maybe they have this deeper, unspoken understanding. Who knows? Who cares?
Animals are neutral (or at least, the vast majority of them are. I think there are possibly some outliers, given some truly unusual behavior out there). I don't mind that being a simple houserule.
And I've never used Traits. So I'm not really worried about that.
If this were something Paizo wanted to change in their system, sure. It would require a little work. As in, it would require redefining the animal type and what Int3 means. And that's really it, I think. Cut out all the weird stuff at the source.
But obviously that's not going to happen. So it's all within the domain of houserules.
I think it would be the height of silliness to say "wow, it looks like whales are actually sentient! Hm. Better bump their intelligence to 3, then.
But wait, animals can't been Int3! Better change their type to Magical Beasts" --it's like, acknowledging an error, but then acting as if it's still true. Either you agree that some animals have achieved sentience--which changes the definition of what an animal is, in terms of the gaming system--or you don't believe the evidence points to that at all--which negates the need for a change in the first place.
Feel free to house rule as you see fit. I tend to be fairly meticulous with the rules when I make those kinds of changes, because I tend to use most/all of the rules when I run the game. Internal consistency is a huge factor too. There can be exceptions to rules, but they still have to be believable.
That's actually why I end up changing so much. I want things to be believable on the narrative sense, so I end up taking a metaphorical hacksaw to almost every system I touch.
But that's usually in part because I have a very specific story I want to tell in terms of tone and such. If something in the existing system or setting doesn't fit, out it goes.
The biggest problem in changing things up seem to be in the features of the animal creature type, the restrictions it places and why. I feel like that would be a pretty simple matter of editing.
The ramifications of the change in terms of the in-game world and Paizo's setting are another matter entirely. But even then, I feel like it's only another sentence or two from being resolved.
and from a Rules forum viewpoint that puts you in the Homebrew forum.
And that is why I started this thread in General Discussion.
I totally understand trying to make things more believable and that is part of the home GM's job.
It's funny, because normally I strongly disagree. Making changes because "it's more realistic" is a poor reason. Changes to a system should be made to enhance game play, full stop.
I mean. I guess there are some situations where games should change to reflect the progression of society, like where older game systems may have had sexist or racist undertones baked into them, but that's a while 'bother can of purple worms.Just remember to keep "communicate with animals of it's own type" after the Type change to Magical Beast thus opening the door to Speak with Animals spell.
I'm not sure I understand. My whole stance is to *not* change anything creature type, as nothing about the animals has actually changed. They're still animals. They exist in the real, non-magical world. They're just smarter than we thought, to the point that a discussion about sentience is on the table.