This is about creature intelligence in original AD&D. Others have noted these foibles before, but I wanted to note down my take.
The game's intelligence system itself isn't implausible.
"Non-intelligent" creatures have Int 0. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and plants.
"Animal intelligence" is Int 1. This is most mammals and birds.
A few select mammals are "semi-intelligent", having Int 2-4. Badgers, bears, boars, buffalo, cattle, giant goats, dogs, big cats, mules, and so on.
"Low intelligence" is Int 5-7. Creatures with low intelligence include apes, baboons, owlbears, shambling mounds, almost all the 'evil humanoid' types, and whales.
"Average (human) intelligence" is Int 8-10. Beasts with average intelligence include blink dogs, giant eagles, pegasi, and winter wolves.
And so on.
The first problem of course is that you can easily roll a player character with low intelligence who is outsmarted by most apes and cetaceans.
The second problem is the discrepancies in the book.
I have no idea why wild boar, cattle, and mules are in a higher intelligence category than warthogs, giraffes, and horses.
Giant lynxes and ice toads are as smart as people and have their own language (or in the case of ice toads, "their own weird language").
Dolphins have an intelligence of "Very" (Int 11-12, above baseline human) and are lawful good. I suspect this is a direct outcome of a '70s zeitgeist that envisioned dolphins as supernaturally wise (from before it was widely known what b*st*rds they can be).
The third problem is an ethical one, and is exemplified by the giant beaver and giant owl, both of whose alignment is neutral.
Giant beavers have Low to Average intelligence - likely to be smarter than some of the PCs. They are definitely sapient: they may be willing to trade for "coins or other valuables", and can sometimes be hired to build dam-like structures (e.g. bridges). The final lines of their entry: "Their hides are worth from 500 to 2,000 gold pieces each. Giant beaver kits of under 8 hit points can be subdued, captured, and sold in the market for from 100 to 200 gold pieces per hit point."
Giant owls are Very Intelligent - likely to be smarter than many of the PCs. They too are definitely sapient: they speak their own language, "are intelligent and will sometimes befriend other creatures". The game notes how many eggs and hatchlings will be found in their nests. Their eggs are worth 1000 gp and their young 2000 gp "on the open market".
Hmm.
Well... a lot of the assumed tone in early D&D is that of picaresque rogues sword-and-sorcerering their way through the world in search of coin. So...
Is this acceptable? Frankly, no. Unless your morals are preposterously anthropocentric, this is encouragement of murder, kidnapping, organ trafficking, and slavery.
There are a few obvious ways to fix this.
Most simply, you could reduce giant beaver/owl intelligence to that of an ape, and remove their sapient capabilities.
Equally, have them charmingly sapient but remove the gross stuff, in the same way that you don't attach a price to, say, leprechaun skins.
You could keep it but replace references to selling on the "open market" with sale "to evil beings", although that does raise some further questions.
One twist would be to have it so that only a few certain individuals are naturally uplifted (you would want this to happen from birth, and make them easily visually distinguishable, and probably make it widely known). Those individuals would likely still object to the exploitation of their non-sapient brethren and sistren, but at least it becomes a political or cultural problem rather than an ethical one.
Final thoughts
My tone here has been negative, but the AD&D Monster Manual was a formative read for me decades ago and I still have a soft spot for it. I think the big implicit ethical question is actually the worst problem with the book, and once fixed, the remainder of the text is highly usable for gameplay or inspiration.
No comments:
Post a Comment