Post/Author/DateTime	Post
khyron1144 02-12-07, 11:53 PM	Many believe that a straight out of the Monster Manual dog, cat, tiger, monkey, bear, or whatever is unplayable without an Awaken spell. Why? They can't talk. It's a handicap. It's not unplayable, though. I had a memorable time playing a monkey in BESM. I think it would be fun to recreate that experience in D&D.
Salla 02-12-07, 11:58 PM	Many believe that a straight out of the Monster Manual dog, cat, tiger, monkey, bear, or whatever is unplayable without an Awaken spell. Why? They can't talk. It's a handicap. It's not unplayable, though. I had a memorable time playing a monkey in BESM. I think it would be fun to recreate that experience in D&D. Because they can't talk, for one. Because they can't THINK, for two. Too stupid. Int 2. No fingers means no ability to use gear. Inability to gain class levels, because they're too stupid to learn classes (Int 2), means they can't advance and would be completely useless past about, oh, 2nd level. This all adds up to 'unplayable character'.
xandros2000 02-13-07, 12:08 AM	I would love to have an animal join our group. He wouldnt ask for a share of the treasure. And you can take the feat: greater feces flinging.
runestar 02-13-07, 12:13 AM	I suppose you could find a way to give it the VOP feat...:P
JulesCARV 02-13-07, 12:36 AM	Basically, they can't advance by character class. They can advance by hit dice, but finding the equivalency of hit dice advancement and character class advancement is tricky (two animal hit dice = 1 level of a PC class?). Also, they can't use most gear, besides barding, which means that in anything but a low magic campaign, they'll have serious problems keeping up. I don't think the lack of intelligence is too bad. Animals are simple minded, but if they stick to what they're good at, they can save the day when necessary. Granted, not all of the intelligence that Lassie showed may be 100% plausible, but hey, a dog figuring out how to pull Timmy out of the well is more plausible than a wizard disappearing and reappearing 300 miles away instaneously after chanting a bit and waving her arms.
M.E. Charm 02-13-07, 04:44 AM	Okay, here's an idea; You will play the animal another partymember trained, and you will do all the things he trained you for (with succesful Handle Animal checks), following his every command, and otherwise you will 1) attack or 2) run away!
WinterPsionic 02-13-07, 11:21 AM	Okay, here's an idea; You will play the animal another partymember trained, and you will do all the things he trained you for (with succesful Handle Animal checks), following his every command, and otherwise you will 1) attack or 2) run away! ....playing someone's animal companion is a tad lame...no freedom means no actual character developement....
khyron1144 03-15-07, 11:24 PM	1) Because they can't talk, for one. 2) Because they can't THINK, for two. Too stupid. Int 2. No fingers means no ability to use gear. 3) Inability to gain class levels, because they're too stupid to learn classes (Int 2), means they can't advance and would be completely useless past about, oh, 2nd level. 4) This all adds up to 'unplayable character'. 1) A conceded point, but I don't think can't talk=unplayable. I played a monkey with martial arts training in BESM once and had a blast. A literal unmodified monkey, so no direct speaking character dialogue to others but there's plenty of actions to take or ideas to convey through gestures and body language. 2) It's a 2 not a - that indicates some ability to reason, just not much. 3) I was unaware of this rule until I actually started looking for it. It feels kind of buried in its location in the DMG. I think it's a silly rule that a reasonable DM can be talked into suspending. Otherwise there are going to be at least a few Half-Orcs that can't advance by level either. 4) You say so. I disagree.
bobothechimp 03-15-07, 11:49 PM	You may want to notice the specific note in Half-orcs when it has the intelligence penalty. Notice the (Minimum 3)? That's because any intelligence less than 3 and you can't take class levels. You can't do any gestures to show meaning, you can't do anything intelligent. You can attack, run away, follow, basically just the tricks you can teach an animal companion. Nothing else. That's the limit of your intelligence.
Finfreeze 03-16-07, 12:10 AM	Animals are not capable of detailed reasoning, although with the Handle Animal skill it is possible to tame an animal and teach it to perform certain tricks. Teach an Animal a Trick: You can teach an animal a specific trick with one week of work and a successful Handle Animal check against the indicated DC. An animal with an Intelligence score of 1 can learn a maximum of three tricks, while an animal with an Intelligence score of 2 can learn a maximum of six tricks. While every monster has the statistics that a player would need to play the creature as a character, most monsters are not suitable as PCs. Creatures who have an Intelligence score of 2 or lower, who have no way to communicate, or who are so different from other PCs that they disrupt the campaign should not be used. ... The separate table for Intelligence ensures that no PC ends up with an Intelligence score lower than 3. This is important, because creatures with an Intelligence score lower than 3 are not playable characters. Creatures with any ability score lower than 1 are also not playable. So basically, animals are incapable of higher reasoning and unable to gain class levels. The most you can hope for from an animal is three or six simple tricks. They have no real language unless you have a forest gnome party member—even then you're limited to very simple conversations—and don't usually have the hands to use weapons, open doors, and other stuff that is taken for granted in humanoid society. Animals are supposed to be at the handler's beck and call except in certain special situations (animal is wounded or around a monster with an unnatural aura). Awakening gives animals the intelligence and language ability they need to become functional characters and more than just servants. They still need their own custom gear, but that in itself is barely a problem.
khyron1144 03-16-07, 12:22 AM	1) You may want to notice the specific note in Half-orcs when it has the intelligence penalty. Notice the (Minimum 3)? 2) That's because any intelligence less than 3 and you can't take class levels. 3)You can't do any gestures to show meaning, you can't do anything intelligent. 4) You can attack, run away, follow, basically just the tricks you can teach an animal companion. Nothing else. That's the limit of your intelligence. 1) Another One I probably missed on my initial read through. 2) Again, I say it is something that I missed on initial reading, but now that I am aware of it, I consider it a silly rule. 3) Why? It's a 2 not a -. There is technically an infinite difference between nonsentience and just barely able to learn to fetch and roll over. 4) Why? It's a 2 not a -. There is technically an infinite difference between nonsentience and just barely able to learn to fetch and roll over. A housebroken dog can scratch at the door to ask to be let out. Why can't a PC monkey point at an orc and then make a slashing gesture across it's throat to say: let's kill him? A more general question: I don't have the books with me, but a half-orc's ability score line in a Monster Manual entry might read something like: Str 13, Dex 10, Con 11, Int 9, Wis 11, Cha 9 which gets translated into PC-race stat modifiers of Str +2, Int -2, Cha -2. This shows the basic stat-bonus/penalty formula is MM average score lsiting minus 10 for evens and minus 11 for odds. Why can't this rule be generalized to include animals, so an animal's average Int 2 translates into a -9? I'd rather do things that way as DM and have a DM that does things that way as a player.
Thomar_of_Uointer 03-16-07, 12:53 AM	3) Why? It's a 2 not a -. There is technically an infinite difference between nonsentience and just barely able to learn to fetch and roll over. 4) Why? It's a 2 not a -. There is technically an infinite difference between nonsentience and just barely able to learn to fetch and roll over. A housebroken dog can scratch at the door to ask to be let out. Why can't a PC monkey point at an orc and then make a slashing gesture across it's throat to say: let's kill him? "-" means that it's programmed. There's also a very big difference between 2 and 3, possible bigger than that one. Now, I know you can make arguments on the relative intelligences of dolphins and monkeys, but when it comes down to it, what species designed the computer you're using right now? A more general question: I don't have the books with me, but a half-orc's ability score line in a Monster Manual entry might read something like: Str 13, Dex 10, Con 11, Int 9, Wis 11, Cha 9 which gets translated into PC-race stat modifiers of Str +2, Int -2, Cha -2. This shows the basic stat-bonus/penalty formula is MM average score lsiting minus 10 for evens and minus 11 for odds. Why can't this rule be generalized to include animals, so an animal's average Int 2 translates into a -9? I'd rather do things that way as DM and have a DM that does things that way as a player. No, that works just fine, it's what you're supposed to do when a playable monster doesn't have ability score modifiers listed. The problem is, what happens when you're rolling ability scores for that character and get a 7 for Intelligence? It's just not feasible, sorry. An Intelligence score of 1 represents base animal intelligence. Eats when it's hungry, sleeps when it's tired, runs when it's scared. An Intelligence of 2 represents an animal with finely honed and complex instincts, such as a wolf, dolphin, or a few of the more intelligent primates. Intelligence 3 is where sentience, self-awareness, and the ability to reason starts. Yes, I know that according to the RAW, a rat with an Intelligence of 2 might be capable of finding its way out of a maze faster than a human with an Intelligence of 3 (a study a while back showed that mice are capable of finding their way through mazes by the sounds the base of the maze makes as they walk over it, that's a result of high Wisdom, but anyways...) but this is a result of human brains having almost no instinct, which means there's not much to work off of if a person is incapable of learning properly. It's at the high end, humans being able to invent, predict, philosophize, that the effects Intelligence really become tangible. There's a huge difference between Intelligence 2 and 3, I just don't think you're looking at it in the right way. Oh, and D&D is a simplification of real life, blah blah blah.
ZeronHitaro 03-16-07, 01:02 AM	I think a varriant of another suggestion would work here. Rather than being an animal companion you RP as an animal who has taken a liking to one of the party for some reason or another. Maybe they just smell good, or maybe they rescued you from poachers when you were a pup (or kitten or whatever) and something within your memory has triggered a protective instinct. Personally I think it would be amusing to play a non sentinent animal for a few games. If you really get into it and have a good sense of humor you could drive a few members of the group up the wall in a good way. :D DM: So the party's over about 50 feet away tussling with some orcs. What are you doing tiger? Player: Still laying there watching it, as long as Player B isn't in any danger I have no reason to...oh wait... Player B: Hey Tiger! Come over and bite this orc for would ya? *Handle Animal check of 5* DM: What do you do? Player: Hmm, *rolls dice for own % check*. He has fleas. Is it a full round action or a standard to lick my own ****s for one round? DM: :twitch: And this is without being crude either. Animals really do exhibit said behavior...even in front of guests. :doh:
khyron1144 03-16-07, 01:10 AM	what species designed the computer you're using right now? A deformed bonobo chimpanzee. Normal bonobo: http://www.chamaree.com/wp/wp-content/photos/bonobo.jpg Deformed bonobo: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/khyron1144/JustiN.jpg The problem is, what happens when you're rolling ability scores for that character and get a 7 for Intelligence? It's just not feasible, sorry. Yes it's not feasible. That's why, if I was DM for the above example, I would say okay a -9 to Int means you must assign a minimum of 10 to Int. You may burn that 18 you rolled to get a 9 Int, if you wish. That kind of sucks, but look at it like this: if you're playing a bear (just to name one example), why not assign your low roll to Str? The high racial bonus will make it better, and then you can assign your high roll to Int so you actually have skill points and can take class levels. It's what you might do with a standard demihuman race only more extreme.
Thomar_of_Uointer 03-16-07, 01:15 AM	A deformed bonobo chimpanzee. Normal bonobo: http://www.chamaree.com/wp/wp-content/photos/bonobo.jpg I rest my case. :rolleyes:
ZeronHitaro 03-16-07, 01:19 AM	Also on one more note before I go for the night: The whole "animals can't talk thing" become less pressing if you have a Druid, Ranger, or Bard with: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithAnimals.htm
khyron1144 03-16-07, 01:26 AM	I rest my case. :rolleyes: Wait till you see the final edit of the post. It makes it funnier. Also on one more note before I go for the night: The whole "animals can't talk thing" become less pressing if you have a Druid, Ranger, or Bard with: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithAnimals.htm I can't believe I forgot that one. Makes it almost a non-issue. My next argument: Why can't my character be a non-animated corpse, if Speak With Dead exists? Someone has pointed out to me and others that by RAW the dead condition does not prevent action.
Huzzah! 03-16-07, 01:57 AM	Because you are not actually speaking to the corpse with speak with dead, you're speaking to the soul being channeled throught the physical focus of the corpse. The text states, "You grant the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse..." (emphasis added)
khyron1144 03-16-07, 02:47 AM	Because you are not actually speaking to the corpse with speak with dead, you're speaking to the soul being channeled throught the physical focus of the corpse. The text states, "You grant the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse..." (emphasis added) I was being 90% retorical/ hyperbolic taking my own idea to its illogical conclusion.
ArcTan 03-16-07, 03:32 AM	1) Another One I probably missed on my initial read through. 2) Again, I say it is something that I missed on initial reading, but now that I am aware of it, I consider it a silly rule. 3) Why? It's a 2 not a -. There is technically an infinite difference between nonsentience and just barely able to learn to fetch and roll over. 4) Why? It's a 2 not a -. There is technically an infinite difference between nonsentience and just barely able to learn to fetch and roll over. A housebroken dog can scratch at the door to ask to be let out. Why can't a PC monkey point at an orc and then make a slashing gesture across it's throat to say: let's kill him? Because in real life that's really beyond what you could reasonably expect a monkey to be able to do. What do you mean by "infinite difference"? That's not what "infinite" means. There isn't an "infinite difference" between the number 0 and the number 2. There is a difference of 2. You could say the *ratio* of 2 to 0 is infinite, or a divide by zero error, but that's different. The fact that dogs have *some* intelligence does not make them smart enough to be PCs. Come on. The Lassie movies aside, even very smart dogs and cats aren't that smart. (And the fact that a dog is smarter than, say, a fish, and has Int 2 rather than Int 1, doesn't mean the dog is *smart*. Just that there are things it's smarter than.) A more general question: I don't have the books with me, but a half-orc's ability score line in a Monster Manual entry might read something like: Str 13, Dex 10, Con 11, Int 9, Wis 11, Cha 9 which gets translated into PC-race stat modifiers of Str +2, Int -2, Cha -2. This shows the basic stat-bonus/penalty formula is MM average score lsiting minus 10 for evens and minus 11 for odds. Why can't this rule be generalized to include animals, so an animal's average Int 2 translates into a -9? ...Because a magic genius dog that can read and write and communicate the location of the boy who fell down the well through barks is a lot rarer than just an unusually smart half-orc? I'd rather do things that way as DM and have a DM that does things that way as a player. Dude, you realize you're talking about ordinary cats and dogs somehow being able to learn to wear armor, use weapons, and cast magic spells, right? You realize how ridiculous that is?
ArcTan 03-16-07, 03:35 AM	Yes, I know that according to the RAW, a rat with an Intelligence of 2 might be capable of finding its way out of a maze faster than a human with an Intelligence of 3 (a study a while back showed that mice are capable of finding their way through mazes by the sounds the base of the maze makes as they walk over it, that's a result of high Wisdom, but anyways...) but this is a result of human brains having almost no instinct, which means there's not much to work off of if a person is incapable of learning properly. In D&D a lot of animals actually have higher Wisdom scores than average humans, which I think represents this concept.
ArcTan 03-16-07, 03:41 AM	1) A conceded point, but I don't think can't talk=unplayable. I played a monkey with martial arts training in BESM once and had a blast. A literal unmodified monkey, so no direct speaking character dialogue to others but there's plenty of actions to take or ideas to convey through gestures and body language. That's because BESM is a game based on playing in a CARTOON, and purposely allows you to be comedic, nonsensical and weird. D&D can be like that, but by default is not. Seriously, do you realize how dumb the idea of a "monkey trained in martial arts" is? You do understand that the difference in reasoning capacity between animals and humans goes a lot further than "animals can't talk", right? Even in the great apes? 2) It's a 2 not a - that indicates some ability to reason, just not much. Yes. Not enough, for instance, to learn martial arts. 3) I was unaware of this rule until I actually started looking for it. It feels kind of buried in its location in the DMG. I think it's a silly rule that a reasonable DM can be talked into suspending. Otherwise there are going to be at least a few Half-Orcs that can't advance by level either. Look, just think of Int 3 as the *real* baseline as opposed to Int 0/-. Sentient beings exist on a bell curve between 3 and 18. 4) You say so. I disagree. If you want to do silly things in a D&D campaign, go ahead, but be aware that you're houseruling. And you really should be using the Awakened Animal stats (whether or not you're saying in your campaign that the animal has actually had the awaken spell cast on them) because you really are talking about unrealistic magic Int 7 or 8 Lassie animals, not real animals.
ArcTan 03-16-07, 03:43 AM	Because you are not actually speaking to the corpse with speak with dead, you're speaking to the soul being channeled throught the physical focus of the corpse. The text states, "You grant the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse..." (emphasis added) Just as casting speak with animals doesn't magically make the animal fluent in English. I always played that as the animal talking in clipped, vague phrases that communicate feelings or impressions. ("Much pain. Danger. That way.") You could not use speak with animals to start teaching your dog the basics of astronomy.
khyron1144 03-16-07, 03:54 AM	1) Seriously, do you realize how dumb the idea of a "monkey trained in martial arts" is? 2)You do understand that the difference in reasoning capacity between animals and humans goes a lot further than "animals can't talk", right? 3)Even in the great apes? 4) If you want to do silly things in a D&D campaign, go ahead, but be aware that you're houseruling. And you really should be using the Awakened Animal stats (whether or not you're saying in your campaign that the animal has actually had the awaken spell cast on them) 5) because you really are talking about unrealistic magic Int 7 or 8 Lassie animals, not real animals. 1) Not really. It sounds dumb to you. To me, it was a fun way to pick up the Mute and Marked flaws. 2) I don't really understand. 3) Not so. Chimps make tools. Chimps that are socialized as humans, while messed up by both chimpanzee and human standards, are capable of learning language and displaying creativity in ways that are as real as anything a human can. 4) Yeah, it's houseruling. 5) Or realistic Koko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla))-like animals.
Chie 03-16-07, 06:58 AM	1) Not really. It sounds dumb to you. To me, it was a fun way to pick up the Mute and Marked flaws. 2) I don't really understand. 3) Not so. Chimps make tools. Chimps that are socialized as humans, while messed up by both chimpanzee and human standards, are capable of learning language and displaying creativity in ways that are as real as anything a human can. 4) Yeah, it's houseruling. 5) Or realistic Koko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla))-like animals. I have a suggestion.Perhaps if you were to try to teach a monkey basic skills you would grasp the concept of what would be involved in actually having an animal with a character class.And also you could understand the length of time it takes such animals to actually learn and reason.I taught my cat to jump up onto my desk on command and it took her 2 weeks of work to catch on.
okaynowa 03-16-07, 09:59 AM	This whole discussion reminds me of Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, where he argues "Brutes [animals] abstract not." To wit:10. Brutes abstract not. If it may be doubted whether beasts compound and enlarge their ideas that way to any degree; this, I think, I may be positive in,- that the power of abstracting is not at all in them; and that the having of general ideas is that which puts a perfect distinction betwixt man and brutes, and is an excellency which the faculties of brutes do by no means attain to. For it is evident we observe no footsteps in them of making use of general signs for universal ideas; from which we have reason to imagine that they have not the faculty of abstracting, or making general ideas, since they have no use of words, or any other general signs. 11. Brutes abstract not, yet are not bare machines. Nor can it be imputed to their want of fit organs to frame articulate sounds, that they have no use or knowledge of general words; since many of them, we find, can fashion such sounds, and pronounce words distinctly enough, but never with any such application. And, on the other side, men who, through some defect in the organs, want words, yet fail not to express their universal ideas by signs, which serve them instead of general words, a faculty which we see beasts come short in. And, therefore, I think, we may suppose, that it is in this that the species of brutes are discriminated from man: and it is that proper difference wherein they are wholly separated, and which at last widens to so vast a distance. For if they have any ideas at all, and are not bare machines, (as some would have them,) we cannot deny them to have some reason. It seems as evident to me, that they do some of them in certain instances reason, as that they have sense; but it is only in particular ideas, just as they received them from their senses. They are the best of them tied up within those narrow bounds, and have not (as I think) the faculty to enlarge them by any kind of abstraction. Rats can seem clever with mazes because navigating twisty passages comes naturally to them. Dogs can seem smart and personable because they're pack predators whose loyalties can be transferred. Monkeys and apes can seem intelligent because primates are social creatures that learn by imitation. But take them outside their "narrow bounds," and the impression falls apart. The rat won't retrace the pattern of the maze on a sheet of paper. The dog won't recognize a picture of its beloved master. And an ape won't seek out a Jackson Pollock canvas for its viewing pleasure, no matter how much it enjoys painting something that looks just like it. D&D is a fantasy game, and smarter-than-usual animals often have a role in fantasy. In standard D&D game mechanics, those roles are covered by the animal companion of the druid and ranger, the familiar of the sorcerer and wizard, and the magical beast type. The latter two could reasonably be played as characters in their own right, since their Intelligence score justifies the creative initiative the player will want to take. The non-magical animal or animal companion would be far harder to play, since it can deliberately perform only a small list of tricks. The player would effectively be bound to choosing actions from a menu in every encounter; when those actions are insufficient or inappropriate, only another player character's intervention would allow the animal to react differently.
RobbyPants 03-16-07, 11:42 AM	A more general question: I don't have the books with me, but a half-orc's ability score line in a Monster Manual entry might read something like: Str 13, Dex 10, Con 11, Int 9, Wis 11, Cha 9 which gets translated into PC-race stat modifiers of Str +2, Int -2, Cha -2. This shows the basic stat-bonus/penalty formula is MM average score lsiting minus 10 for evens and minus 11 for odds. That's how it worked in 3.0. In 3.5, the stats listed are using the warrior block (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8), which averages out the same, but allows for a slightly more optimized level 1 warrior. Still, the idea remains the same. Why can't this rule be generalized to include animals, so an animal's average Int 2 translates into a -9? I'd rather do things that way as DM and have a DM that does things that way as a player. In the DMG, there is a separate table for low Int adjustments. It is not as simple as rolling 4d6, dropping the lowest, and then adding in your negative Int adjustment. Instead, you have to reference a table with your roll, and it gives you the appropriate Int score. This helps explain why exceptionally brilliant genius dogs with an Int of 10 don't exist. 2) Again, I say it is something that I missed on initial reading, but now that I am aware of it, I consider it a silly rule. Feel free to house-rule it if you want, but the rules as spelled out wouldn't allow for this. I think it would be very hard to properly RP a creature with an Int that low. I suppose you could try and make up for it with a very high Wis...
khyron1144 03-16-07, 01:49 PM	I'm not saying that animals are on a par with humans, but I do think humans don't give non-human animals enough credit in the intelligence department. I had a pet rat named Bela Vlad Dracula Tepes Lugosi. She lived in a cage and had a food dish. When the dish was empty, I would refill it. All of that makes sense, right? At some point, Bela caught on to the system and would dump out her food dish and then set it back upright, empty. The first few times she did it, I didn't notice and probably refilled her dish multiple times in one day. In other words, a rat learned to recognize a pattern and used that recognition to outwit me. Of course, that is one bit of anecdotal evidence. It does not and can not prove anything. You can't even verify that it's true.
RobbyPants 03-16-07, 02:11 PM	You're certainly right that animals can be quite clever, particularly when it comes to acquiring food. Remember that in the wild, most of these animal's resorces (time and energy, particularly) go into both finding food, and evading perdators. They get quite good at doing what they need in order to survive. When you domesticate an animal, they no longer have to fear predators (although it may take them a while to relax their guard) and they have food given to them. So, instead, they focus their efforts into manipulating this system to getting all the food possible out of it. We have two pet cats. One of them was domesticated her whole life. She does enjoy eating, and she'll pester me about an hour before I'd normally feed her, but that's about the extent of it. Our other cat was a stray that was living off of garbage (and had worms) until four months ago. Even though she's calmed down a lot now, every time someone has some food out, she sits nearby watching intently the whole time, waiting for the right moment to spring into action, grab any unattended food, and then dart to some safe hiding place! She basically puts all of her energy into finding how to get food from us. We've had to child-proof cupboard doors to keep her out, and move things that we've previously kept on the counter. Anyway, to get back on track, again, you're right: animals can be quite clever. The only problem I see with Int 2 or less animal PCs is that it will take them lots of time and study to adapt to a new situation. What will limit the animals is when things change drastically (like they run into some wierd monster like a ghost or an elemental). They will probably attempt to flee from such an opponent almost every time, until they start to figure out how these types of creatures "work." If they fight nothing but goblins, orcs, and ogres, then yes, I think they could show a high level of resorcefulness for their low Int score, given enough time and study.
ArcTan 03-16-07, 02:15 PM	I'm not saying that animals are on a par with humans, but I do think humans don't give non-human animals enough credit in the intelligence department. I had a pet rat named Bela Vlad Dracula Tepes Lugosi. She lived in a cage and had a food dish. When the dish was empty, I would refill it. All of that makes sense, right? At some point, Bela caught on to the system and would dump out her food dish and then set it back upright, empty. The first few times she did it, I didn't notice and probably refilled her dish multiple times in one day. In other words, a rat learned to recognize a pattern and used that recognition to outwit me. Of course, that is one bit of anecdotal evidence. It does not and can not prove anything. You can't even verify that it's true. If you want to play a rat that can empty its own food dish to get more food, go ahead. The gulf between this and learning the set of skills you need to be even a level 1 commoner is pretty huge, though.
ArcTan 03-16-07, 02:24 PM	1) Not really. It sounds dumb to you. To me, it was a fun way to pick up the Mute and Marked flaws. In a cartoon this is a cute idea. In a world that tries to maintain some semblance of realism, this is dumb. A monkey is not just an ugly human who can't talk. 2) I don't really understand. I'm not going to go through the big list of developmental traits humans develop that most animals never do, but there are huge leaps in cognitive levels between humans and animals that go beyond specific things like being able to talk. 3) Not so. Chimps make tools. Chimps that are socialized as humans, while messed up by both chimpanzee and human standards, are capable of learning language and displaying creativity in ways that are as real as anything a human can. ...Well, yeah, sort of, but the smartest chimps reach about the level of a small human child, and even then it's controversial how much they've actually learned and how much they're mimicking their trainers. Chimps are a very, very long way from being able to be "socialized as humans". You can tell by the fact that you don't have any chimpanzee co-workers who are campaigning for the right to vote. 4) Yeah, it's houseruling. Again, it's dumb. It's demonstrating that you don't know much about animals and have come up with a ridiculous anthropomorphized view of them. 5) Or realistic Koko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla))-like animals. I know about Koko. Koko can use about 1,000 words, and uses them in an unstructured way without any grammar (the way a toddler will say "blanket want" or "want blanket" without caring about the order of the words). Even developmentally disabled humans have vocabularies of tens of thousands of words, and the average adult human being has a vocabulary of up to 100,000 words, and all humans of average intelligence who use language eventually develop grammatical rules in order to use language in increasingly abstract ways. Not even the smartest chimps have really been able to do that -- Koko the gorilla is as far as you get, if you believe all the stories about her, and a lot of those stories seem suspect.