Animals and Vermin

[Jack Mann]

On Fax's thread on the CR of a huge monstrous crab, there was a tangent on the animal and vermin types. To keep from derailing the thread, I'd like to continue the argument here.

Corolinth felt that crabs should be of the animal type rather than the vermin type, based on the fact that they're in the animal kingdom. I countered that the word animal is simply used differently in D&D and biology, and as well as real life. He responded:

So does vermin. In the real world, vermin includes such pests as rabbits, squirrels, and rats. But again, we're starting to get into a more superficial complaint I have with the way in which D&D classifies certain types of creatures, and is a bit of a derail to the thread.

My point was not that animal and vermin are used the same in D&D as they are in conversation. My point was simply that the context changed the meaning. Practically speaking, most people would call a lot of magical beasts animals, as would some aberrations. I mean, what do you expect people to call something like a hippogriff or a sea cat? But for the purpose of types, there is a difference between arthropods and other non-sapient, non-magical animals.

I don't see a problem with using animal and vermin in this context, either. Sure, they could use Type 1 and Type 2, or something similar, but it's easier to say animal and vermin. The fact that these words mean other things in different contexts does not make them less useful here.

This is necessary. English is not constructed for fantasy games. There are not enough words to describe everything in the game. Taking words from mythology helps to a certain extent, as does making words up. However, the first only gets us so far, and the latter must be done in moderation, or it becomes more difficult to learn and understand.

Fortunately, English is a very flexible language, and it is possible to take words and recontextualize them, especially when the meanings are related. Giant is a general adjective for large things, but it's understandable when it's referring to a Jack and the Bean Stalk style giant (or something related, like an ogre or troll). An aberration is any deviation from the norm, but we can understand that in this context, it's a kind of creature. The words mean something different in D&D, but this is not a bad thing. In the context, there is no ambiguity.

Reappropriating words for new uses is what English does. Indeed, to a great extent, that's what English is.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Corolinth felt that crabs should be of the animal type rather than the vermin type, based on the fact that they're in the animal kingdom.

...

And so are ants, wasps, bees, mantises, and every other creature of the vermin type in the MM.

And, I'd have to say, his later response—the one you directly quoted—would make it impossible to come up with any meaningful game rules, since every term would wind up meaning something different when used outside the game.

So, yeah—the game term means something totally different from general parlance. Nothing new there.

[Arbitrarity]

If vermin = animals, as animal kingdom...
Human is in animal kingdom.
Therfore, human = animal, and druids no longer have to wildshape for Awaken.

[Piccamo]

I think that the types are an important distinction. The types are what make us people and those who don't use it not people.

[Burrito]

As I see it, in the most simple way I can put it.


Animals = Objective

Vermin = Subjective

Most of the time when something was called vermin, it was because it was some sort of pest/plague/competitor with humans, usually for food, or because it spread disuse. It was still an animal; it was just sub-categorized as vermin.

[Corolinth]

This originally came about as a response I made to someone attempting to use real-world taxidermy to justify why crabs were vermin. Jack just expanded on that when he brought up that humanoids were animals. I understand what you guys are saying about the English language and game jargon vs. real world language. That's all fine and dandy. It's also really not what I was trying to get at, but I didn't want to derail the thread with something that really wasn't relevant to the actual topic.

Here's the root of my problem with the vermin/animal classifications.

Druids have a number of spells and abilities that specifically target animals. Why shouldn't hold animal work on a giant scorpion or spider? The counterargument would be something along the lines of why should wild empathy work on a giant wasp? Well, it's a bit of a stretch, but then when you figure we're talking about a world where magic plays a big role in the world... I think it requires less suspension of disbelief to accept a druid calming a pissed off hornet than it does to accept a dragon.

Furthermore, why can't druids wild shape into spiders and scorpions? There's really no reason why they shouldn't be able to. Those creatures are much more a part of the natural world than any dire animal, and quite likely far more familiar to the druid to boot.

Then there are the other problems with the vermin subtype. Are they really mindless? I think we've found that they clearly have some sort of intellect. It's very low, but it's there. I think vermin are considered mindless because nobody at WoTC likes giving creatures an intelligence of 1. That's really the reason, best I can tell. Hold Monster, being a mind-affecting spell, can't work on vermin. Frankly that's sort of stupid. I can go along with it for mindless undead, because they literally have no mind and are generally accepted among the gaming community as a whole to be immune to paralysis. But the core rulebook expects me to believe that Power Word: Stun doesn't work on a giant spider? Or that Sleep doesn't work on a wasp?

It's a complaint that, as I said in the post Jack quoted, is largely superficial. How often do DMs simply forget that vermin aren't animals, and allow druids to effect them with spells like hold animal or dominate animal? Likewise, how often do players find themselves in a situation where they wish that mind-affecting spell would work on this vermin?

So the issue isn't what we choose to call vermin vs. what we choose to call animals, but rather what that classification means from a mechanical standpoint. I've always thought vermin should be a subtype of animal instead of its own type, and that they shouldn't be mindless by default.

[Fax Celestis]

I think the main problem is that the vermin type is being used for non-swarm insects. Swarms should not be subject to single-target spells like charm monster et al. But the designers didn't really think about non-swarm insect life when creating the types, I think.

[TheOOB]

I personally don't think their needs to be a vermin type, bugs are quite capable of thought, given their thought patterns are quite alien to us, even more so then say, a goat, but they do have a mind.

[CockroachTeaParty]

Well, I can buy the mindless aspect of vermin. The ganglion of a spider is so simple, so basic in how it functions, that it's almost like a machine. Most constructs are mindless, even though they can understand orders. I think that in D&D 'mindless' really should mean 'tamper proof thought,' or something similar (and more eloquent) than that. Mindless enemies obey very simple rules, or think or operate in such a simple or alien way as to render them immune to traditional mind altering spells and abilities.

Of course, I've always wanted a goliath beetle familiar... And wild shaping into a giant ant would make me want to play a druid a lot more.

[Ulzgoroth]

Insects (and other arthropods, or even all invertebrates) are commonly regarded as mindless meat robots, serving simple instinctual programs.

This is seemingly not altogether accurate, as there are researchers studying insect learning. While they certainly do have a lot of inborn behaviors evidently they can also learn from experience, which is about as good a definition of having a mind as I can come up with. If the argument is that the mind is more alien than that of 'animal' type creatures, I'd note that a shark, or worse still squid and octopus, are pretty far from us mammals...

Also, technically speaking, there's no rule against an Aberration Druid. Animal empathy from something that is allegedly an affront to nature?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Also, technically speaking, there's no rule against an Aberration Druid. Animal empathy from something that is allegedly an affront to nature?

Okay, that's one thing that bugs me. This "something nature never intended" flavor being applied to all aberrations.

Aberration does not mean "affront to nature" or any other such thing. The definition of Aberration is something that "has a bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, an alien mindset, or any combination of the three." Heck, a duckbill platypus could potentially count as an aberration on the bizarre anatomy category alone.

When it comes down to it, the Aberration category is so broad—such a large catch-all—that it defies any sort of sweeping generalization.

[Saph]

Well, we could just rename the "Vermin" type to "Insect". But then we'd immediately be flooded by complaints from nitpickers pointing out that spiders are arachnids, not insects. :P D&D creature categories are designed for game convenience, not because they make any biological sense.

- Saph

[Zincorium]

Well, the categories I personally think of for each tends to be on the silly side: Creepy crawlies (vermin), critters (animals), beasties (magical beasts), and so on. But oddly due to the descriptive rather than definitive nature of that, it becomes easy to categorize things.

While I don't think that my own associations should become standard, that'd be a mess and a half, I do think each person needs to come up with their own categorizations that they link up to the official ones. If you don't like the term vermin, if you change the mental association, it doesn't bother you nearly as much during the game.

Also, yeah, aberration is way too broad of a category, and at the same time there's a lot of overlap with magical beast or monstrous humanoid. To add, Giant is a perfectly unnecessary category, I can see it as a subtype but the only thing that differentiates it from humanoid really is size, which save is good, and they get low light vision. And having all undead with exactly the same traits smacks of laziness.

[Brother_Franklin]

A crab really just is a water spider.

[Zincorium]

A crab really just is a water spider.

Oversimplified and anatomically, taxonomically, and metaphorically unsound. Crabs are crustaceans and spiders are arachnids. The two are only connected in that they are both arthropods. There are crabs which do not live in water. There are spiders that do (called water spiders, oddly enough).

[GoblinJTHM]

Main Entry: ver·min
Pronunciation: 'v&r-m&n
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural vermin
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French vermin, vermine, from verm worm, from Latin vermis
1 a : small common harmful or objectionable animals (as lice or fleas) that are difficult to control b : birds and mammals that prey on game c : animals that at a particular time and place compete (as for food) with humans or domestic animals
2 : an offensive person

[Piccamo]

Oversimplified and anatomically, taxonomically, and metaphorically unsound. Crabs are crustaceans and spiders are arachnids. The two are only connected in that they are both arthropods. There are crabs which do not live in water. There are spiders that do (called water spiders, oddly enough).

Not to mention that arachnids and crustaceans evolved down two entirely different lines. I don't see any fish descended from spiders

[lukelightning]

How about vertebrates=animal, invertebrates=vermin?

The only problem with this is those pesky cephalopods who have no business being as smart as they are (what I mean is that real life octopuses and squid are a mystery for biologists, since they are so unlike other molluscs and are freakily smart).

[Inyssius Tor]

We can shuffle them off into the Aberration type, if we take Shhalahr's objection into account!

I mean, they are awfully similar to about two-fifths of the current aberrations...

[Shhalahr Windrider]

How about vertebrates=animal, invertebrates=vermin?

For the most part, that appears to be the major dividing line.

The only problem with this is those pesky cephalopods who have no business being as smart as they are (what I mean is that real life octopuses and squid are a mystery for biologists, since they are so unlike other molluscs and are freakily smart).

And those cephalopods are the only real-world invertebrates categorized as Animals rather than Vermin. Go figure.

[hewhosaysfish]

We can shuffle them off into the Aberration type, if we take Shhalahr's objection into account!

I mean, they are awfully similar to about two-fifths of the current aberrations...

You mean they have tentacles.

Decamp the Rust Monsters into Magical Beast and the Elan's into Monstrous Humanoid and voila: the defining feature of the Aberration is the tentacle. And slime.
So we can expand Zircorium's taxonomy of "creepy crawlies", "critters" and "beasties" to include "betentacled Cthulu wannabes".

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Decamp the Rust Monsters into Magical Beast and the Elan's into Monstrous Humanoid and voila: the defining feature of the Aberration is the tentacle. And slime.

I dunno. You don't suppose the rust monster's antennae can be recategorized as a tentacle?

[lukelightning]

and the Elan's into Monstrous Humanoid

Hey, Elan's music isn't the best, but I wouldn't call it monstrous.

[Arbitrarity]

I still prefer warforged druids.
...

....