Narnia in DnD

[Azreal]

So I'm wondering how many science friends are around because I have a question involving Awaken shenanigans.

My character is looking to start a nation of talking animals Narnia style and so far has about 18 rats and 4 ravens.

I'm wondering if anyone can help me figure out how many I would need to start a healthy population because my DM is super detail oriented and genetic diversity would become a factor.

[CharonsHelper]

Point of order: In Narnia the talking animals aren't just normal animals who are smarter & can talk. In the books, they specifically say that the talking animals are always closer to humans in size. So a talking rat would be considerably larger than a normal one, while a talking elephant (I don't think any are in the books - but as an example) would be a good deal smaller.

[hymer]

When two awakened animals procreate, there's no indication you get a litter of talking baby animals from it. So you don't have to worry about genetic diversity, you 'just' need to be able to lure/capture enough new stock, and cast Awaken (with all the costs and demands that entails) repeatedly.

That said, I hear that the rule of thumb on a healthy population is at least 2000. That should give enough genetic diveristy to get through the bad times.

[Azreal]

In this particular campaign because of DM fiat I'm fairly certain their offspring will also be awakened. But 2,000 is quite the number. 😮

[J-H]

I've heard that the number for humans is as low as 300 IRL. However, it could be substantially lower if mutations (genetic info loss/damage) are less common in D&Dland than in the real world. Background radiation levels? UV amounts allowed through or blocked by the atmosphere?

Rabbit breeders (breeding for health as the only trait they care about) successfully practice line breeding, where a buck may be bred to its female descendants for several generations. The male descendants, meanwhile, are eaten, and their organs (liver I believe) checked to indicate overall health to determine breeding plans. Awaken is presumably increasing animal size/complexity, and especially brain size/complexity, and thus requires more genetic material that is then vulnerable to damage that causes harmful recessives that would manifest through inbreeding.... so let's treat them like humans.

Do Heal or Greater Restoration fix genetic disorders (they are diseases, from a certain point of view)? If so, your minimum population is 2, given time and continual magical support.

[LibraryOgre]

This might prove helpful.

As a semi-serious aside, you might consider the game Fallout Shelter. In it, you can breed your Dwellers to get new dwellers, but dwellers won't breed with family, so you can run into problems if you're not careful... until you bring in new blood. If someone new comes into your Vault from the outside, they can breed with everyone, creating a new wave of viable children and crossbreeds.

Fallout Shelter is kinda frightening, if you think about it, I won't lie.

But you have your initial population. The rats will breed quickly, and every new rat you introduce will create more diversity in your population. Given what you suspect about your DM, you will probably have a few castes of rats, with some having "pure" awakened lineage, and others having more mixed lineage with normal rats (if your awakened rats deign to mate with unawakened rats... they might not be willing).

Your ravens, on the other hand, will breed far slower, so you can introduce fewer of them per year and still start building a healthy species. I would encourage converting ravens in pairs, using established breeding pairs to create new ravens. If you create, say, 4 new ravens a year (1000xp), and 8 new rats a year (2000xp), you're going to advance slower, but your faith might consider it a boon.

Also? Try to take some of these awakened animals as novices. If the rats start getting their own 9th level druids, you can stop making new rats, and let them do it, themselves.

[J-H]

Good point on breeding cycles. Rabbits are FAST and will let you bulk up on your population. What is the combat power of 10,000 Rabbit commoners with Tiny shortbows? With a decent dex, and a size bonus to-hit, they are probably more effective than you'd think.


If Awakened creatures breed true with dumb animals, you may want to convert some stallions and let them breed the horse herds to intelligence over the next few years. Non-monogamous animals will be your best bet.

[hamishspence]

Point of order: In Narnia the talking animals aren't just normal animals who are smarter & can talk. In the books, they specifically say that the talking animals are always closer to humans in size. So a talking rat would be considerably larger than a normal one, while a talking elephant (I don't think any are in the books - but as an example) would be a good deal smaller.

There were indeed talking elephants in The Magicians Nephew.

However - the biggest creatures (elephants and what looked like giraffes in the illustrations) only shrank a little, whereas the smallest (mice) grew a lot.

[daniel_ream]

science

a nation of talking animals Narnia style

genetic diversity

One of these things is not like the others.

[Jay R]

I'm wondering if anyone can help me figure out how many I would need to start a healthy population because my DM is super detail oriented and genetic diversity would become a factor.

There's no way to guess without knowledge of how your DM approaches it.

Real-world laws of genetics are broken in a world with half-dragons, or shape-changes into other species. So without a thorough knowledge of that world's laws of genetics (or, more likely, how the DM would rule), your question has no answer.

So your next step is to ask the DM. Tell him your goal, and ask what would be needed to achieve it.

[NomGarret]

There's no way to guess without knowledge of how your DM approaches it.

Real-world laws of genetics are broken in a world with half-dragons, or shape-changes into other species. So without a thorough knowledge of that world's laws of genetics (or, more likely, how the DM would rule), your question has no answer.

So your next step is to ask the DM. Tell him your goal, and ask what would be needed to achieve it.

The practical application is to give the DM a real-world benchmark to weigh against, rather than a totally arbitrary number. I would probably put it at around 75% of what science would deem necessary because magic, but what is that amount?

[Traab]

The practical application is to give the DM a real-world benchmark to weigh against, rather than a totally arbitrary number. I would probably put it at around 75% of what science would deem necessary because magic, but what is that amount?

If you read the linked article you would see its kinda complicated. The other issue is, its meant for animals, not for sentient beings, which would alter the figure somewhat. Ok, I just did a search and for one species of rat, the number needed for minimal problems with genetic diversity was 200. That gives a wide enough population base to start from to avoid inbreeding issues. I couldnt find one for ravens though.

[Beleriphon]

If you read the linked article you would see its kinda complicated. The other issue is, its meant for animals, not for sentient beings, which would alter the figure somewhat. Ok, I just did a search and for one species of rat, the number needed for minimal problems with genetic diversity was 200. That gives a wide enough population base to start from to avoid inbreeding issues. I couldnt find one for ravens though.

Very likely its going to be roughly similar.

On minimum human populations the one thing to remember is that we generally only have one offspring at a time. Rodents usually have between two and a dozen. Birds can be the same, although it depends on predator or prey usually. Geese for example can have huge broods, I've personally seen several flocks with a dozen adults, and at least ten fold that goslings.

[Jay R]

The practical application is to give the DM a real-world benchmark to weigh against, rather than a totally arbitrary number. I would probably put it at around 75% of what science would deem necessary because magic, but what is that amount?

Sure, feel free. But find out if the idea appeals to the DM. If it does, it's likely to work.

[Lorsa]

Jay R is correct that this is the sort of thing best left for the DM to figure out, as it has to do more with in-world natural laws than real-world ones.

Another point to consider is; does your character possess the same scientific knowledge as you do? Would they know the number?

When I did a google search on a very similar topic the other day, I found some numbers that seemed reasonable, even though I didn't check the original source or did the math myself.

It said that around 5000 was a good benchmark for a sustainable population with no need for "meddling". It can be left to its own devise. Around a tenth of that (so like 500), it requires people to not mate with their cousins (or equivalent genetic commonality), whereas for a tenth of that (so at the 50 mark) everyone needs to mate with everyone.

I never saw what was the lowest possible population number in order to create some form of sustainable population. In the real world it has been done with like 7-10 people, so the number is fairly low.

[hymer]

In the real world it has been done with like 7-10 people, so the number is fairly low.

I'd like to point out that while a population can possibly survive to recover from considerable slumps, there is certainly no guarantee that it will. In the generations following such a slump, even when numbers have been replenished, the population will still be in much more danger from new selective pressure than it would be with a more varied gene pool.
OP is asking for the numbers for a 'healthy' population, and ten is very, very far from healthy.

[Jay R]

Whatever number the books provide, it will be based on assumptions about the speed of changes in the environment, level of predators, etc. I suspect that in a D&D universe, those assumptions will not hold.

[Azreal]

I agree and know it's DM dependent but I was hoping for some ballpark figures and some factors I hadn't thought of when me and my DM discuss it.

Pretty much a baseline to work with and we can go from there. So pretty much suggestions, actual science anything helps since this is fairly complicated but we are both into it.

[daniel_ream]

Pretty much a baseline to work with and we can go from there. So pretty much suggestions, actual science anything helps since this is fairly complicated but we are both into it.

Three score and ten.

For when Nanna-Is, the Great Golden One, set her hand upon the fields and sent forth the beasts of the earth, the sea and the air, this is the number of beasts she so sent forth. For this number is sacred to her, and you will hold it so.

[Jay R]

It's still based on whether the D&D universe runs by the same genetic laws that our world does. Given, for instance, the number of races that can cross-breed, I find that assumption very unlikely.

[OK, maybe magic accounts for racial cross-breeding. That still means that our genetic rules don't apply in the world of D&D magic.]

[Anxe]

If you want to read a good scientific summary on this, I'd suggest this one: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s12_9242.pdf

[Azreal]

If you want to read a good scientific summary on this, I'd suggest this one: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s12_9242.pdf

This was super helpful honestly. Is there anywhere I can find expansion on this information?

[Anxe]

This was super helpful honestly. Is there anywhere I can find expansion on this information?

What I linked was from a textbook. If you want more information you'd probably have to start reading actual papers on the topic. The MVP will vary depending on the species and environmental conditions, so it's difficult to recommend a good source after that. A search term on PubMed Central of "minimum viable population" returns over 30,000 results. Not the best starting place. These search terms narrowed it down a little bit to under 1000 articles: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?te...+genetic+drift

And as always, reading the cited sources in Wikipedia is a good place to go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population

The chapter I linked and the Wiki page both cite journals and books with Conservation Biology as the title. Getting a book on Conservation Biology from your local library would also be a good place to start. Maybe even one of the ones that's cited if they have it.

[Geek000]

I'm pretty you should be fine with what your doing now but get the sizes right