3. Dire Animals

Dire Animals


  • Okay, so I met one of these being DM'd and didn't know how to interact with it.

    Back in the day, it was always, "They are un-natural monstrosities" from the druids, so I went with that. But it occurs to me that that could have been because in the Narfell game world at that time the story was that they becames Dires through being tainted by the Defiler.

    So I went and looked them up and the MM just says they're larger, tougher, meaner versions of the animal, which tend to have a feral, prehistoric, or demonic appearance.

    But I remember Oreth saying there was more to it than just being bigger. And I'm sure there's an in game book called something like, "Dire Animals; Not Just Bigger."

    Can anyone shed some light?


  • Also note that by the D&D rules, Krenshar are Magical Beasts with a Neutral alignment, and Monstrous Spiders are Vermin with a Neutral alignment. Dunno what they're set to in Narfell.


  • The can only have int scores of 1 or 2, and as such arn't sentient. Because they aren't sentiant they can not be either good nor evil. This is why all animals, including dires, are neutral.

    Now. As an ecosystem those specific Dires might be upsetting the balance, which would be a problem for druids. I have no idea if this is the case and it would be best to contact your local circl eof Quelth'tar(sp?).


  • I am saying the answer is provided, but maybe confusing to some who don't know the stats from monster manuals.

    Winter wolves and worgs are evil. They are also able to talk and quite intelligent. 6-9 int scores. Also, they are magical beasts, not animals.

    Dires are listed as animals and therefore are neutral in all cases. Even in Narfell. As an animal, they run on instincts and being controlled doesn't make them evil suddenly though they may appear to be due to what the controller is making them do. I don't think they have the intelligence (average of 1-3) as with majority of animals to distinguish between right and wrong and actually be evil or good. It's more of survival, think of any animal in the world.

    I can understand why some might think they are evil, but they aren't. Hope that helps.


  • I think people care less about "are they animals or not?" than they do about "are they evil or not?". Unless you are saying the answer to the former provides the answer to the latter.

    Like other long time players that have already posted, my recollection has always been - where Narfell is concerned - that dires are some kind of abomination (colloquially speaking, not monster class) and they should be killed because they are evil or a threat to nature or whatever, and that winter wolves are evil.


  • @8d57e19639:

    All monster still have dire animals typed as "animal." (Pg. 62 in the 3.5 MM)

    As such, they are no less an animal than a chicken or dog.

    As per this statement, dire animals are animals and shall remain so within Narfell. They can of course be changed as per DM plots, but that is not on a whole. Dire animals are still animals when born, nothing more despite the imagination of folks about their origins.

    Now with that said, feel free to debate and discuss as you have been, just don't expect the animal thing to change. 🙂


  • I've always played them as evolutionary throwbacks. Bigger and meaner not because they have to be but because they evolved in a harsher environment (possibly one free of druids to protect them…maybe yes?). After all, we never see them in Narfell, but Faerun is still a planet with dinosaurs running around the place. Sabretoothed cats or a hardy giant wolf offshoots with protective calcium and keratin deposits protecting its head and spine doesn't stretch the imagination.

    Now, the BELIEF that Dire Animals are unnatural mutations, possibly due to the corruption of the wilderness by any one of a hundred things...now that sounds like a good plot hook.


  • Personally, I have always just treated them like extremely large animals. They're not magical in anyway that I've ever found. Just big and more prone to attack if you get too close to them (or if they're hungry).


  • All monster still have dire animals typed as "animal." (Pg. 62 in the 3.5 MM)

    As such, they are no less an animal than a chicken or dog.

  • ICC

    as far as the MM was concerned you are right, Dire animals are considered natural beasts and are the prehistoric (yet still around in the Realms) cousins to the normal bears, wolves and what not.
    The only ones that would be evil (or good) would be fiendish or celestial versions.
    Not sure how Narfell itself want it to be played, that is just the core rules definition


  • I've gathered that they are not merely "big boars" or "big bears." If they're in fact magical beasts then they are definitely more than simply bigger versions of their smaller cousins. Note that they have carapaces - or some kind of chitinous armour anyway. If they were merely bigger versions of their cousins, they wouldn't have this.

    That said, I don't think they're the kind of thing druids would rage about. After all, you can get a dire wolf as an animal companion. They aren't aberrations. They're just magical beasts, or at just strange animals.


  • "Dire wolves are larger, more vicious versions of their common cousins." - NWNWiki

    As far as I was ever aware they're not 'evil', but like any feral animal they'll bite your face off if you're goofy around them. As a matter of interest I too would like to know if Narfell's rules on Dire animals is different to that belief.