D&D General Why can Giant Eagles, Giant Elk, and Giant Owls speak?

[Xeviat]

What is the history on this in D&D?

Of the MM beasts, the following have language capabilities:

Giant Eagle
Giant Elk
Giant Owl
Giant Vulture (understands common, can't speak, even it's own language)

The Winter Wolf and Worg also speak, but they made them monstrocities.

I imagine the Giant Eagle is because of it's association with the giant eagles in Lord of the Rings. But is there more to this? I only got into D&D in the very late 90s.

 

[BookTenTiger]

For realism, I assume.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Eagles (or hawks) and owls fit literary tropes of knowledge, wisdom, perception, or cunning. Vultures are often seen as minions or followers of some villain. It makes sense that they could be verbally commanded; that way they're collaborators in villainy. For Giant Elk, the spirit or guardian of the forest is often represented as a massive stag.

 

[aco175]

When you become a giant sized animal, you have a bigger brain, or... magic.

Seriously, I would think it has to do with them being able to be ridden and having a mount that can understand you is cool, sorry horses- you are in the real world and cannot translate over.

 

[the Jester]

I'm pretty sure that this is because they could in older editions, or at least in 1e (along with the giant lynx).

 

[Bacon Bits]

I'm pretty sure that this is because they could in older editions, or at least in 1e (along with the giant lynx).

Well, sure, but that's a circular answer. They 1e authors had to make the decision about why they should speak, too.

 

[Oofta]

My pure, unsubstantiated guess? Traditionally giant versions of animals were inherently mystical. They they were more than just large versions of the animal.

As inherently magical creatures (no matter what they're classified as in the current edition) they were spirit animals, avatars and whatnot.

 

[Mercurius]

Following on what @Oofta wrote, D&D was created as an amalgam of ideas from other media forms, including Tolkien. In Middle-earth the giant eagles were actually mystical beings, even quasi-deities (I can't remember if this was speculation or Tolkien himself, but they may actually have been Maiar--that is, lesser angelic beings/demi-gods, of the same ontological order as the Istari and Balrogs). They were, in a sense, the embodiment of an archetype of the natural, animal world, of which dragons were the twisted form.

Now none of this "deeper stuff" was explicated by Gygax, as far as I can tell. Gygax and the designers of D&D drew upon many sources and assimilated them into D&D for game purposes, so the metaphysical or archetypal stuff wasn't really part of that conversion - except perhaps through implication. But I think the Tolkien approach works well: imagine them as quasi-immortal, mystical beings that are "guardians of nature."

 

[TheSword]

Following on what @Oofta wrote, D&D was created as an amalgam of ideas from other media forms, including Tolkien. In Middle-earth the giant eagles were actually mystical beings, even quasi-deities (I can't remember if this was speculation or Tolkien himself, but they may actually have been Maiar--that is, lesser angelic beings/demi-gods, of the same ontological order as the Istari and Balrogs). They were, in a sense, the embodiment of an archetype of the natural, animal world, of which dragons were the twisted form.

Now none of this "deeper stuff" was explicated by Gygax, as far as I can tell. Gygax and the designers of D&D drew upon many sources and assimilated them into D&D for game purposes, so the metaphysical or archetypal stuff wasn't really part of that conversion - except perhaps through implication. But I think the Tolkien approach works well: imagine them as quasi-immortal, mystical beings that are "guardians of nature."

I love Princess Mononoke where the giant animals of the forest could talk. They were spirits of course.

 

[Charlaquin]

The way I interpret it, given that they can understand some human(oid) and/or elemental languages but not speak them and they can speak their own languages but those languages aren’t typically available for PCs to learn is that they aren’t really languages in the literal sense. They’re methods of communication with a potential for complexity and nuance comparable to languages, though they may not involve words, grammar, syntax, etc. as we understand it. I would probably give creatures like ants, bees, and dolphins their own (pseudo-)languages as well.