Stupid, Chaotic, Warlike: The giant class as combatants

Foreword: I mentioned in my review of Issue 11 of & Magazine that I had some disagreements with the views expressed in that issue's special feature articles.  Rather than clutter that post with my views and make it seem that I hadn't enjoyed &11, I'm taking up some of the controversies here.  Because & Magazine is primarily an AD&D 1e publication and that's the game I tend to play, all of my references to the game manuals are for that system.

The special features of &11 opened with Getting More Mileage from Goblinoids by Bryan Fazekas.  Unfortunately it's not a guide on improving the performance of one's savage litter-bearers, but instead an essay to DMs on why the giant class ought to be than just dumb brutes and sword fodder.  The article starts off by suggesting that the reason for the "brute" assumption is the portrayal in Tolkein's work and its many derivatives, which is plausible.  Fazekas then goes on to review the intelligence and alignment of the giant class in order to justify more nuanced tactics.  Much as I'm inclined to accept that more dangerous orcs, goblins, and so forth are a good idea, I don't really agree with the assumptions and I think they lead to making the giant class less interesting - and less dangerous!

Let's start off with Intelligence.  The article takes it as a given that a being requires a high Intelligence ability in order to be tactically astute.  On this basis he largely considers ogres, trolls, hill giants, and ettins to be "dumb muscle" with a tendency towards a straight-forward approach (if heedful of their own survival) and simple plans.  Fazekas grants that exceptional individuals could turn things around, but he's more concerned with promoting Hobgoblins as a serious threat due to their higher Intelligence.

There is a real problem with this take on Intelligence.  The first is something that Fazekas considers (if all too briefly), reminding the reader that highly intelligent people are capable of foolish decisions, such as Gygax's classic example of being intelligent enough to understand that smoking is bad for oneself but not wise enough to actually stop.  Looking deeper, Wisdom is the ability score that defines an individual's "judgment, wile, enlightenment, and intuitiveness".  Now, perhaps this is not enough for large-scale tactics and especially strategy coordinating large numbers of troops, but for planning an attack by a score of individuals I think that judgment and wile are more than sufficient.  More sharply, if creatures of low intelligence are limited to "dumb muscle", what does this mean for semi-intelligent pack hunters and even less intelligent ambush predators?  Should DMs stop wolves from making flanking attack and hit-and-run tactics, and prohibit crocodiles from ambushing the party?  Surely not!

Wolf-pack tactics in action.  Don't forget that giant class monsters are smarter than these guys.

There's a strong temptation to think of giants always taking on the role of the bear in this image, the big dumb schmuck getting beaten down by its intellectual superiors.  But the bear's problem isn't intelligence as such.  The wolves just have an advantage of numbers and make good use of that strength.  Even Fazekas' "dumb muscle" category of the giant class are more intelligent than wolves, so they're certainly capable of using the same kind of plan and adding embellishments such as missile fire.  Moreover, as the giant class are considerably smarter than the average bear, they're capable of realising just how bad it is to be flanked and can take action to withdraw or protect themselves.

The real significance of Intelligence is in large-scale planning.  The DMG explains that this ability governs reasoning and memory, key skills for the execution of a military campaign.  It's perfectly reasonable to say that the Low Intelligence monsters lack the capability to plan for a siege, even if they have the numbers and prowess to carry one out.  (This also helps to explain the continued survival of Good folk in the implied setting: if they must suffer raids and loss of property, they can at least shelter in their fortresses.)

Alignment is perhaps a more serious issue.  Fazekas says that Chaotic Evil creatures, "are not team players, they tend to focus more on their own needs and wants." - again, he's mostly interested in talking about how the hobgoblins and other Lawful Evil creatures are going to be real threats.  I don't think this interpretation of alignment is right, at least not in 1e.  The DMG explains that Chaotic Evil creatures value their own liberties and have no respect for those who cannot defend themselves, despising "law and order [that] tends to promote not individuals but groups, [because] groups suppress individual volition and success."  Gygax goes on that in chaotic areas, "the governed will give their consent to government, acknowledging leaders as equals serving those who allowed them to assume leadership."  (This is in contrast to Lawful folk who tend to follow their leaders out of a sense of tradition or deference to rank and authority.)  Nowhere here is it said that Chaotic Evil creatures struggle to work together.

There are also concrete examples of how Chaotic Evil bands work.  The entry for Men in the Monster Manual, specifically that for the Buccaneer.  Here we learn that the term "Pirates" is reserved for Chaotic Evil Buccaneers (a group who are otherwise Neutral).  Now, I'm not going to argue the validity of the distinction (it does seem arbitrary!), but hopefully the reader will accept the idea that a band of men gathered together to take what they might from those too weak to hold it are being properly considered as Chaotic Evil.

It's fairly well-known that the notorious Edward Teach (Blackbeard, pictured) held his posts as pirate captain and 'Magistrate' of the Pirate's Republic not by ruthless oppression of his men but in recognition of the plunder he delivered to those following him - and Teach was hardly an outlier.  The pirates of the Golden Age were in rebellion against the vicious "discipline" of other sailing vessels, but that didn't mean that they abandoned the benefits of working together.  On the contrary, pirate crews were often highly motivated and could put great confidence in captains who had previous led them to success.  Lest anyone think that this isn't sounding Evil enough, consider Charles Vane.  He was happy to torture and kill captives in pursuit of plunder (and when possible cheated his crews), but Vane was deposed by vote of the crew on the basis that his caution was costing the men plunder.  I can't claim to be a pulp scholar, but the depiction of pirate crews in REH's influential Conan stories seems broadly similar to this model.

A quick skim of the Monster Manual entries for the Chaotic Evil giant class monsters generally conforms to the "pirate model".  Individual combat prowess seems to be a major criteria for leadership, but there are references to mercenary work and brief alliances in pursuit of shared plunder.  No doubt tough gnolls who are over-cautious end up deserted by their loot-hungry peers.  It also seems plausible that bold and successful ogre leaders attain the extra "levels" of an ogre chieftain in much the same way that human fighters gain levels.  Chaotic Evil leaders might have to explain their instructions with something more than, "I'm the chief!" but if their band thinks that there's something to gain from the plan then they can fight just as well as Lawful creatures of the same capabilities.

Of particular interest in this vein is the chart on p.106 of the DMG, showing the Racial Preferences of Humanoids.  Chaotic Evil monsters are noticeably better at working with other bands of their own species than the Lawful Evil orcs hobgoblins - presumably because the lawful monsters cling to traditional inter-tribal rivalries, while most of the chaotic ones have neither permanent allies nor permanent enemies.  Even the exception to the rule of "cooperative Chaotics", the trolls, indicates that the animosity between their rival groups is more easily set aside than those of hobgoblin and orc tribes.

Now, with all that said, I do have a competing theory for the generally weak use of the giant class.  These monsters, especially orcs, ogres, and hill giants, are encountered early and often in an adventuring party's career.  Perhaps the early groups of role-players recruited from the ranks of war-gaming societies were ready for tactically-dangerous encounters right off the bat, but as the hobby expanded people started coming into role-playing with neither experience nor interest in war-gaming as such.  That could lead to a pattern of staple foes being played "soft", either because of DMs with little inclination towards tactical play or because of players needing these encounters to be more relaxed.  (Fazekas supports this theory in &11 by presenting a re-ordered frequency table that places all and only 1HD giant class monsters at the "common" level so that the monster frequency fits the kind of campaigns he's used to seeing - the giant class is being used with the gloves on.)  In the context of an individual group, these approaches are perfectly valid.  Everyone has the right to play a game that they will enjoy.  But when an accumulation of practice becomes a prejudice, it deserves to be questioned.  Despite my disagreements above I must say that Bryan Fazekas has done an excellent job of opening up this question.