Redundent advantages?

[KarlKost]

Originally Posted by Kromm

IQ 0 doesn't mean "mindless." It means "nonsentient." And that means "cannot learn skills." A nonsentient being can still have an identifiable brain and nervous system . . . just not enough of one to learn usefully.

Remember that the attribute scale has a granularity of 1, and that IQ 1 is as smart as a fish (even sharks, which are smart fish, get IQ 2). Lots of insects and things with brains necessarily have IQ 0 to fit onto the scale.

So, even IQ 0 creatures can have to worry about fear and influence. If you don't want that, you have to add traits that remove those concerns.

What about a sponge? Or a plant? Those dont really have any nervous systems at all.

But yes, I agree with the "you get what you pay for", so I would say those other traits would be mandatory in these cases

[KarlKost]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

The dividing line might be sponges which are animals with absolutely no nervous system. On the other side of the line might be several microscopic things that nonetheless do have simple neural nets.

Yes, but besides real living organisms, there's also many fictional and fantasy ones. Many Undead for example have IQ 0, like zombies, as do some constructs, like golems. And things like oozes from D&D. Those things absolutely have no neural system at all.

Oh, speaking about oozes I remembered about one guy that made an ooze farm, and designed oozes to clean the teeth and some other useful purposes, I gotta post that some other day

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Kromm

IQ 0 doesn't mean "mindless." It means "nonsentient." And that means "cannot learn skills." A nonsentient being can still have an identifiable brain and nervous system . . . just not enough of one to learn usefully.

Remember that the attribute scale has a granularity of 1, and that IQ 1 is as smart as a fish (even sharks, which are smart fish, get IQ 2). Lots of insects and things with brains necessarily have IQ 0 to fit onto the scale.

So, even IQ 0 creatures can have to worry about fear and influence. If you don't want that, you have to add traits that remove those concerns.

So a Giant Ant with its IQ 2 (Classic: Bestiary) is far smarter than its real life counterpart. Makes sense as fantasy giant (whatever) tended to be smarter than their normal sized counterparts.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by KarlKost

Yes, but besides real living organisms, there's also many fictional and fantasy ones. Many Undead for example have IQ 0, like zombies, as do some constructs, like golems. And things like oozes from D&D. Those things absolutely have no neural system at all.

Actually zombies and golems do have IQ scores. Clay Golems have IQ 8 (Magic p 59) and while IQ 0 (IQ-10) Zombies are mentioned none of the templates in GURPS Zombies take the IQ that low.

In fact IQ 8 (IQ-2) is the defacto IQ for undead — even skeletons (Magic p 152; Zombies p 101)

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Kromm

IQ 0 doesn't mean "mindless." It means "nonsentient." And that means "cannot learn skills." A nonsentient being can still have an identifiable brain and nervous system . . . just not enough of one to learn usefully.

"Per p. B15, at IQ 0, you're mindless and unable to act without somebody possessing you and operating you via remote control. " — GURPS FAQ; 3.1.5 What do attribute levels of zero mean? (ST 0, DX 0, IQ 0, HT 0)

So when did IQ 0 stop meaning "mindless" and started meaning "nonsentient"?

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Kromm

IQ 0 doesn't mean "mindless." It means "nonsentient." And that means "cannot learn skills."

Should that mean Cannot Learn is a prereq for IQ 0 ?

[Plane]

Originally Posted by maximara

"Per p. B15, at IQ 0, you're mindless and unable to act without somebody possessing you and operating you via remote control. " — GURPS FAQ; 3.1.5 What do attribute levels of zero mean? (ST 0, DX 0, IQ 0, HT 0)

So when did IQ 0 stop meaning "mindless" and started meaning "nonsentient"?

My guess is when GURPS Fantasy 4e was published in February 2006

F58 has an IQ0 Herecine which clearly has some limited mind.

It is able to make attacks:

1) Affliction at 4 yards
2) Binding at 2 yards
3) punching or grappling at C (it has manipulators unless they forgot to add No Manipultors)
4) biting (it has a mouth)

Not headbutts or kicking since it has No Head and No Legs (Sessile) though

It notable even has 4 levels of the "Hard to Subdue" advantage, which is something you take to resist unconsciousness - pointless if you're not conscious in the first place.

Not sure if sessile creatures are able to do slams, if so it would only be 0-yard ones.

[Anthony]

Generally speaking anything capable of taking actions under its own volition is also able to have those actions be influenced by something else.

The original Basic set IQ 0 is less "immune to control" than "control is irrelevant" -- what does it even mean for a creature that is incapable of action to be frightened?

[KarlKost]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Generally speaking anything capable of taking actions under its own volition is also able to have those actions be influenced by something else.

The original Basic set IQ 0 is less "immune to control" than "control is irrelevant" -- what does it even mean for a creature that is incapable of action to be frightened?

What's the word in english? Jellyfish? Is that it? I guess... Weird. In portuguese it's "living water". Even weirder I guess. Anyway, jellyfishes are capable of "actions", but all those "actions" are just biochemical responses. It's no different from how a bacteria "behaves".

Speaking of which, how about bacteria? Clearly it's IQ 0, and clearly they are capable of "acting"; granted, I dont think anyone would try to "mind control" a single bacteria, but that may be a conversation to be done about jellyfishes.

I guess that in those cases it would be more like somebody else said above; to "control" a bacteria, you'd use some sort of "microbiology power", rather than a mental power, just like you wouldnt try to mind control a plant, but you would rather use a "plant spell", and those differences would probably be a 0 point feature

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by KarlKost

What's the word in english? Jellyfish? Is that it?e

Probably jellyfish but jellyfish are one of those creatures that do have a primitive neural network. They are well above sponges evolutionarily speaking.