Animal companion main issue, dog is basically the best choice


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 290 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
Why in a world of nukes, machine guns, tanks, and jets would you not be allowed to take a lion into a kindergarten?

We petted a lioness in 1st grade and took pictures with her. ^^


666bender wrote:
Boars are my favorites. Accepted every where and powerful enough.

Boars are also incredibly tanky at low levels. :)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

"How are you disguising the boar to get it into the ball?

Plops an apple in its mouth

Silver Crusade

The Mortonator wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Why in a world of nukes, machine guns, tanks, and jets would you not be allowed to take a lion into a kindergarten?
We petted a lioness in 1st grade and took pictures with her. ^^

I swam with sharks on a 5th grade field trip.


The issue you're looking at is the intersection of tamed and domesticated.

Tamed and domesticated: Pet dog

Domesticated but not tamed: Stray dog

Tamed but not domesticated: Pet wolf

Not tamed not domesticated: Wild wolf.

Pathfinder really doesn't consider most of that though.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

The issue you're looking at is the intersection of tamed and domesticated.

Tamed and domesticated: Pet dog

Domesticated but not tamed: Stray dog

Tamed but not domesticated: Pet wolf

Not tamed not domesticated: Wild wolf.

Pathfinder really doesn't consider most of that though.

Likely because 'does it want to eat your children?' is more of a personality question than anything else. Game rules don't cover 'does it want to attack?' that well, and they're not supposed to.

Again, individual responses are probably the best way to go. A town will respond differently to wild wolves and tamed wolves. I think someone else earlier had a great example--'OK, you're responsible if Bitey acts up, even if it's just peeing on a lantern boy.' Remember, the party itself is a pretty dangerous group. And not just because the druid turns into a wolf and pees on the lantern bearers when drunk.

(I think there's a bit in the rulebooks about sometimes laws affecting folks differently too: visit a place with a weapon check desk and Barbie's greatsword goes on the rack, but Mona the Monk doesn't give a flying kick.)


Throwing my 2 cents in here, in real life wild animals aren't scary death machines people usually imagine them as. A wild bear is more likely to run away form you than eat your face off, as long as you don't actively threaten it or it's children, or it's REALLY hungry(You wouldn't attack an enemy you know nothing about unless you had to, and neither would an animal). This is even more true in areas where humans actively hunt wild animals. This will probably be known to anyone with even a passing familiarity with a hunter, so I would imagine that only big towns should pose any roleplaying problem for a party with a trained animal.


Klara Meison wrote:
Throwing my 2 cents in here, in real life wild animals aren't scary death machines people usually imagine them as. A wild bear is more likely to run away form you than eat your face off, as long as you don't actively threaten it or it's children, or it's REALLY hungry(You wouldn't attack an enemy you know nothing about unless you had to, and neither would an animal). This is even more true in areas where humans actively hunt wild animals. This will probably be known to anyone with even a passing familiarity with a hunter, so I would imagine that only big towns should pose any roleplaying problem for a party with a trained animal.

And, despite that, in the real world most municipal areas in the developed world have laws preventing private ownership of animals like wolves, tigers, bears, etc. At least part of the reasoning behind these laws is the perceived danger to people these large predators pose.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Saldiven wrote:
Klara Meison wrote:
Throwing my 2 cents in here, in real life wild animals aren't scary death machines people usually imagine them as. A wild bear is more likely to run away form you than eat your face off, as long as you don't actively threaten it or it's children, or it's REALLY hungry(You wouldn't attack an enemy you know nothing about unless you had to, and neither would an animal). This is even more true in areas where humans actively hunt wild animals. This will probably be known to anyone with even a passing familiarity with a hunter, so I would imagine that only big towns should pose any roleplaying problem for a party with a trained animal.
And, despite that, in the real world most municipal areas in the developed world have laws preventing private ownership of animals like wolves, tigers, bears, etc. At least part of the reasoning behind these laws is the perceived danger to people these large predators pose.

Which is entirely reasonable... because 'wild' animals kept by humans don't have the instinct to fear humans... and thus are vastly more dangerous than their truly wild counterparts.

Except Hippos. Hippos are downright vicious under any circumstances.

Silver Crusade

Now I want to make a PC with a hippo companion animal.


Likely because 'does it want to eat your children?' is more of a personality question than anything else. Game rules don't cover 'does it want to attack?' that well, and they're not supposed to.

Well, for handle animal it would be "how hard is it to keep it from eating your children"

Tamed and domesticated: Pet dog Almost automatic.

Domesticated but not tamed: Stray dog: Put food in bowl once a week.

Tamed but not domesticated: Pet wolf: will require active socialization and even then be careful.

Not tamed not domesticated: Wild wolf.: this is going to be a part time job...
.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Klara Meison wrote:
Throwing my 2 cents in here, in real life wild animals aren't scary death machines people usually imagine them as. A wild bear is more likely to run away form you than eat your face off, as long as you don't actively threaten it or it's children, or it's REALLY hungry(You wouldn't attack an enemy you know nothing about unless you had to, and neither would an animal). This is even more true in areas where humans actively hunt wild animals. This will probably be known to anyone with even a passing familiarity with a hunter, so I would imagine that only big towns should pose any roleplaying problem for a party with a trained animal.

The bear animal companion, in particular, is more like a black bear than a fearsome grizzly, considering it starts out small and only grows to medium size. That fat ball of fur is more in line with the kind of critter that heard a dog bark and scampers up a tree.

On the subject of big towns, I would actually expect them to be more likely to be accepting of non-domesticated animals as pets. There's probably more than a few nobles, guildmasters, etc. with pet lions or tigers, entertainers with elephants, scouts and bounty hunters with wolf partners, etc.

I don't see any reason most animal companions wouldn't be allowed basically anywhere you could bring a horse; they might be denied entrance to the fete or gala event, but even that probably has some wiggle room if the party can pass them off as part of the entertainment, or if the party's renown is such that the animal is considered by many to be just as much a hero as the adventurers themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ultimately, this discussion cannot have a definitive answer unless one were to specify the game world.

In Golarion, possibly, these animal companions might be common enough to excite little or no comment or objection from the people in a town (though, I'd argue a fully grown T-Rex would excite comment just about anywhere).

However, not everyone plays on Golarion or a world like it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Moose. That is all.


Just wanting to point out the difference between a trained animal and an animal companion, as I have heard them used interchangeably in this tread and they are not.
A Trained Animal is something anyone with enough gold can gat, something that exists in our word. someone took an animal and taught it to do things on command.
An Animal companion is an animal with a mystical bond to a person with levels in the appropriate class; a bond that strengthens the animal in question, and grants that person a grater degree of control over it.
Therefore, Animal companions would be treated like any other weapon, if they let the wizard keep his spell book and the barbarian keep her Greatsword, then they would have no problem with letting the druid/ranger keep their triceratops, assuming it could fit inside.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathan Monson wrote:
Just wanting to point out the difference between a trained animal and an animal companion, as I have heard them used interchangeably in this tread and they are not.

"This is Leo the Leopard, my animal companion". How are you going to check whether that's true or Leo is just a trained animal?


Manly-man teapot wrote:
Nathan Monson wrote:
Just wanting to point out the difference between a trained animal and an animal companion, as I have heard them used interchangeably in this tread and they are not.
"This is Leo the Leopard, my animal companion". How are you going to check whether that's true or Leo is just a trained animal?

Well, a leopard trained for hunting is cheaper than a riding dog, heavy horse, or light warhorse. That implies that they're not exactly a rare and exotic commodity which in turn implies that they've been domesticated.

If your example had been something exotic and wild it would also be something where it would be unlikely a traveler would be able to keep one well behaved enough to pass for an animal companion without it actually being an animal companion.


Atarlost wrote:
Manly-man teapot wrote:
Nathan Monson wrote:
Just wanting to point out the difference between a trained animal and an animal companion, as I have heard them used interchangeably in this tread and they are not.
"This is Leo the Leopard, my animal companion". How are you going to check whether that's true or Leo is just a trained animal?

Well, a leopard trained for hunting is cheaper than a riding dog, heavy horse, or light warhorse. That implies that they're not exactly a rare and exotic commodity which in turn implies that they've been domesticated.

If your example had been something exotic and wild it would also be something where it would be unlikely a traveler would be able to keep one well behaved enough to pass for an animal companion without it actually being an animal companion.

Tiggy the Tiger, Duplo the Diplodocus, whatever.

(also, the 100 gp hunting cat is obviously a typo. Basing world assumptions around that is really dumb).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dustyboy wrote:

Yep I said it.

In the dnd world, most people understand social issues with playing an orc, but the issue of having a bear or lion as an animal companion is rarely brought up.

So I want to explain to you the main issue here

Animal companions are autonomous, you can command them but the dm plays them. This means that they are npcs

Now a tamed bear is still a bear , and there is definitely a big problem with walking into town having one.

First off its not gonna realistically be allowed in the Tavern or inn, the stable isn't outfitted for a bear, and letting it roam in a town is out of the question .

There's also the logistics of caging it, especially if you're a ranger or a druid who tends to value freedom

If you have a dog it can likely come into some businesses with you, even the most unruly dog is better received than the most obedient lion when off leash.

A horse can be hitched up to a post without worry that the town guard will shoves Spears into it in a panic.

Arguments for wolves are potentially viable but again I wouldn't leave it alone anywhere, there's definitely a farmer or hunter in town that knows what it is

Basically wolves and big cats are great stat wise, but they should hinder you in role play heavily.

Hell can you even get past a gate keeper with a bear?

There are numerous familiars that also follow this, but as they are small and intelligent they can be more easily concealed or "contained".. chances are your imp knows to stay in rat form and not cause massive havoc

I bolded your problem. "Realism" and "Fantasy" do not belong in the same concept. This is a fantasy game. Fantastic things that would never happen in reality occur. Magic is a thing. Dragons are a thing. Animal Companions that obediently obey their "master" are a thing.

If the townsfolk have heard of dragons they have probably heard of people with animals that can tell animals to do (or not do) something.

Does this mean they will be allowed in the tavern? No, but then again halflings, orcs, or dwarves may not be allowed in the tavern. I am sure NPC people (ie, the GM) can come up with reasons to disallow anything.


Gauss wrote:
Dustyboy wrote:

Yep I said it.

In the dnd world, most people understand social issues with playing an orc, but the issue of having a bear or lion as an animal companion is rarely brought up.

So I want to explain to you the main issue here

Animal companions are autonomous, you can command them but the dm plays them. This means that they are npcs

Now a tamed bear is still a bear , and there is definitely a big problem with walking into town having one.

First off its not gonna realistically be allowed in the Tavern or inn, the stable isn't outfitted for a bear, and letting it roam in a town is out of the question .

There's also the logistics of caging it, especially if you're a ranger or a druid who tends to value freedom

If you have a dog it can likely come into some businesses with you, even the most unruly dog is better received than the most obedient lion when off leash.

A horse can be hitched up to a post without worry that the town guard will shoves Spears into it in a panic.

Arguments for wolves are potentially viable but again I wouldn't leave it alone anywhere, there's definitely a farmer or hunter in town that knows what it is

Basically wolves and big cats are great stat wise, but they should hinder you in role play heavily.

Hell can you even get past a gate keeper with a bear?

There are numerous familiars that also follow this, but as they are small and intelligent they can be more easily concealed or "contained".. chances are your imp knows to stay in rat form and not cause massive havoc

I bolded your problem. "Realism" and "Fantasy" do not belong in the same concept. This is a fantasy game. Fantastic things that would never happen in reality occur. Magic is a thing. Dragons are a thing. Animal Companions that obediently obey their "master" are a thing.

If the townsfolk have heard of dragons they have probably heard of people with animals that can tell animals to do (or not do) something.

Does this mean they will be allowed in the...

The 'but DRAGONS!!!!!!!!!!!!' Fallacy again. The existence and possible existence of some extraordinary things does not imply blaise acceptence of all extraordinary things.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm, did I state that they did? *checks his post* Nope! Didn't even imply it.

What I said is that reality has no bearing on this discussion.

I also said that townsfolk have probably heard of people that can tell animals to do or not do stuff.

Please try to take what I write as writ rather than add things I did not write.

If anything, I basically stated it was GM fiat whether or not townsfolk accept ANYTHING.

Again, that has nothing to do with "reality". It is a fantasy world, not a reality world. The GM will do whatever he wants with his NPCs. If he wants them to accept it, they will. If he doesn't they won't. Reality has no bearing on the matter any more than it does in any fantasy adventure novel.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:

I bolded your problem. "Realism" and "Fantasy" do not belong in the same concept. This is a fantasy game. Fantastic things that would never happen in reality occur. Magic is a thing. Dragons are a thing. Animal Companions that obediently obey their "master" are a thing.

If the townsfolk have heard of dragons they have probably heard of people with animals that can tell animals to do (or not do) something.
Does this mean they will be allowed in the...
The 'but DRAGONS!!!!!!!!!!!!' Fallacy again. The existence and possible existence of some extraordinary things does not imply blaise acceptence of all extraordinary things.

He never said that or implied it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is going to vary a lot by locale. In new york city people get weirded out by a coyote running around, but this is just tuesday in alaska


Rosc wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:

I remember that scenario: my summoner went in without her pet dragon. Or her armor.

Having the trait princess was priceless that night, in a group where everyone else had dumped down to 7 cha and had not a single point in social skills.

That sounds awesome! I'd ask for more details, but I haven't played the scenario myself. Also, this is why I tend to put Diplomacy right up there with Perception when I build PFS characters. Both are equally important, but so few people incentivize being at least passable at Diplomacy.

Among other things: She was not bluffing when she announced she was royalty and her lack of invitation was obviously an oversight :p

That one got a blank look from the GM until we reviewed character sheets, traits, and character backgrounds 8) Also: switching from diplomacy to a well placed intimidate vs. a servant left the entire table laughing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ultimately it depends on the campaign world. If druids and rangers and such are common, its not going to be as big an event as you think. Think of it this way, a little over a hundred years ago, (or now in some cases) in the United states it wasnt odd to walk into a bar/inn with a pistol on your hip, a knife on your belt, and a rifle slung over your shoulder. If you did the same thing in a bar in modern day London, people would freak the heck out.

Its all about perspective and what is 'normal'. The same way in the Old West it was normal to stroll into town and the local saloon armed to the teeth, it may or may not be normal to walk into a fantasy down trailing a bear, or a dragon, or anything else. Its all about what is normal.

You also have to consider that depending on the sense of authority or uniform, people will react differently. If you look like a respectable druid, or ranger or what have you (lets say holy symbols of the locally recognized nature diety and such), theres a reasonable chance they wont react even if its not super common to see that animal. The same way a cop riding a horse through central park with a gun on his hip is not the same as a regular person doing the same.

Not to mention, there is an assumption that the animal is trained and 'safe'. I am not about to go pet a german shepard on a lead from a cop, but I also dont react the same way to it that i would just a random german shepard walking down the street alone. Animal companions would be (if they are common) a known quantity, and are more controlled, better trainend, and probably smarter then their natural cousins. So it makes sense for people to be a lot less concerned about them then a 'wild' animal.

Personally, as a dm I dont try to deny my players their class features unless there is a good reason. Not to mention there is probably a guy armed and armored for war, a dude with a spellbook and spell component pouch way more dangerous then a bear, and a walking miracle of the gods in there with them. In that context, the bear is probably the least threatening thing in the equation.

Again this will obviously depend on the setting, but as a dm, you really need to ask yourself, if you arent going to confiscate the wizards spell component pouch, the alchemists literal walking bomb kit, or the fighters golf bag full of lethal magic weapons, why is the bear an issue for the town guard, or even a tavern owner?


SO I just IMAGINED seeing the phrase 'realism and fantasy don't belong in the same concept' then?

A phrase which is somewhat manifestly untrue?

The fact that there are fantasy elements, at whatever level, does not mean reality just takes a swan dive off of the empire state building and is never heard from again. The fact that dragons exist impacts on the fact that dragons exist. Wizards existing means that wizards exist.

They don't mean every other aspect of realism suddenly disappears in a stiff breeze.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
Moose. That is all.

Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:

SO I just IMAGINED seeing the phrase 'realism and fantasy don't belong in the same concept' then?

A phrase which is somewhat manifestly untrue?

The fact that there are fantasy elements, at whatever level, does not mean reality just takes a swan dive off of the empire state building and is never heard from again. The fact that dragons exist impacts on the fact that dragons exist. Wizards existing means that wizards exist.

They don't mean every other aspect of realism suddenly disappears in a stiff breeze.

I think the issue is that what is 'real' changes. People and culture change with their circumstances. What is normal and accepted in a saloon in the wild west is different then what is normal and accepted in the middle ages, or ancient rome, or basically any place and any time.

"Realism" should not reflect actual modern reality, but instead the reality of the game world. Think about the world of like the Justice League Comics. That is a very different 'reality' then the real modern world.

And while dragon exists might not impact the daily lives of common folk, it also might. A friend of mine ran a campaign where one of the biggest kingdoms of civilized lands was lead by a Queen Gold Dragon. This fact drastically changed how dragons were perceived in the world. In that world, a metalic dragon showing up was akin to seeing a swat van, or maybe an army truck. It was a serious concern but in and of itself was more calming then alarming.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

SO I just IMAGINED seeing the phrase 'realism and fantasy don't belong in the same concept' then?

A phrase which is somewhat manifestly untrue?

The fact that there are fantasy elements, at whatever level, does not mean reality just takes a swan dive off of the empire state building and is never heard from again. The fact that dragons exist impacts on the fact that dragons exist. Wizards existing means that wizards exist.

They don't mean every other aspect of realism suddenly disappears in a stiff breeze.

I think the issue is that what is 'real' changes. People and culture change with their circumstances. What is normal and accepted in a saloon in the wild west is different then what is normal and accepted in the middle ages, or ancient rome, or basically any place and any time.

"Realism" should not reflect actual modern reality, but instead the reality of the game world. Think about the world of like the Justice League Comics. That is a very different 'reality' then the real modern world.

And while dragon exists might not impact the daily lives of common folk, it also might. A friend of mine ran a campaign where one of the biggest kingdoms of civilized lands was lead by a Queen Gold Dragon. This fact drastically changed how dragons were perceived in the world. In that world, a metalic dragon showing up was akin to seeing a swat van, or maybe an army truck. It was a serious concern but in and of itself was more calming then alarming.

Yes. Fantasy alters details of what is realistic, but realism does not just jump out the window because fantastic elements are added.


To further the derail: Fantasy in general tends to follow the principle of "the fantastic needs the mundane to contrast from". That is why you don't have Harry Potter living entirely in wizardland. It would not be relatable. For Golarion, most countries are dominated by humans, wizards are the exception, churches function based on what churches today do, strange beasts are rare, magic equally so, and so on. The "because dragons" fallacy is a thing, and an important one. A fantasy setting "that has nothing to do with reality" is a useless concept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

...and then there's Discworld.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
...and then there's Discworld.

Even Discworld is, at its core, realistic. In fact, that's one of the central themes of the series -- we're all people, including humans, dwarfs, trolls, vampires, and so forth. Everyone fundamentally just wants to get along, whether they're Watchmen looking for a dry spot to get out of the rain, wizards looking forward to the next meal (and looking forward to NOT summoning soul-destroying monstrosities), or Feegles looking for a good piss-up and a hearty brawl.

The key point here is that people will respond realistically to (what is to them) the ordinary. Powerful wizards in Discworld are not generally threatening because everyone knows about them and they're just part of the scenery -- in some cases, very large parts of the scenery, covered in gravy stains. Trolls aren't threatening either; you actually rather expect to see trolls doing the jobs that require more muscles than brains. When the fantastic is the ordinary, people react to it as if it were ordinary--and that's realism.

I think that's a point that the OP is missing. In Pathfinder-as-written, animal companions are also ordinary. Every small hamlet has access to at least one druid who is available to cast goodberry for a fee, and many if not most of those druids have their animal companions. Any village of 60 people has third level casters -- at this point, this could include wizards with fire elements as familiars. The idea of OMGITSABEARRUNFORIT is a little silly.


And what defines Discworld? To my thinking, it is that humans work the same way as us, the world works the same way as ours (The flatness and the elephants and A'tuin come into play more or less once, IIRC), and societies work the same way as ours. Add in some strange concept, a new one for each book, which these shockingly normal people have to deal with, and you have a plotline. In other words, it is the feasibility of Lord Vetinary's method of staying in power that resonates with us. Lady Sybil Ramkin's work in caring for the swamp dragons is amazingly similar to running a cat shelter, enough so that we can accept the detonation-prone critters. Captain Vimes' walking the streets as a beat cop is what lets us accept the latest weirdness the trolls are up to. And so on. Discworld is a VERY mundane setting if you look closely. That is why dragons and time fields and soul music and so on function at all for us - but that doesn't mean the dragons etc are not fantastic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
And what defines Discworld? To my thinking, it is that humans work the same way as us, the world works the same way as ours (The flatness and the elephants and A'tuin come into play more or less once, IIRC), and societies work the same way as ours. Add in some strange concept, a new one for each book, which these shockingly normal people have to deal with, and you have a plotline.

And half of the strange new concepts aren't actually that strange (to us) -- sending messages long-distance by semaphore? A government-run post office? Freedom for a class of sapient beings generally regarded as property? A woman trying to transcend her society-imposed limits and take actions traditionally limited to men?

But I also don't think that Discworld is particularly unusual in this regard. Almost all fiction accepts the world of the fiction as "normal"; no one in Star Trek really marvels at aliens walking down the street, at faster-than-light travel, or at the ability to teleport from place to place. The elves of Lothlorien are surprised that the hobbits are not familiar with the cloaks they are given -- in Lothlorien, everyone wears clothes like this. And, for that matter, how many of us really appreciate the idea that we can have all the music we like at a party without having to hire musicians? Or that we can have ice in our drinks even at the top of summer?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

SO I just IMAGINED seeing the phrase 'realism and fantasy don't belong in the same concept' then?

A phrase which is somewhat manifestly untrue?

The fact that there are fantasy elements, at whatever level, does not mean reality just takes a swan dive off of the empire state building and is never heard from again. The fact that dragons exist impacts on the fact that dragons exist. Wizards existing means that wizards exist.

They don't mean every other aspect of realism suddenly disappears in a stiff breeze.

I think the issue is that what is 'real' changes. People and culture change with their circumstances. What is normal and accepted in a saloon in the wild west is different then what is normal and accepted in the middle ages, or ancient rome, or basically any place and any time.

"Realism" should not reflect actual modern reality, but instead the reality of the game world. Think about the world of like the Justice League Comics. That is a very different 'reality' then the real modern world.

And while dragon exists might not impact the daily lives of common folk, it also might. A friend of mine ran a campaign where one of the biggest kingdoms of civilized lands was lead by a Queen Gold Dragon. This fact drastically changed how dragons were perceived in the world. In that world, a metalic dragon showing up was akin to seeing a swat van, or maybe an army truck. It was a serious concern but in and of itself was more calming then alarming.

I think people often mistakenly use "realism" when "internal consistency" would be a more appropriate term. This is especially true when the discussion revolves around how individuals or populations would be expected to behave in a given circumstance. There should be a reason for things to be the way they are, and "because fantasy" isn't sufficient reason for at least some of the gamers out there.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Saldiven wrote:
I think people often mistakenly use "realism" when "internal consistency" would be a more appropriate term. This is especially true when the discussion revolves around how individuals or populations would be expected to behave in a given circumstance. There should be a reason for things to be the way they are, and "because fantasy" isn't sufficient reason for at least some of the gamers out there.

Yeah, part of the problem with all the "realism" debates is that everyone has a different of what qualifies as realistic for their setting. Some folks think realism means the setting should look exactly like medieval England aside from the presence of the PCs and monsters, while others think it's more realistic to have a setting where society sees magic and exotic races as mundane parts of everyday life.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
The 'but DRAGONS!!!!!!!!!!!!' Fallacy again.

It's not a fallacy, though...

RDM42 wrote:
The existence and possible existence of some extraordinary things does not imply blaise acceptence of all extraordinary things.

No, but it does imply that whatever is "acceptable" is completely arbitrary and based on personal taste, rather than any objective measure.

When you complain about something not being "realistic enough" but has no issue with a gazillion other things that are even less realistic, what you're actually saying is "this does not fit my tastes".


Lemmy wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
The 'but DRAGONS!!!!!!!!!!!!' Fallacy again.

It's not a fallacy, though...

RDM42 wrote:
The existence and possible existence of some extraordinary things does not imply blaise acceptence of all extraordinary things.

No, but it does imply that whatever is "acceptable" is completely arbitrary and based on personal taste, rather than any objective measure.

When you complain about something not being "realistic enough" but has no issue with a gazillion other things that are even less realistic, what you're actually saying is "this does not fit my tastes".

Absolutely is. The existence of one exceptional thing does not lead inevtably to all other exceptional things, nor to all exceptional things being considered normal. Just because dragons exist does NOT mean automatically that people are bored with tigers walk g rheir streets. They might be. They might not be. But the mere existence of fantasy concepts does not make it so.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
The 'but DRAGONS!!!!!!!!!!!!' Fallacy again.

It's not a fallacy, though...

Absolutely is.

I think you peeps are actually agreeing-hostilely with each other. Nothing about the existence of dragons necessarily says anything about the acceptance of pet dire tigers, or even the existence of dire tigers.

As a linguistic point, RDM42 is correct. "Fallacy" simply means "argument that isn't guaranteed to be correct," it doesn't mean "argument that is guaranteed to be wrong." For example, the following is a fallacy (undistributed middle):

Some octogenarians are Senators
Some Senators are old
Therefore, some octogenarians are old

.... but the conclusion happens to be correct.

Having said that, Pathfinder (and Golarion) as presented in the rulebooks are almost a type-specimen of a high-magic world, and magic in a high-magic world, by definition, will be ordinary and commonplace. I would consider implausible and internally inconsistent a world where every thorp, no matter how small, had its resident druid, but people still panic at the sight of an animal companion.


Lemmy wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
The existence and possible existence of some extraordinary things does not imply blaise acceptence of all extraordinary things.

No, but it does imply that whatever is "acceptable" is completely arbitrary and based on personal taste, rather than any objective measure.

When you complain about something not being "realistic enough" but has no issue with a gazillion other things that are even less realistic, what you're actually saying is "this does not fit my tastes".

I disagree.

While some might use the argument that it "isn't realistic" when they mean "I don't like it," I don't believe that all, or even the majority of people making that argument fit that mold.

I feel most use that assertion because the situation doesn't make sense with the setting as a whole, or at least as much of the setting as the arguer is aware. The appropriate response isn't, "because magic," as that response is largely irrelevant. It doesn't begin to address the other person's concerns.

The appropriate response is basically one of two things, though that is an over-simplification. First, the person hearing the argument can more fully explain the setting to show that the situation at hand does actually have internal consistency with the setting as a whole. Conversely, the person making the argument might have a point, and the situation at hand lacks consistency with the setting, which is causing intellectual dissonance that should be addressed (at least within the setting of an individual gaming table, so that everyone is having fun).

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Having said that, Pathfinder (and Golarion) as presented in the rulebooks are almost a type-specimen of a high-magic world, and magic in a high-magic world, by definition, will be ordinary and commonplace. I would consider implausible and internally inconsistent a world where every thorp, no matter how small, had its resident druid, but people still panic at the sight of an animal companion.

This is something I can agree with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saldiven wrote:

I disagree.

While some might use the argument that it "isn't realistic" when they mean "I don't like it," I don't believe that all, or even the majority of people making that argument fit that mold.

I feel most use that assertion because the situation doesn't make sense with the setting as a whole, or at least as much of the setting as the arguer is aware. The appropriate response isn't, "because magic," as that response is largely irrelevant. It doesn't begin to address the other person's concerns.

The appropriate response is basically one of two things, though that is an over-simplification. First, the person hearing the argument can more fully explain the setting to show that the situation at hand does actually have internal consistency with the setting as a whole. Conversely, the person making the argument might have a point, and the situation at hand lacks consistency with the setting, which is causing intellectual dissonance that should be addressed (at least within the setting of an individual gaming table, so that everyone is having fun).

Internal consistency is a separate issue from realism.

Anyway, you can't, for example, say Fighters jumping 30 ft in the air is more unrealistic than people shooting fire from their eyes or inconsistent with a world where giant lizards fly without any use of magic and that same Fighter can fall from the moon, survive, walk home and be completely fine after sleeping for a few days.

There's no objective measure of what is or isn't "realistic enough". It's all a matter of taste and preference.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

RDM42, you appear to have missed the forest when you saw the trees.

Let me see if I can put it into context for you.

What is "realistic" in the context of a fantasy game is 100% subjective and defined by the author(s) and the people participating (GM and/or players).

The OP made absolute statements that X was not realistic. That is only a true statement FOR THE OP and not necessarily true for anyone else.

My reference to dragons was an EXAMPLE of things that exist in fantasy and that if they have heard of dragons they have probably heard of people who control animals.
It was a different point altogether because "what townsfolk know" is a point related to "what townsfolk (the GM) might allow".

My initial response stated that it was the GM who determines what is or is not acceptable to townsfolk.

Try to read my statements in context. :)


Gauss wrote:


What is "realistic" in the context of a fantasy game is 100% subjective and defined by the author(s) and the people participating (GM and/or players).

Well.. kind of.

What happens in a fantasy game should logically follow (or at least not contradict) the other stuff in the fantasy game and or changes in the laws of physics to some degree. Cultures are partially products of their environment.


Gauss wrote:

RDM42, you appear to have missed the forest when you saw the trees.

Let me see if I can put it into context for you.

What is "realistic" in the context of a fantasy game is 100% subjective and defined by the author(s) and the people participating (GM and/or players).

Only to the extent that you're playing magical tea party and completely ignoring the rule book. If you actually pay attention to the rule book, then the rules themselves provide a partial but objective standard for "realism."

For example, everyone has heard of pepper. It's commonly available even in the smallest of settlements (and is no more expensive than dill). This may not be "realistic" in the sense that 13th century Scottish peasants may not have been familiar with pepper and that you couldn't buy it in rural Ayrshire, but it's a direct consequence of pepper's inclusion in the goods list. Similarly, everyone in Pathfinder has heard of potatoes, despite the fact that they were a New World vegetable and didn't enter Europe until the 16th century.

Similarly, the rule book defines spellcasting services in such a way that everyone is familiar with them. If you want to run an Ars Magica style game that has dragons, but no one knows that wizards exist, you can't really use the PF rules for that. Such a world is "unrealistic" according to the Pathfinder rulebook.

And if the GM tries to argue that an ordinary village of 70 people has typically never heard of actual spellcasters --- despite the fact that, per rule, you can buy third-level spellcasting services in that village -- it will seriously violate internal consistency for the players. Doubly so if the players are otherwise familiar with the Pathfinder game and canon.

Because it's NOT merely the GM who determines how townspeople think and react unless you're playing Magical Tea Party.


Orfamay Quest, I did put in the phrase "author(s)" for that very reason. :)


The presence of dragons doesn't reduce the stupidity of the common man that fears anything unknown, so until you're around level 4-7 and have a reputation for your great deeds you might have trouble with that animal companion. Once you do have that reputation you'll have an easier time in most towns.


Manly-man teapot wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Manly-man teapot wrote:
Nathan Monson wrote:
Just wanting to point out the difference between a trained animal and an animal companion, as I have heard them used interchangeably in this tread and they are not.
"This is Leo the Leopard, my animal companion". How are you going to check whether that's true or Leo is just a trained animal?

Well, a leopard trained for hunting is cheaper than a riding dog, heavy horse, or light warhorse. That implies that they're not exactly a rare and exotic commodity which in turn implies that they've been domesticated.

If your example had been something exotic and wild it would also be something where it would be unlikely a traveler would be able to keep one well behaved enough to pass for an animal companion without it actually being an animal companion.

Tiggy the Tiger, Duplo the Diplodocus, whatever.

(also, the 100 gp hunting cat is obviously a typo. Basing world assumptions around that is really dumb).

I addressed that already if you actually read my post. If an animal is actually exotic anyone who isn't a ranger, druid, hunter, or similar won't have one tame.

If a non-domesticated animal is following someone around unrestrained and they're content to turn their back on it it's either an actual animal companion, awakened and friendly, another druid, or otherwise not a normal wild animal. Whichever it is, it's a damn sight safer to let into your city than the barbarian.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:

SO I just IMAGINED seeing the phrase 'realism and fantasy don't belong in the same concept' then?

A phrase which is somewhat manifestly untrue?

The fact that there are fantasy elements, at whatever level, does not mean reality just takes a swan dive off of the empire state building and is never heard from again. The fact that dragons exist impacts on the fact that dragons exist. Wizards existing means that wizards exist.

They don't mean every other aspect of realism suddenly disappears in a stiff breeze.

That's not the same thing as accept all fantasy without question. Do you really need for someone to explain it you?

Edit: ninja'd by Lemmy and Gauss


If as a druid I hear that mufasa isn't allowed into the bar I transform into a lion and ask why.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Gauss wrote:

RDM42, you appear to have missed the forest when you saw the trees.

Let me see if I can put it into context for you.

What is "realistic" in the context of a fantasy game is 100% subjective and defined by the author(s) and the people participating (GM and/or players).

Only to the extent that you're playing magical tea party and completely ignoring the rule book. If you actually pay attention to the rule book, then the rules themselves provide a partial but objective standard for "realism."

Uh... No. The rules tell how things are supposed to work, not whether or not they are realistic. At best, they let you know what's internally consistent, but that's not the same as "realistic". People flying and shooting lasers from their hands is a setting-consistent aspect of Dragon Ball Z, but it isn't realistic.

And to make things worse, not all rules are consistent with each other. -.-'

51 to 100 of 290 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Animal companion main issue, dog is basically the best choice All Messageboards