Animal companion says no!

[noretoc]

Dennis Baker wrote:

noretoc wrote:

Now why did you focus on that section

That's the section that popped out to me. Disregard my post then.

Quote:

Also, I do want to say something about natural selection. I have found that many people who argue and give advice and tell you the best way to run a game on boards, don't even play regularly.

I couldn't say.

I do know people tend to post based on personal experience. People who have had trouble with 'bad' GMs in the past are more likely to accuse others of being bad GMs.

This is a bit off topic, but I have def noticed this Dennis. The funny thing is it dosen't seem to work the other way around. When a player has a bad DM, they tend to accuse everyone else of trying to control or screw the players. When a DM had a bad player though, you don't see posts from them talking about how every player is out to cheat the system and be disruptve.

Maybe there are plenty of players that have had bad DM, but don't act like that. We just wouldn't see them as they don;t go to boards looking for an argument.

[Joana]

noretoc wrote:

This is a bit off topic, but I have def noticed this Dennis. The funny thing is it dosen't seem to work the other way around. When a player has a bad DM, they tend to accuse everyone else of trying to control or screw the players. When a DM had a bad player though, you don't see posts from them talking about how every player is out to cheat the system and be disruptve.

Many players have only one GM. If their GM cheats or is antagonistic, they and their group have anecdotal grounds to suspect all GMs of being the same way, until they experience another group.

Most GMs have more than one player. If one player cheats or is antagonistic, they know from the rest of their group that this is not a blanket phenomenon. (At least, the odds are that all their players are not bad in the same way.) So their experience is that players come in a wide variation of types.

[Revan]

I think that players have a reasonable expectation that they can train their animal companions to help them in combat without significant hindrance in that task. You have the rules on your side if you want to specifically prevent the monkey from learning how to use a bow, but to say it's personality makes it completely unwilling to hurt people strikes me as little different than saying 'you can't have that as an Animal Companion.'

To phrase it in the specific jargon of your question: yes, the animal companion bond changes the animal, in my opinion, at least to the extent that the chosen animal is willing to enter combat and otherwise aid the PC. It's a basic use of the Handle Animal check to teach even a non-Animal Companion animal to attack a designated target, or to defend you from danger. If the Ranger or Druid is prevented from doing the same for their Animal Companion, something's wrong with the picture.

[Magicdealer]

"The monkey raises its tiny bow, but turns to look at you, tears filling its eyes. It pleads with you, in its own way, that you not force it to kill another living creature. Do you want to make your handle animal check to push it?"

[Daniel Moyer]

Oh I would let the monkey's abilities be shaped by the player, but continue to act like the whimsical little joker that he was. You know how most little kids find it wildly hilarious when people get hurt? Now tack on 'never gonna grow up' and 'someone ALWAYS laughs at what I do' to that formula. Hell I'd companion a pratical jokester monkey with a deadly weapon any day, I'd be the one laughing! (until he accidentally kills me, that is, lol)

If he does something and no one laughs, have him be reluctant to repeat that behavior. You really need to have an angry NPC yell at the monkey, "You'll shoot your eye out (kid)!".

[Revan]

If you made the Handle Animal check to teach it the Attack trick, then there's no need to push it, and the animal should be perfectly willing to do so. Using a bow in a world of HP does not necessitate killing. And, frankly, I'm not going to feel any worse about a goblin or cultist or other typical enemy getting killed just because my Animal Companion's involved.

[thepuregamer]

noretoc wrote:

Thanks to ogre and shifty and to those that get it. I am ignoring anyone that calls how I dm or treat my players into question. I don't take troll bait. It they wanted to comment on the question I (whether the bond would automatically change the monkey, or whether he would have free will to refuse) then there was plenty of opportunity for them to so.

Actually I have been talking about your question.

A regular monkey is an animal and has an int of 2. Such a monkey cannot have a strongly formed moral opinion. A monkey may like making people laugh but this has nothing to do with morality. Thus the only real pre-existing personality that a regular monkey will have before being turned into an animal companion is who it likes, who it wants to bite, etc.

If you turn it into an animal companion, the ranger can shape how it acts from there through training. Even if he raises the int to 3, handle animal still works according to a dev blog. This monkey is trainable.

Anything else than that and you are just misrepresenting this creature. You should just state up front that this monkey has an intelligence of more than 2(making it a magical beast) and thus cannot become an animal companion. Otherwise, any regular monkey isn't going to create the issues you desire to create.

See, your issue doesn't even exist. Question answered and directly.

[noretoc]

thepuregamer wrote:

Actually I have been talking about your question.

A regular monkey is an animal and has an int of 2. Such a monkey cannot have a strongly formed moral opinion.

I am not sure if you are bring purposfully ignorant here or not. I did not ask whether or not the monkey should have moral opinion. It does. That is not part of the question. That is the way I ran it. It does, and it has for over ten session. Your opinion on if that is right or wrong holds no value to the conversation. All it is, is you taking this opputunity to try to tell me something I already did was wrong. (Which it isn't, being the DM, I can play my monkey anyway I like :) )

Quote:

If you turn it into an animal companion, the ranger can shape how it acts from there through training. Even if he raises the int to 3, handle animal still works according to a dev blog. This monkey is trainable.

Again, this hold little to no value to the conversation. The question is not "Can the ranger train the monkey". It is wheather or not the monkey's atitude will allow it to refuse the instruction, or if the bond automatically changes his disposition.

Quote:

Anything else than that and you are just misrepresenting this creature.

And this is again where you are wrong and your post turns to trolling and baiting an argument. I have said over and over that the monkey's attitude is well established and known. If you ignore my words and repeat the same thing over again, you are looking just to stir crap. I have better things to do that to sit in a pointless argument of "I say red, you say blue" Maybe that is satisfying for you, but not for me. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by replying to this, hoping that maybe you just did not read through my posts completley, and really think you are being usefull to the discussion, but we will see. I certainly will not respons to another attempt at baiting an argument, and hope no one else does either.

As for the other few people above that jumped in with your opinions, thank you. As you can see there are people on both sides. Some think the bond should change the creature, some think no. I am really going to have to play it by ear I think, based on how the player handles the traning. Normally I don't RP that, but this should be fun to see which direction he takes, and then go off of that. The monkey will def not take to it readily, but the ranger should be able to win him over depending on what he does. This also made me think more about monkey's backstory, which will add in. (Still not sure which way I'm going yet though, it may depend on the ranger. I'll have to see which options are more fun.)

[Adam Ormond]

The bond is not going to change the animal's disposition.

However, the fact that the animal accepted the bond clearly indicates that it a) respects the Ranger, and b) wishes to assist the ranger in all things. Now the bond is a two-way street, but did the Ranger/Player know and understand the monkey's moral convictions ahead of time? I can't imagine the Ranger/Player would have requested the monkey for an AC if he believed using the monkey in the way the game expects you to use an AC was going to make it insane.

I guess what I don't understand here is why the monkey would become an AC if it did not want to do everything in its capacity to assist the Ranger, in any way it could. This includes combat. Based on this NPC's "personality", it would never have agreed to be an AC.

I believe a Ranger would know how the training would effect the monkey pretty quickly (they're essentially like the dog whisperer guy, but with every animal). Even if he's some sort of retarded Ranger who is given no real affinity with animals, there should be a lot of signals that the monkey isn't taking to the "Attack trick" training. Since this is probably one of the bonus feats the player chose to grant upon gaining the AC, the monkey's personality shift to crazed should be made apparent immediately.

Quote:

If you have an NPC that hates fighters. The fighter decided he wants to make her a cohort. Should you suddenly make that NPC like fighter, just so you don’t make the fighter’s feat less powerful??

I think this illustrates the entire problem you're having -- if an NPC hates fighters, it isn't really logical for them to become a fighter's cohort! The GM just says "No, that NPC won't become your cohort", and that's the end of the conversation. And that's just a cohort, which is a much weaker association than the Nature's Bond class feature. I see the Nature's Bond connection as akin to a soul mate. That's how it's portrayed in fiction -- I've never seen/heard it shown as a master/slave or employer/employee relationship.

[thepuregamer]

Like I said, if your monkey is not an animal but a magical beast, then handle animal is not meant to work on him. But then, a magical beast doesn't normally qualify for becoming a animal companion. Much like how raw a druid who casts awaken on their animal companion makes their animal no longer qualify as an ac.

I am personally not sure why you dropped this into the rules forum. You are asking if a animal companion with sentience can refuse commands? Well normally animal companions do not have higher thought and thus they do not have the ability to refuse training or commands long term.

If you use your animal companion progression to boost their int enough to be considered more intelligent, there is a blog that states that the character should still be able to train them.

jason b wrote:

The Handle Animal skill functions similarly no matter how intelligent an animal becomes. A character must still make Handle Animal checks to train his animal and get him to perform the appropriate tasks. A GM should, however, make exceptions in the case of how such an intelligent animal might react in absence of instructions. It might not know to unlock a door to escape a burning building—as that's a fact that's learned over time and experience—but a smart animal might have a better chance of finding a way out.

So it should still be trainable. As others have said, if the creature accepts the bond, then it is indicating that it is willing to take commands from the ranger. Considering that the monkey is already intelligent, it should also have realized that the party fights alot and that some of those commands are going to involve attack enemies. But ultimately, it is up to you the dm to determine how readily your animal companion accepts training considering you have already given the monkey the equivalence of awakening.

But I still give you the previous cautioning. The animal companion is a class feature. Do not take major efforts to make the ability unreliable. Would you give a wizard an arbitrary additional amount of spell failure? Are other player's finding that their class abilities do not always function? If his choosing this monkey causes the class ability to fail to function a certain amount of time, you should step in and tell the player to pick a more pliable animal companion (regardless of whether you think the player normally needs advice. he may not realize how long the road to having control over this creature is).

[noretoc]

Adam Ormond wrote:

The bond is not going to change the animal's disposition.

However, the fact that the animal accepted the bond clearly indicates that it a) respects the Ranger, and b) wishes to assist the ranger in all things. Now the bond is a two-way street, but did the Ranger/Player know and understand the monkey's moral convictions ahead of time? I can't imagine the Ranger/Player would have requested the monkey for an AC if he believed using the monkey in the way the game expects you to use an AC was going to make it insane.

I guess what I don't understand here is why the monkey would become an AC if it did not want to do everything in its capacity to assist the Ranger, in any way it could. This includes combat. Based on this NPC's "personality", it would never have agreed to be an AC.

Interesting thought, so I will throw it out there. There are a couple of things that are assumed here, and I am curious to get peoples opinions.

a) (This may be more a RP thing) You assume the animal would know what being an animal compnaion entails? What if he didn't. Maybe he thought it meant just getting extra food, or that is was like a BFF thing, not a master/pet relationship.

b) Can an animal refuse an animal companion Bond?

[Adam Ormond]

noretoc wrote:

a) (This may be more a RP thing) You assume the animal would know what being an animal compnaion entails? What if he didn't. Maybe he thought it meant just getting extra food, or that is was like a BFF thing, not a master/pet relationship.

The animal doesn't "know" what it entails. It's an animal, and has 2 INT. The relationship goes BEYOND master/pet -- ANY character can take Handle Animal and have a pet that will fight in combat. The Nature's Bond relationship is much closer to BFF, and I believe it is even more profound than that -- i.e. a soul mate relationship.

If the animal in question is not 'latching' to the Ranger, the bond does not form. In the case of animals, I don't think there's ever been a question that the Ranger could NOT befriend an animal and form that relationship. What you have created is not really an animal -- so it isn't doing what animals do.

I think, given the personality you have granted this "animal", that it is not going to 'latch'. If it DOES 'latch', it should be a true Animal Companion and a contributing member of the party. Not some beggar that just hangs around for a regular meal.

noretoc wrote:

b) Can an animal refuse an animal companion Bond?

An animal, by RAW, can't refuse anything with a successful Handle Animal check. That's what Handle Animal does. You have created an "animal" that's not really an animal. You've already indicated you're fine with departing from RAW here, so why would any other aspect of RAW matter? We're completely in the realm of GM fiat right now. Do whatever you want, no rule is going to agree or disagree with what you decide. However, you should tell the player where this is headed, because I imagine he thinks the monkey behaves like an animal, and thus will respond to Handle Animal and training like the rules say animals do. Nothing in the rules indicate an animal will go insane because of proper training. Now, this response might be plausible if, say, the Fighter with CHA 7 and no ranks in Handle Animal was trying to train an animal and failing miserably.

[Bobson]

noretoc wrote:

I did not ask whether or not the monkey should have moral opinion. It does. That is not part of the question. That is the way I ran it.

Adam Ormond wrote:

What you have created is not really an animal -- so it isn't doing what animals do.

This sums it up right here. It's perfectly acceptable to have the monkey act however you want. However, once you've gone beyond the normal rules of what a INT 2 monkey does, you can't ask for answers based on an INT 2 monkey.

A normal INT 2 monkey, provided the GM let the ranger have one, would not be smart enough to reject the ranger's AC bond, nor will it be smart enough to reject the training the ranger is giving it. It may have a personality (my cats certainly do!), but that personality is a very animal personality - there's no concept of "right" or "wrong", and so while it might be silly, it has no problems with hurting anyone who is trying to hurt it or (because monkeys are social animals) its friends. This is not your monkey.

Since your monkey is not a normal monkey (even if all the stats are the same), you have to decide for yourself how it reacts to all these things. You can't just apply the rules as written to get answers, because you've already changed the assumption that they work on. You might be better off asking in the Advice forum for advice as to handle this specific case, rather than asking in the Rules forum for advice in the general case.

Personally, I'd say that this monkey has an INT of 4 or so already, either due to magical exposure in the past or something like that. That would technically make it a magical beast, but you can hand-wave that to make it just a smart animal. This would allow the party to teach it to communicate with them, even without making it a companion, and would require the ranger to get its permission before bonding with it.

[Dennis Baker]

The whole premise that animals do not feel emotions and do not have personalities is debatable and in some cases proven to be wrong. Saying the monkey is not an animal is just silly.

Quote:

a) (This may be more a RP thing) You assume the animal would know what being an animal compnaion entails? What if he didn't. Maybe he thought it meant just getting extra food, or that is was like a BFF thing, not a master/pet relationship.

b) Can an animal refuse an animal companion Bond?

This is all deep in the realm of house rules. The rules don't touch on the subject of creating an animal companion bond with a specific creature. It's a class feature which is presumably based on some supernatural ability or divine assist?

Essentially the rules say "One of these critters shows up and serves you" what the specifics are, if there is some kind of consent from the creature or whatever is all your deal.

[Revan]

noretoc wrote:

thepuregamer wrote:

Actually I have been talking about your question.

A regular monkey is an animal and has an int of 2. Such a monkey cannot have a strongly formed moral opinion.

I am not sure if you are bring purposfully ignorant here or not. I did not ask whether or not the monkey should have moral opinion. It does. That is not part of the question. That is the way I ran it. It does, and it has for over ten session. Your opinion on if that is right or wrong holds no value to the conversation. All it is, is you taking this opputunity to try to tell me something I already did was wrong. (Which it isn't, being the DM, I can play my monkey anyway I like :) )

Quote:

If you turn it into an animal companion, the ranger can shape how it acts from there through training. Even if he raises the int to 3, handle animal still works according to a dev blog. This monkey is trainable.

Again, this hold little to no value to the conversation. The question is not "Can the ranger train the monkey". It is wheather or not the monkey's atitude will allow it to refuse the instruction, or if the bond automatically changes his disposition.

Quote:

Anything else than that and you are just misrepresenting this creature.

And this is again where you are wrong and your post turns to trolling and baiting an argument. I have said over and over that the monkey's attitude is well established and known. If you ignore my words and repeat the same thing over again, you are looking just to stir crap. I have better things to do that to sit in a pointless argument of "I say red, you say blue" Maybe that is satisfying for you, but not for me. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by replying to this, hoping that maybe you just did not read through my posts completley, and really think you are being usefull to the discussion, but we will see. I certainly will not respons to another attempt at baiting an argument, and hope no one else does either.

As for the other few people...

Trolling? Those are the Rules As Written. It is specifically stated in the rules that animals are universally neutral because their limited Intelligence prevents them from being able to even conceive of moral quandries or questions. They have personalities, they may prefer flight to fight, but by the rules, animal dispositions can be altered with the mere Handle Animal skill--even the shyest creature can be taught the Attack or Defend trick, let alone what is possible with the virtually supernatural bond between Ranger/Druid and Animal Companion.

To say that it is trainable is to say that it's disposition can be altered. No one is ignoring your words. They have repeatedly answered your questions, which you posted on the rules forum, with what the rules are.

[thepuregamer]

Dennis Baker wrote:

The whole premise that animals do not feel emotions and do not have personalities is debatable and in some cases proven to be wrong. Saying the monkey is not an animal is just silly.

I am not claiming that animals do not have emotions. Animals can like specific people and dislike other people based off of how those people treat them(for example, if your dog likes you, then you are probably either feeding him or giving him lots of attention). But animals are pretty much not capable of the higher thought required to be against killing for example. If you amp up a monkey's intelligence enough for it to be considering the value of life, I do not see how you can say that the monkey is a normal animal. That monkey is definitely fitting into the games definition of a magical beast(greater than 2 int).

If we decide to allow a magical beast to become an animal companion, then the rules for animal companions are not going to work as well for this specific animal companion. At this point as others have said, the dm will have to determine on his own how to handle it. That is all that is left to say, I have already given my opinion on the dangers in emphasizing the monkey's independence. Nothing more for me to say.

[Dolanar]

Animals, from my experience, are quite able to decide if they do or do not like something, they can decide they do not like a certain type of food, they can decide they don't like a certain type of action. A particularly strong-willed animal can resist being trained quite a bit, if they are being trained to do something they don't like to do. Perhaps a Will saving throw each day to decide if it resists the training, I understand that animals are generally easily trained, but there are animals out there that are extremely resistant to training.

[Revan]

Dolanar wrote:

Animals, from my experience, are quite able to decide if they do or do not like something, they can decide they do not like a certain type of food, they can decide they don't like a certain type of action. A particularly strong-willed animal can resist being trained quite a bit, if they are being trained to do something they don't like to do. Perhaps a Will saving throw each day to decide if it resists the training, I understand that animals are generally easily trained, but there are animals out there that are extremely resistant to training.

That would be better handled as a fiated increase to the Handle Animal DC to successfully teach the relevant trick, and/or an increase in training time. The DC boost would probably be considerably made up for by the Ranger's +4 bonus to Handling his Animal Companion--which represents that the animal in question is, more or less by definition--willing to be trained by its master.

[Dennis Baker]

thepuregamer wrote:

Dennis Baker wrote:

The whole premise that animals do not feel emotions and do not have personalities is debatable and in some cases proven to be wrong. Saying the monkey is not an animal is just silly.

I am not claiming that animals do not have emotions. Animals can like specific people and dislike other people based off of how those people treat them(for example, if your dog likes you, then you are probably either feeding him or giving him lots of attention). But animals are pretty much not capable of the higher thought required to be against killing for example. If you amp up a monkey's intelligence enough for it to be considering the value of life, I do not see how you can say that the monkey is a normal animal. That monkey is definitely fitting into the games definition of a magical beast(greater than 2 int).

Is there some basis for your statements or are you just inventing this as you go along?

[Dennis Baker]

Dolanar wrote:

Animals, from my experience, are quite able to decide if they do or do not like something, they can decide they do not like a certain type of food, they can decide they don't like a certain type of action. A particularly strong-willed animal can resist being trained quite a bit, if they are being trained to do something they don't like to do. Perhaps a Will saving throw each day to decide if it resists the training, I understand that animals are generally easily trained, but there are animals out there that are extremely resistant to training.

More or less this. Also, an animal you find in the wild is far less likely to take training than an animal you've raised from a baby.

My assumption is that when you summon your Animal Companion an animal who is more or less compatible with the desires of the druid/ ranger who calls it.

[Revan]

Dennis Baker wrote:

thepuregamer wrote:

Dennis Baker wrote:

The whole premise that animals do not feel emotions and do not have personalities is debatable and in some cases proven to be wrong. Saying the monkey is not an animal is just silly.

I am not claiming that animals do not have emotions. Animals can like specific people and dislike other people based off of how those people treat them(for example, if your dog likes you, then you are probably either feeding him or giving him lots of attention). But animals are pretty much not capable of the higher thought required to be against killing for example. If you amp up a monkey's intelligence enough for it to be considering the value of life, I do not see how you can say that the monkey is a normal animal. That monkey is definitely fitting into the games definition of a magical beast(greater than 2 int).

Is there some basis for your statements or are you just inventing this as you go along?

"Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic."

[Dennis Baker]

Revan wrote:

Dennis Baker wrote:

thepuregamer wrote:

Dennis Baker wrote:

The whole premise that animals do not feel emotions and do not have personalities is debatable and in some cases proven to be wrong. Saying the monkey is not an animal is just silly.

I am not claiming that animals do not have emotions. Animals can like specific people and dislike other people based off of how those people treat them(for example, if your dog likes you, then you are probably either feeding him or giving him lots of attention). But animals are pretty much not capable of the higher thought required to be against killing for example. If you amp up a monkey's intelligence enough for it to be considering the value of life, I do not see how you can say that the monkey is a normal animal. That monkey is definitely fitting into the games definition of a magical beast(greater than 2 int).

Is there some basis for your statements or are you just inventing this as you go along?

"Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic."

We're not talking about alignment, we're talking about not wanting to kill things.

[Revan]

The animal can not want to kill things because it is not well-equipped to do so, and has natural instinct towards flight over fight. Training via the Handle Animal skill can overcome that. An animal cannot make a moral judgment that killing is wrong.

By the RAW, you could train a lamb with the Attack trick. It's not a good idea, since it would be totally ineffective in combat, but you could do it.

[Dennis Baker]

By RAW he can't take a monkey as an animal companion.

By RAW he can't take any specific animal as a companion.

In spite of the fact that the OP asked this in the rules forum he's not asking about RAW. He's asking for people to use their judgment and to help him make a decision. I know... judgment from a GM who would think.

[redcelt32]

Revan wrote:

Dennis Baker wrote:

thepuregamer wrote:

Dennis Baker wrote:

The whole premise that animals do not feel emotions and do not have personalities is debatable and in some cases proven to be wrong. Saying the monkey is not an animal is just silly.

I am not claiming that animals do not have emotions. Animals can like specific people and dislike other people based off of how those people treat them(for example, if your dog likes you, then you are probably either feeding him or giving him lots of attention). But animals are pretty much not capable of the higher thought required to be against killing for example. If you amp up a monkey's intelligence enough for it to be considering the value of life, I do not see how you can say that the monkey is a normal animal. That monkey is definitely fitting into the games definition of a magical beast(greater than 2 int).

Is there some basis for your statements or are you just inventing this as you go along?

"Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic."

I would argue that even though the OP phrased it as a moral resistance in the monkey, I would say that perhaps the monkey's personality and tendency would be scattered and focused on attention getting activities. This means it is more likely to want to throw poo at people than shoot them with arrows.

And, anyone who thinks individual animals don't have distinct personalities and tendencies... I refer you to the movie Ghost and the Darkness...

[noretoc]

Dennis Baker wrote:

By RAW he can't take a monkey as an animal companion.

By RAW he can't take any specific animal as a companion.

In spite of the fact that the OP asked this in the rules forum he's not asking about RAW. He's asking for people to use their judgment and to help him make a decision. I know... judgment from a GM who would think.

Actually I asked in the rules forum, because I was unsure if there were any rules regarding the animal companion and the bond, and also how people interpreted that. I don't see any reason there cant be a discussion on one rule, while leaving others out of the conversation. Just because I broke one, doesn't mean I wanted to throw everything to the winds, so I thought this was the best place to get people opinion on whether the bond would automatically change the attitude of the animal. That is why I tried to be very clear on what I was looking for opinions on.

Also imagine if I did ask this in advice. I asked in rules, and was clear what I was looking for, and still got people telling me I was treating my players badly... If this was the advice forum, I would have been chased with torces and pitchforks.

[Revan]

And I've told him that not letting the Ranger take the monkey in the first place is reasonable. He has a leg to stand on if he doesn't want the monkey to be able to learn to use manufactured weapons. But giving the ranger the companion, and then having the companion refuse to be trained for combat, or giving the monkey moral objections to killing even before its Int gets bumped up are not reasonable.

[Dennis Baker]

noretoc wrote:

Dennis Baker wrote:

By RAW he can't take a monkey as an animal companion.

By RAW he can't take any specific animal as a companion.

In spite of the fact that the OP asked this in the rules forum he's not asking about RAW. He's asking for people to use their judgment and to help him make a decision. I know... judgment from a GM who would think.

Actually I asked in the rules forum, because I was unsure if there were any rules regarding the animal companion and the bond, and also how people interpreted that. I don't see any reason discussing one rule, while leaving others out of the conversation. Just because I broke one, dosen't mean I wanted to throw everythng to the winds, so I thought this was the best place to get people opionion on whether the bond would automatically change the attitude of the anuimal.

Ultimately whether the bond changed the monkey's personality is irrelevant then. As Revan points out, the monkey is essentially a slave to Handle Animal.

[Daniel Moyer]

Dennis Baker wrote:

As Revan points out, the monkey is essentially a slave to Handle Animal.

*puts ear muffs and blinders on the monkey to set him free from his oppression, but being sure to find cover immediately as the monkey still has a bow and is now firing blindly*

[Dennis Baker]

In fact.

I think I'm going to 180 on this.

If you want to give the player the monkey, give him the monkey.

If you want to keep control of the monkey tell him you've changed your mind and let him pick another companion.

You can have the monkey spit on his shoes and turn in his Animal Companion hat if you want but having it in some sort of limbo state where it's his companion but not his to control is likely frustrating and not particularly fun.

[Mergy]

Dennis Baker wrote:

In fact.

I think I'm going to 180 on this.

If you want to give the player the monkey, give him the monkey.

If you want to keep control of the monkey tell him you've changed your mind and let him pick another companion.

You can have the monkey spit on his shoes and turn in his Animal Companion hat if you want but having it in some sort of limbo state where it's his companion but not his to control is likely frustrating and not particularly fun.

+1

You gave him the AC because the other group members egged you on, so just tell him you've changed your mind, and let him be a lovable mascot who isn't, by RAW, forced to attack the ranger's enemies at the ranger's command.

[Daniel Moyer]

Mergy wrote:

Dennis Baker wrote:

... having it in some sort of limbo state where it's his companion but not his to control is likely frustrating and not particularly fun.

... let him be a lovable mascot...

Agreed. I think the monkey will be more memorable/useful as a whimsical NPC, than a player controlled companion. Much easier to hand-wave the monkey's seemingly random or improbable actions when he's under DM control. AND it does sound like an AWESOME NPC... the kind that players remember and possibly share stories about. :)

[Mike Schneider]

karkon wrote:

From a game balance perspective I think that might be one of the perils of giving your animal companion human level intelligence; they start to think for themselves.

"They"? Who's "they"?

You-the-player? The DM? Magic dice fairies?

[Magicdealer]

...

they as in referencing the previous sentence, as in the animal companion

Which may be represented by the dm, the player, or another player running the animal companion, however it's run by that particular group.

[Kaisoku]

D&D is a land of abstracts and generalizations. You don't have to look further than hitpoints.

Animals in D&D are generalized into an amoral position. They don't have the capacity for moral thoughts, or the ability to create culture.
It's exactly binary: either you are sentient and part of the alignment system, or you are animal and are not.

The real world obviously has a much finer grade between humans and mindless instinct. We evolved from an animal state after all, it'd be silly to assume there isn't some gradation between incapable of emotional or moral thought and humans.

Since this is a gaming forum for Pathfinder, we tend to base our opinions on the balancing of RAW rules.
A question is asked, many of us will use the RAW as our base for response, because it's a common ground we can all read and start from.

Now if this post had been written in the Advice section, stating that the situation was that the DM wanted to run this animal with a little more sentience than D&D allows, and wanted others feelings on the subject, I think a completely different response would have been given.

In a Rules forum, people are going to typically try to cleave to the rules of the game as their answer. And since the rules were being bent to begin with, it's kind of hard to not clash over this subject.

.
On a side note, I've spent some time writing a series of advanced rules for handling animals. Between tying HD to "combat experience" (instead of size), adding rules for training animals, and laying out a series of traits and subtypes to distinguish breeding, I also found time to flesh out the Intelligence of animals on a much finer scale.

Basically, animals can have higher than 2 Intelligence (any animal, not just special advanced cases), but the rules for Intelligence are simply more limited. A tendency to not use tools (with special cases, like crows, etc), a lack of sophisticated language (although I made that a trick to learn if desired), a lack of sophisticated culture, etc.
Essentially, they run primarily on instinctual responses to events, instead of higher thinking.

However, one subtype for animals would also be "sentient", which would allow a specific animal to gain an alignment. That way you don't need to resort to awaken or magical beasts to get an animal that seems a little too malicious/sadistic than instinct would imply, or seems a little too selfless than just "he feeds me/is alpha" would account for.

Animals that are a little too perceptive or intelligent are a fairly common trope in books and shows. I think these rules would allow for that nicely.

It also means you can have a domesticated breed of animal designed specifically for utility purposes. Not being stuck with 2 Int, means you might have more than 1 skillpoint per HD to work with, too.

[Mike Schneider]

Intelligent animals should not have more "say" (i.e., in opposition to the PC who's stringing them along) than Leadership-granted followers (whom DMs are by now used to letting directing players make decisions for which are just as idiotically dumb as can possibly be even if they possess high INT/WIS).

[Bobson]

noretoc wrote:

Actually I asked in the rules forum, because I was unsure if there were any rules regarding the animal companion and the bond, and also how people interpreted that. I don't see any reason there cant be a discussion on one rule, while leaving others out of the conversation. Just because I broke one, doesn't mean I wanted to throw everything to the winds, so I thought this was the best place to get people opinion on whether the bond would automatically change the attitude of the animal. That is why I tried to be very clear on what I was looking for opinions on.

The problem with this logic is that you're trying to get a rules answer on something that can't normally happen under the rules. If you said "This is what I did, how should I adjust this other non-dependent rule?" such as: "I decided to allow my player to have a monkey as a AC. Can a monkey wield a bow?" you'd have gotten the type of answer you were looking for. The question involved doesn't depend on the broken rule - the broken rule just defines why it came up in the first place.

The question you asked, however is more along the lines of "I created a class that gains 5/4 BAB. Do they gain a 5th iterative attack at BAB +25 when they reach level 20?" The second question would never come up if you hadn't broken the first rule, so there are no rules in place to cover it and you can't get a RAW answer.

Quote:

Also imagine if I did ask this in advice. I asked in rules, and was clear what I was looking for, and still got people telling me I was treating my players badly... If this was the advice forum, I would have been chased with torces and pitchforks.

I think they tend to be more accepting over there - it's the nature of "soft" advice vs "hard" rules. Doesn't mean you wouldn't still get some people telling you off, but there'd be more helpful answers as well.

[Stewart Perkins]

I think (if Ive interpreted your posts correctly) that you've pretty much already answered your own question. As has been said there are no rules to cover the question you pose because it just isn't done. The fact that you have very adamantly placed the monkey in npc territory with a firm grasp of personality and possible hooks (where they found him) then you should probably just veto the monkey as an AC. Here's how you can handle it so that it isn't a heartbreak or upsetting. Explain that despite him trying to bond the monkey it just doesn't respond. Give him some Knowledge Nature rolls or something and explain the monkey is obviously not a normal monkey so it doesn't qualify. You'll probably be able to use this to entice and bait the players into a plot involving the monkey (I know I'd be curious as to why the monkey isn't a "monkey" but an outsider, magic beast, or polymorphed warrior...)

[Bran Towerfall]

noretoc wrote:

So here is one to ponder. my PC have found a monkey in their travels. a little spider monkey, who I threw in for some comic relief. Said monkey has been hanging around with the fighter and ranger, cause they give him food, and he likes the sound of laughing, so he does things that makes the party laugh. (or tries, in his limited way). Now the ranger turned 4th level and want to take the monkey as an animal companion. Even though it is not on the list, the rest of the players say "let him do it" so I do.

Now, the ranger wants to put the ability bump up for the monkey in his int. Make him a tiny bow, and get him the martial weapon prof in bows. Add in the rangers fav enemy is humans, and he has turned the monkey into a little killer (as in role, not ability).

Well, here is the thing. Now that the monkey is intelligent, and was really based around making people laugh, I think he may not like being a human hunter. Is it appropriate for an animal companion with intelligence to defy his master. Handle Animal wont work, though diplomacy might keep him friendly. Still, I cant see him liking what the ranger is asking him to do. What happens if the monkey doesn't want to be an animal companion, now that he is smart enough to make decisions? Thoughts?

sounds like that futurama episode where Gunther became smart and wanted to go back to being a dumb monkey again.