|
I've been searching for this everywhere and I haven't been able to find an answer (I might just have missed it), but when you sell a horse or any other mount i.e. pony, riding dog, griffon, is it (a) sold for the full price you paid for it, like a trade good or (b) sold for half the price as one would sell weapons and armour.
Thanks in advance.
I don't know, I would say that it depends. . . I mean if you the PC are selling a mount you found to just cash in half price for sure just like anything. . .
But I once made a character whose concept was that I was a mount-merchant and I reared/trained mounts-- so there are reasons to give the players more. . .
I don't know, I would say that it depends. . . I mean if you the PC are selling a mount you found to just cash in half price for sure just like anything. . .
But I once made a character whose concept was that I was a mount-merchant and I reared/trained mounts-- so there are reasons to give the players more. . .
There is a difference, you're actually setting up a buisness and answer to customers as opposed to being someone dumping a horse.
In other words, you're Rick from Paunstars, not the guy trying to pawn off a trinket.
Thing is..... if a buisness isn't regularly tended... it tends to collapse. It's hard to juggle the demands of being a buisness and adventuring. Doable, but not easy.
Well yeah, but it was a lot of fun. . . was a Dark Sun game so I herded my flock of bizarre critters from City-State to City-State training them along the way.
The two word answer of half price for dumping a horse was already taken anyways.
|
It should be noted that "combat trained" horses fetch a better price than non-combat trained ones. If you really wanted to flex those Handle Animal skill ranks, you could take a some downtime and train the horses for battle and make another 50 gold on the sale price of a horse. It stands to reason a small allowance could be thrown on top of half price for some training as a house rule, but there is no listed price I can see for an animal trained with any other tricks.
Hrm...
This thread made me wonder...
Exotic animals cost quite a pretty penny, right? Some of them fetch thousands of gold even.
What if a druid were to go out and grab themselves an animal companion, bring it to town, release and sell it... then go get another.
They could potentially make thousands of gold per day, if they were near enough to the right environment... seems broken, no?
|
|
Hrm...
This thread made me wonder...
Exotic animals cost quite a pretty penny, right? Some of them fetch thousands of gold even.
What if a druid were to go out and grab themselves an animal companion, bring it to town, release and sell it... then go get another.
They could potentially make thousands of gold per day, if they were near enough to the right environment... seems broken, no?
This is where the GM is supposed to step in and politely tell the creative player they're doing something wrong.
- The moment the Druid declares the animal not its companion, it is a wild animal that will likely rebel against its capture with 0 training. This could easily backfire on the Druid.
- In order to do this daily, the Druid is likely in an area where said animal is common, making it less common. If the Druid is telepoting around, it's posible a local conservationist group hears about it and sets out to stop the Druid from poaching.
- This would likely be considered, at the very least, a Not-Good act. Hope your alignment is in order.
- Lastly and perhaps most importantly, selling animals sounds like something that would go against the general ethos of a Druid. A GM would be within their rights to give you a warning and strip you of Druid-dom.
Capturing and selling animals is 'not-good' act? Hrm. I'm fairly sure in game terms it would be at worst a neutral act. (Which druids tend to be)
I do agree that it isn't particularly druid like, in tone. While I agree, a GM should and likely will pull GM fiat whenever something broken occurs... that doesn't make it any less broken in theory.
That's like saying the bucket with a hole in it isn't broken, because you can patch it whenever you use it.
|
Capturing and selling animals is 'not-good' act? Hrm. I'm fairly sure in game terms it would be at worst a neutral act. (Which druids tend to be)
Using the Animal Companion ability to take advantage of the animal in such a way could be considered a betrayal of the animal.
In 3.0 when companions were gained through a spell (Animal Friendship), the spell specified that the spell failed if the druid didn't truly want to be the friend of the target animal.
Capturing and selling animals is 'not-good' act? Hrm. I'm fairly sure in game terms it would be at worst a neutral act. (Which druids tend to be)Using the Animal Companion ability to take advantage of the animal in such a way could be considered a betrayal of the animal.
Eh, it is just an animal though. /shrug
It would be hard to call it an evil act. People use animals, it is just is a matter of life. Farmers aren't evil, and many of them kill their animals. People who eat meat aren't evil, even though that is blatant endorsement of the slaughtering of animals. Trappers and skinners or leatherworkers aren't evil.
People who own pets aren't evil, and zookeepers aren't either. Pet handlers and trainers aren't.
Why would it be evil to capture and sell an animal? It is perfectly safe and cruelty free way to do it to. They don't have to be injured, or caged, or knocked out or overpowered. They peacefully go with you.
Yes, but a druid is supposed to have a close connection to nature. They consider the animal companion just that: a companion. Not a pet, or a piece of property, but an ally. People don't go around selling their friends into slavery.
Yes, but a druid is supposed to have a close connection to nature. They consider the animal companion just that: a companion. Not a pet, or a piece of property, but an ally. People don't go around selling their friends into slavery.
NE people might.
|
|
Yes, but a druid is supposed to have a close connection to nature. They consider the animal companion just that: a companion. Not a pet, or a piece of property, but an ally. People don't go around selling their friends into slavery.NE people might.
Hence the action being either non-good or non-druidic. If you're selling your friends into slavery, you're non-good. If you see your animal companion as a tool rather than a friend or colleague, you're being non-druidic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been searching for this everywhere and I haven't been able to find an answer (I might just have missed it), but when you sell a horse or any other mount i.e. pony, riding dog, griffon, is it (a) sold for the full price you paid for it, like a trade good or (b) sold for half the price as one would sell weapons and armour.
Thanks in advance.
Everyone knows a horse loses half its value the moment you ride it out of the stable.
Hence the action being either non-good or non-druidic. If you're selling your friends into slavery, you're non-good. If you see your animal companion as a tool rather than a friend or colleague, you're being non-druidic.Yes, but a druid is supposed to have a close connection to nature. They consider the animal companion just that: a companion. Not a pet, or a piece of property, but an ally. People don't go around selling their friends into slavery.NE people might.
I think you're under some misconceptions there. Not all druids are happy going nature lovers.
Neutral Evil is perfectly valid for a druid. (So is true neutral) In fact,of the alignments which druids can be, only 1/5th of them are 'good'. Most druids aren't good.
NE:
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
Neutral evil represents pure evil without honor and without variation."
It almost sounds to me that a NE druid is a master of nature, exploiting it to their whim. Not some animal loving hippie...
Anywho... still seems like a ridiculous way to make a ton of gold really quickly. And while there is always GM fiat… by RAW I’m not sure there is anything wrong with this little loophole.
How is selling horses evil again?
It isn't.
But don't tell those PETA people that... they'll freak out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I've never actually seen it come into play, this strikes me as a situation where the ex-druid rules might actually be relevant.
Ex-Druids
A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).
Using the animal companion link as a quick way to lure animals into captivity and subsequently sell them for profit strikes me as remarkably far away from 'revering nature'. I'd probably make a druid who (seriously) tried to do the above fall. Hard.
While I've never actually seen it come into play, this strikes me as a situation where the ex-druid rules might actually be relevant.
Using the animal companion link as a quick way to lure animals into captivity and subsequently sell them for profit strikes me as remarkably far away from 'revering nature'. I'd probably make a druid who (seriously) tried to do the above fall. Hard.Ex-Druids
A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).
Why? They can revere nature still...
How is selling the animal any different, or specifically 'worse' than sending it into battle?
Most druids have their companions frequently and repeatedly put in harm’s way.
How, pray tell, is selling it in any way worse than that?
And if a druid who sends their animal into battle can revere nature still… why can’t one who sells it?
While I've never actually seen it come into play, this strikes me as a situation where the ex-druid rules might actually be relevant.
Using the animal companion link as a quick way to lure animals into captivity and subsequently sell them for profit strikes me as remarkably far away from 'revering nature'. I'd probably make a druid who (seriously) tried to do the above fall. Hard.Ex-Druids
A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).
Why? They can revere nature still...
How is selling the animal any different, or specifically 'worse' than sending it into battle?
Most druids have their companions frequently and repeatedly put in harm’s way.
How, pray tell, is selling it in any way worse than that?
And if a druid who sends their animal into battle can revere nature still… why can’t one who sells it?
A commander that send his soldiers in to battle can respect them, and have there respect back, but if he sells them into slavery?
A commander that send his soldiers in to battle can respect them, and have there respect back, but if he sells them into slavery?
Soldiers are already slaves... lol.
Exotic animals cost quite a pretty penny, right? Some of them fetch thousands of gold even.
What if a druid were to go out and grab themselves an animal companion, bring it to town, release and sell it... then go get another.
I don't believe the example ever used "live on a farm" but simply "sell".
As for why I think it qualifies disrespecting nature? Taking a wild animal, establishing an extraordinary "close bond with a loyal companion" to enslave it with the express purpose of selling it for profit...?
I'd like to think that's obvious.
However I'd also like to note that I specified that this is how I personally would play it - much like the paladin code will vary from table to table, the definition of what does and does not qualify as "revering nature" is between the GM and the druid.
I force an animal to fight Demons, Wizards, and all manner of monsters, constantly putting your life at risk, and I am a good guy.
I sell it, I am a bad guy.
I don't believe I mentioned alignments either...
Actually I'd consider organized cockfighting another example of disrespecting as opposed to revering nature.
Clearly you're trying to make some kind of point here. Maybe you could come out and say it straight?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Selling a companion... (does not) ...disrespect nature.
I respectfully disagree :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then having an animal companion fight does as well.Selling a companion... (does not) ...disrespect nature.I respectfully disagree :)
Again, I respectfully disagree :)
Though I do think in some cases, using your animal companion to fight could qualify as disrespecting nature.
I have no idea what "respecting nature" means then.
It may as well just mean "whatever the DM says", because there is no hard rules for it.
Now we're getting somewhere!
Revering Nature is not defined anywhere in the CRB, so ultimately it is up to the interpretation of the individual GM.
I think some fairly acceptable takes on "the code" could be:
Not willingly cause unnecessary pain or injury to an animal.
Not willingly cause widespread damage to areas of primal/wild nature.
Not willingly peacefully interact with undead (anathema to the balance of life and death) or demons.
etc.
I also think Cap. Darling made a good example earlier where he said that a commander can send his troops into battle, into danger, while still respecting them and vice versa.
However, if he were to sell those same troops into slavery, that respect disappears, or was never there in the first place.
While soldiers are indeed typically paid, they do not necessarily have a choice.
Edit: This may be a touchy topic for me since I live in a country that still practices mandatory conscription for all males.
Now we're getting somewhere!
Revering Nature is not defined anywhere in the CRB, so ultimately it is up to the interpretation of the individual GM.
I think some fairly acceptable takes on "the code" could be:
Not willingly cause unnecessary pain or injury to an animal.
This would mean not allowing your animal companion to fight, wouldn't it?
And what about all those creatures the druids summon? Those things are very often used as pawns without anyone so much as batting an eye. They usually get massacred!
Druids very frequently use nature. They use it like a tool. Depending on their alignment, of course. Good druids often tend to it, motheringly…. But even they seem to send it off into conflicts to get beat down on all the time.
I’d like to agree with you that capturing an selling an animal isn’t perfectly representing the notion of ‘revering nature’… but honestly, I cannot get on that wagon, since sending animals to battle somehow is ‘revering nature’??
/shrug
For me personally the key is "unnecessary" risk/pain. As an example, signing your animal companion up for a dogfighting tournament is quite different from relying on your companion to protect you while personally fighting the minions of Treerazer.
Both involve combat, though.
While soldiers are indeed typically paid, they do not necessarily have a choice.
Edit: This may be a touchy topic for me since I live in a country that still practices mandatory conscription for all males.
I've served, been a soldier. It is slavery. At least, that is the closest term that really represents it.
The difference in the commander example... it that the commander is a fellow slave. A higher ranking slave, but he is one too. The analogy doesn't quite fit the example.
There are very clear distinctions between the rights of sentient beings and animals, for starters. Sentient beings simply have more rights. That is how our ‘human’ moral system is built.
We can identify in the other sentient races something akin to us, and so see in them a reflection of ourselves. This is what enables our empathy, our sympathy, our desire to bond, to coexist on mutually beneficial and agreeable terms.
But we lack that reflection when interacting with animals… most of do anyway. What reflection we see in them in dim, dark, hazy, and distorted unfathomable image of something… other. Something foreign. Something lesser.
We don’t have quite the same empathy, we don’t respect them, we don’t treat them the way we treat other humans, or by extension how we would treat other humanoid races.
Animals are used by men. That is a simple truth, and generally mostly uncontroversial, it isn’t considered an evil thing. We have a very long history using animals to serve us, to feed us, to do hard work for us, to hunt for us, and even have used them in war.
People use animals. And for some reason, which I’m not fully grasping yet… only in context of a druid capturing an animal for selling is this ever labeled as ‘not-good’.
If a hunter/tamer was going out and capturing animals to sell in the market… would we call him ‘non-good’ because of that? We would automatically label him as being incapable of ‘revering nature’ simply because he makes his livelihood off of it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I typed up the following message on my smartphone in bed, only to realize that the phone browser apparently didn't like the Paizo forum interface so I get back up to post this. I apologize in advance for any typos, since I'm utterly rubbish at using android keyboards. I really should crash though, so this will probably be my last post for the next eight hours or so:
Animal summoning spells are a bit of a corner case since the animals are, as near as I can tell, not actually injured or killed - a summoned creature that is brought into negatives "goes away", it is not permanently killed. Even so, I would most likely frown at a druid who cavalierly used summoning spells to, for instance, sidestep traps or set up fights for entertainment.
I don't think a hunter/tamer (Ranger?) is the best analogue for a druid specifically because I would expect them to have a very different view of the relationship between human and animal companion. While I've met, worked, and hunted with avid hunters who love their dog more than anything in the world - like you say, they still very much see and treat the dog as a tool. I would expect the druid and the hunter to disagree on where to draw the line for what rights you would attribute to animals since I'd expect the druid to consider the companion more an equal than a pet.
I'll try to explain why I personally have an issue with using nature's bond to sell animals:
To me Nature's Bond represents a pact, a contract of sorts. Implicit in that contract is that the companion will obey and protect its master, and in turn that the master will protect and take care of his companion. It's a symbol of the symbiosis between the druid and his chosen companion.
Taking on that responsibility and then turning around and selling the animal is a betrayal of everything the bond represents.
Essentially Nature's Bond is the Druid reaching out a hand to Mother Nature, and Mother Nature reaching back.
Using Nature's Bond to sell animals is the equivalent of Mother Nature reaching out a hand to the druid, and then the druid handcuffs Mother Nature to her radiator and steals her TV.
And, in the vain hope of stalling any further hypothetical Blackbloodtroll posts - I would also consider using Nature's Bond for the express purpose of using the animal companion as a raw ingredient for a stew, as a principal employee in an animal prostitution ring, or as a material component for any spell that requires "blood of an innocent" equally damning as selling the creature.
Ironically I probably wouldn't object if the druid instead used the Handle Animal skill to tame and sell animals for profit. Maybe it's me drawing an illogical line, but I feel there is a very large difference between the Bond Companion and a creature tamed through a skill.
Actually, rereading this I wonder if I am influenced by reading fiction on the topic that's not strictly PF-related. It may well be that I just have an unorthodox idea of what it means to be a Druid and whoever wrote the CRB thinks it's totally kosher to bond-farm the woods bare off deer but that druids are intended to fall the second their animal companion breaks a claw on whatever nasty he's clawing the face off of. YMMV.
All that said, I don't really think this is a question that can be easily solved on the Rules Questions forum. Maybe someone could post in the Ask James Jacobs thread?
He can kill the animal, and sell it, but if the animal is alive when he sells it, he disrespects nature?
The point is not whether selling an animal is disrespectful of nature or not.
The point is that intentionally exploiting your druidic powers to poach rare animals from an area for a bit of profit isn't very respectful of the natural order of things.
On top of this, it have to be mentioned that you have a "close bond" with the animal in question, a companionship rather than a common ownership. The companion might follow you willingly into combat and all sorts of life threatening situation, not because you force it.
Choosing to disregard this bond, and sell the creature into forced labor, is very disrespectful towards it (and by extension the nature-given druid powers you wield).
Besides, the whole idea seem rather pointless, and full of holes. You need to be in an area where the species live, so you might just capture the animals instead. You get an animal companion, a special kind of animal, when you lose the bond, it doesn't say exactly what you get. Yes, an ordinary animal. But is it wild? Is it young or old? Is it even useful for anyone?
Well, you'd never been selling your animal companion. See, you simply release it from the bond, and then sell it. So, you'd only ever be selling regular animals, not companions. It is only your companion on the trip back to the merchant, and then it is freed from your bond, right on into beng sold.
The reason for using the bond to gain the critter, is so that it is virtually guaranteed, unless that kind of animal isn't native to the region. And also for easy transport of the critter to wherever it needs be sold at.
Sure, you could run around, track one down, subdue it somehow, and then transport it to a merchant... but that could take a while. Simply summoning it to you is easier and faster, more likely, and with less personal danger.
But I once made a character whose concept was that I was a mount-merchant
So you were a pimp? Named Nate Love??? I'm soooo stealing that bit of awesome!
|
|
Well, you'd never been selling your animal companion. See, you simply release it from the bond, and then sell it. So, you'd only ever be selling regular animals, not companions. It is only your companion on the trip back to the merchant, and then it is freed from your bond, right on into beng sold.
Let's say you marry someone with the intent to learn their secrets and use them for your own profit. Your target takes you into their confidence, and you follow through on your plan and steal their personal identity information or sell dirt to their enemies. Is it less evil if you divorce your target before betraying someone?
We can identify in the other sentient races something akin to us, and so see in them a reflection of ourselves. This is what enables our empathy, our sympathy, our desire to bond, to coexist on mutually beneficial and agreeable terms.
But we lack that reflection when interacting with animals… most of do anyway. What reflection we see in them in dim, dark, hazy, and distorted unfathomable image of something… other. Something foreign. Something lesser.
We don’t have quite the same empathy, we don’t respect them, we don’t treat them the way we treat other humans, or by extension how we would treat other humanoid races.
...
People use animals. And for some reason, which I’m not fully grasping yet… only in context of a druid capturing an animal for selling is this ever labeled as ‘not-good’.
The problem is that a druid has a supernatural empathy with animals - they can see in animals a reflection of themselves, they desire to bond with them and coexist on mutually beneficial terms. Thus it can be morally wrong for a druid to use animals in ways that a nondruid would be allowed to.
Now, I don't think it's wrong for a druid to use animals in any way, since predatory behavior is natural and domesticated animals have a symbiotic relationship with humans if well-treated. But it's certainly evil to use the Companion Bond - a distillation of the druid's special empathy for nature into a single animal - as a more convenient way to exploit animals for profit.