What can I say? I don't play PFS -- obviously, if I were playing in organized play, I'd have to be courteous to everyone who happened to end up at my table. It's part of the social contract. And the fact that I might meet someone who named their animal companion "Meatshield #1" is something that I need to consider with regard to "Is PFS play a good fit for me?"
OTOH, at my table, an animal is as little likely to die as the PC is, barring reckless endangerment. I use Hero Points, for one thing, because I prefer investing in my characters and assume that my players do, too. The hunter in my game is able to spend hers on keeping her tiger alive every bit as much as on herself. And she does, if needed! Her PC loves her cat. I'm comfortable with this attitude. She's comfortable with my respect for her emotional bonds with both characters. We can go on playing together.
Someone in another thread related a story of having to kill his guard dog (an animal, not animal companion), because it was about to die to undead and become undead. He cried on the way home from the game. I'd love to have him in my game! (I've also made a note to myself now to be very, very careful of including any such undead in my game, because I'd feel so very horribly bad if something like that happened to my favorite tiger.) Obviously, killing his dog that way was clearly RP'ed as an act of respect & grief for the animal. And yes, sending your animal companion away could well be RP'ed as an act of respect & protection.
That isn't what I was reacting to -- it was the idea that "It didn't cost me anything." I don't know what it would cost in RP; I haven't checked the rules, so I spoke rashly. But I can tell you, in any world that I run, there would be a cost. And if that makes a new player so uncomfortable that we reach a mutual decision to for them to draw up a new character -- or for us to part ways -- well, I can live with that.
I highly doubt somebody would do that except as a joke, or unless their PCs are Evil (which is prohibited by PFS, though people try to skirt that by being Chaotic Stupid or some other form of Stupid). But again, you need to look at things through other perspectives. Maybe the player doesn't value their companion that much to warrant it more than a name (similar to how, in today's world, livestock are usually branded or tagged instead of given a name like Betsy, and even then that's reserved for exceptional or personal livestock, which the PC doesn't appear to value the animal companion as). Maybe they were simply made responsible for the creature, even though they didn't want to be.
There's also the matter of people showing their "love" or appreciation in different ways. While some of these are universal, a lot of times it's changed through slang, or heck, even giving them the nickname "Meatshield." Maybe that nickname was given because of some special event; if the creature is sentient, maybe it wanted that nickname, because it finds it cool or intrinsic to its personality.
Point is, as GM, you can only try to accommodate the player's tastes and values; you don't have to like it (although I imagine the game would be more fun for you if you did), but merely respect it. As long as those tastes and values don't infringe upon the rules regarding animal companions (or even PFS as a whole), then it should be fine.
Personally, while I don't mind players having investment into their characters (and by relation their companions), sometimes that borders on..."uncomfortable" levels, for lack of a better word. A player who cries about his PC killing a dog (for the theoretical greater good, mind you), in my opinion, doesn't sound like somebody who I view as "mature" enough for the game that is Pathfinder. (Maybe it was a younger player; it happens. I've certainly been there, though I've grown and matured enough to understand that it's a game, first and foremost, and that what happens, happens; even if I don't personally like the outcome.)
The thing with "RP cost" is that it varies from group to group, and most importantly, from player to player; after all, they are the ones who are paying that price, and nobody else (except maybe party funds, if they're replacing it, though in PFS, that's a personal expense, and not group expense). If the player wants to send his animal companion off (or figure it's time to get a new one after the death of his previous), the rules (as well as the GM) adjudicate what that is and what that entails, and if the player wants to accept those costs or ramifications, that's his business. Unfortunately, since this is PFS, GMs only adjudicate as far as the rules allow them to, which means that in the case of PFS, the "didn't cost me anything" rule trumps whatever views or feelings that GM has or feels should be there.
I've got to stop reading my own thread. I've gotten the answers I needed, and thank you all. Even those with an attitude different from mine as a GM.
My attitude is simple: my friends come to my house to have a good time. As GM, I'm host and need to make sure they have one. That is my primary job. BUT, I want to have a good time, too. I in fact think I have a right to enjoy the night in review -- well, more often than not.
I can adjust the premise of a story to suit my players. My RPing players. One of the games I'm running now is frighteningly ad hoc. (I started with the setting and the premise, and waited to see what the players would do.) But the story has to be fun for me as well as them. And there's no point in arguing about that attitude of mine.
No. An Intelligence of 3 does not grant animals sentience, the ability to use weapons or tools, speak a language (though they may understand one with a rank in Linguistics; this does not grant literacy)
How would one go about making their kitty friend literate? Augment Animal makes them ineligible for animal companion status, so is it impossible to have a book club consisting of you and your cat?
I think this thread has gotten far off-topic and needs to just end.