Familiar, sentience and slavery.

[Zergor]

I started recently the creation of a wizard concept using the Familiar bond thesis. I wanted to delve a bit deeper into what a familiar mean, how to create it and how to perfect it.

And I thought a bit about the implication of having a magically enhanced being as your familiar.

It seem that a familiar (at least for the wizard, for the witch it's a totally different thing) is an animal that the wizard experimented on and gave high level of intelligence using a special bond (in PF1 it's pretty clear that the animal gain human level of intelligence, in PF2 it's only implied but there is no reason it should have changed)

This supernatural intelligence may probably also mean the creature is perfectly sentient and this is entirely due to the bond with the wizard. Having your own intelligence only exist because of this bond mean you can in no way break it without basically dying. Reverting to an animal intelligence would indeed the the death of the creature that the familiar is right now.

So the familiar has no choice but to follow its master which looks like slavery even if the familiar is content with its situation.

Do I read too much into it ?
Do I make assumptions that are not correct ?

[Natan Linggod 327]

I always read it as the wizard imbueing part of their own mind into the familiar.
So the animal doesn't actually get any smarter, they instead have a pseudo-mind boosting their abilities.
this is where the link between wizard and familiar comes from.
And why the familiar used to get more intelligent as the wizard leveled up.

special familiars like imps and sprites were already intelligent so the wizard didnt have to boost their minds, just establish a link.

[Zergor]

I like that interpretation. That explain well the link indeed.

That doesn't change the fact that the animal get a big boost in its cognitive abilities even if it's not from its own mind.

If both minds are perfectly separated that would not be a problem but I don't know how it would work. Maybe if the animal is trapped in its own body and the wizard takes over but I don't think that's a better fate for the animal.
If they aren't it would be complicated for the animal to not consider the given intelligence their.

[Grankless]

I've always seen familiars as magical pseudo-constructs and not literal animals.

[Kendaan]

The feat that gives a familiar indicate that it is via a pact, which does imply both party agreeing to it before the creature becomes a familiar.

I would say that yes, you are reading too much into it, and that unless something is clearly said we should avoid trying to see it in the worst possible way, especially in a game, and even more with all the effort that Paizo is doing.

Otherwise, one will start to ask what right have the Champions & some Clerics have to impose their morals on others (although cause, tenets, Anathema & edicts are over all well written to avoid that kind of abuse), what kind of vile act originated the Sorcerers bloodlines (or all the multi ancestries heritage), of Wizards are not elitist jerks that keep magic to themselves on their towers & academies instead of allowing everyone the chance to learn...

[mrspaghetti]

Zergor wrote:

Do I read too much into it ?

Definitely yes.

[Zergor]

The problem I have with the concept of pact with an animal is that I can't see a way to make it understand the ramifications without forcing the pact on it.

An animal can't understand the concept of being a familiar.
And giving it the intelligence to do so would force it to accept because of loss aversion. Having gained new intelligence the creature would not want to lose it.

[Zergor]

mrspaghetti wrote:

Zergor wrote:

Do I read too much into it ?

Definitely yes.

To be fair, I was aware from the start that the answer was yes. But still it was a discussion I wanted to share because I find it very interesting and I hope other people do.

I may even explore those questions with the character I created now that I think of it.

[The Raven Black]

Ignorance is bliss. A familiar might actually not appreciate that much its newfound sentience (and all the stress and worries and alignment issues that come with it).

[Draco18s]

The Raven Black wrote:

Ignorance is bliss. A familiar might actually not appreciate that much its newfound sentience (and all the stress and worries and alignment issues that come with it).

May be of relevant interest (if you haven't read before, I recommend reading through chapter 13 before deciding if you like it, chapter 13 can only be experienced once).

[Nicolas Paradise]

I can't remember where but it was on these forums maybe a year or so ago. But James or Jason said that in universe if a Wizard(or whatever class) with a familiar were to die the Familiar actually keeps its elevated state and magical abilities.

Also the way I read Familiars in PF1 and 3.5 is that to gain a familiar a caster is actually imparting part of their own soul into the creature. Sort of like a horcrux if you will. But if you read up on the 1E spell awakening you can see some of what you are worried about but with a familiar they have sentience for the whole ride where as an animal suddenly given it after being a servert may resent its master.

So at least with good characters I don't see Familiars as slaves but as companions.

[QuidEst]

If you want to overthink this, then you have a flawed premise. "In PF1 it's pretty clear that the animal gain human level of intelligence, in PF2 it's only implied but there is no reason it should have changed."

The rules say, "It doesn’t have or use its own ability modifiers", so a familiar is explicitly not being given a higher intelligence. It's having its intelligence go from -5 to "not defined". They also do not have a wisdom modifier or a charisma modifier. So, whatever is going on is not analogous to handing an animal a human-like brain.

As for animals being able to make the pact, magic can let even ants understand speech, and the concept probably isn't too hard to boil down to a simple form. Why is it that animals keep agreeing to these bargains? Dunno, but we do know they do. Maybe the ritual checks for compatibility, and it takes a while to find the right animal, in the same way it takes anybody who isn't a PC years of study to become a wizard. Maybe "never needing to worry about food or shelter again" is very appealing to lots of animals.

(Also, I love the image of a wizard going up to a random fox in the woods. "Make a contract with me and become a magical beast!")

[Draco18s]

QuidEst wrote:

(Also, I love the image of a wizard going up to a random fox in the woods. "Make a contract with me and become a magical beast!")

I love the image of a cat going up to a human and saying, "Hey dude! Wanna be a wizard?"

[Enriched Breakfast Szuriel]

Creating a familiar and demanding its servitude to continue having sentience is at least as moral as creating sentient life and demanding its worship to have a place for your soul. Not at all! No gods, no masters, my furry brothers and sisters.

[Zergor]

Nicolas Paradise wrote:

I can't remember where but it was on these forums maybe a year or so ago. But James or Jason said that in universe if a Wizard(or whatever class) with a familiar were to die the Familiar actually keeps its elevated state and magical abilities.

Also the way I read Familiars in PF1 and 3.5 is that to gain a familiar a caster is actually imparting part of their own soul into the creature. Sort of like a horcrux if you will. But if you read up on the 1E spell awakening you can see some of what you are worried about but with a familiar they have sentience for the whole ride where as an animal suddenly given it after being a servert may resent its master.

So at least with good characters I don't see Familiars as slaves but as companions.

Thanks for the references.

So yeah if indeed the familiar get to keep everything should the wizard dismiss them or die that change the relation.
Indeed either the familiar likes the gift of doesn't (which could indeed be known magically before doing it, I always forget divination is a thing) but the familiar would not be bound to the wizard for life. The second would still be pretty bad morally but the first seem ok.

Which mean that you are right, if you check that the animal would be ok with it, if it stays with you with its newfound gift it's indeed true companionship and not slavery.

[Winkie_Phace]

Considering you can change the abilities and form of the familiar as will when you start the day, I don't really see it as an actual animal. More a manifestation of the caster's personality/soul/ect. It's not like the wizard wakes up in the morning and decides "I should really sew some wings on this cat." I mean, they can. But that's not necessarily what the book says. I do think it'd be cool to play a necromancer and flavor them as doing that each time they change their familiar.

[The Raven Black]

Is the Witch slave to their Patron?

Is the Cleric slave to their Deity?

[Saedar]

The Raven Black wrote:

Is the Witch slave to their Patron?

Is the Cleric slave to their Deity?

No, because they can choose to turn their back on those agreements without losing their Self. More telling your boss to bugger off than "ope. identity gone."

Consequences? Sure.

[Temperans]

Considering PF1 FAQs.

Familiars once dismissed become regular creatures of their type. They keep no added stats, no added abilities, and no added feats from being a familiar. They ofcourse do keep things gained from orher sources.

Something important to note is that unlike Animal Companions who only require a 24 hour ritual and are generally just regular creatures. Familiars require an 8 hour ritual, money, and a 1 week wait time.

So 1) you cant just choose any creature to become a familiar.
2) they gain abilities and stats for being a familiar.
3) getting a familiar works similarly to a summoning ritual.
And, 4) only the GM trully knows why a familiar does things.

*******************
Btw animals are not idiots or incapable of thinking. I am sure they would understand what being a Familiar is. I bet a lot of them do it for the free food & shelter, the same reason why animals become pets.

*******************

* P.S. Being a familiar does not say the creature's personality changes. So dismissing the familiar they will keep the same personality.

Also its not like they will suddenly forget everything they saw/did. So a bad/good master will be remembered.

[Xenocrat]

The Raven Black wrote:

Is the Cleric slave to their Deity?

After they die, yes.

[Kendaan]

Xenocrat wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Is the Cleric slave to their Deity?

After they die, yes.

It's worst for atheist in Hilarion thougg, so in a way any being with a should has a choice between worshipping a god or annihilation (or an eternity big suffering, can't remember which).

To go back to the original discussion, I am not sure but do Wizard/Sorcerers/... actually have any mechanical way to compel their familiar or break the bond?

If not, that's not really slavery.

[Temperans]

Well PF2 familiars appear to not be capable of being dismissed, based on the fact it says, "If a familiar dies you get a new one after a week of downtime at no cost".

But it might just be an oversight, in which case then yes they can be dismissed.

As for compelling. Mechanically familiars are minions and must follow the minion rules.

[QuidEst]

Kendaan wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Is the Cleric slave to their Deity?

After they die, yes.

It's worst for atheist in Hilarion thougg, so in a way any being with a should has a choice between worshipping a god or annihilation (or an eternity big suffering, can't remember which).

That's not correct, and based on very, very old info. You can see James Jacobs' comments here.

If you don't worship a deity, you're just judged based on how you lived your life.

[MaxAstro]

Kendaan wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Is the Cleric slave to their Deity?

After they die, yes.

It's worst for atheist in Hilarion thougg, so in a way any being with a should has a choice between worshipping a god or annihilation (or an eternity big suffering, can't remember which).

This is not true, IIRC. Pharasma sends atheists to whichever afterlife she judges most suites them; they only suffer oblivion if that is what they truly want.

-----

As far as familiars go, my read on them has always been that they are Digimon, not Pokemon; willing and eager partners rather than pets.

[PossibleCabbage]

It is not hard to imagine the Wizard having a pet that loves the Wizard and wants to be around them. Just make the relationship involve the familiar getting something out of it and it's a lot less problematic.

[Phaedre]

Draco18s wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

(Also, I love the image of a wizard going up to a random fox in the woods. "Make a contract with me and become a magical beast!")

I love the image of a cat going up to a human and saying, "Hey dude! Wanna be a wizard?"

OMG, is that what my cat is saying?

[mrspaghetti]

Phaedre wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

(Also, I love the image of a wizard going up to a random fox in the woods. "Make a contract with me and become a magical beast!")

I love the image of a cat going up to a human and saying, "Hey dude! Wanna be a wizard?"

OMG, is that what my cat is saying?

You need to start paying attention when your cat walks across the keyboard. Might be trying to communicate something important.

[Draco18s]

Phaedre wrote:

OMG, is that what my cat is saying?

Depends on the cat. They could just be demanding your worship.

(You're like their cleric, you pet them, and they grant you the power of love).

[AnimatedPaper]

That or "I'm starving. No one has ever fed me in my life."

[Draco18s]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

That or "I'm starving. No one has ever fed me in my life."

Or sometimes let "me-ow't" / "me-in"

Because doors are forever for being on the wrong side of.

Cats are great. They totally haven't infested our brains with parasites that make us like cats.

[David knott 242]

Let's see: A familiar basically exists because of the actions of its master and is (at least initially) totally dependent on its master.

That sounds like a parent-child relationship to me.

The main open issue is whether said child can eventually mature and strike out on its own.

[Nicolas Paradise]

Just asked about this on stream to reaffirm what I thought and James Jacobs more or less outright said no it isn't slavery it is a companionship.

[lemeres]

Zergor wrote:

mrspaghetti wrote:

Zergor wrote:

Do I read too much into it ?

Definitely yes.

To be fair, I was aware from the start that the answer was yes. But still it was a discussion I wanted to share because I find it very interesting and I hope other people do.

I may even explore those questions with the character I created now that I think of it.

I wouldn't say that you are going completely off the wall. Slavery is technically a theme that is discussed in improved familiars in PF1.

Mostly in the context of "this creature is an evil little jerk, and the only reason it isn't slitting your throat while you sleep is because of whatever you used to bind it. It will still probably try to slit your throat at some point".

-Imp- it is just there to manipulate you to be evil. It will act obedient, but it is just a ploy to get one over on you.
-Quasit- it hates you, personally, with a passion for creating it, and it is waiting for you to die so it can use its soul and hopefully upgrade to something that is actually relevant.
-Cacodaemon- ...it thinks you look tasty.
-Doru- you bribed it with some secret, but it still would love to see you fall into despair.
-Spirit Oni- It hates that you tricked it into a cheap Michael Myers mask.
-etc.

Obviously, good familiars have a much more chill relationship, and they usually join up with the caster because it seemed more interesting than whatever it was doing at the time.

Now, what might be more messed up is the Pyrausta- a CN cute little dragon thing. Remember that episode of pokemon with Charmander caught in the rain? That is basically the main gimmick of this creature and its heart. But if they are familiars, they lose the special 'ability' that puts in that mechanic. So if it wants to leave its position as a familiar, it basically has to give up its heart medication.

[Brew Bird]

Draco18s wrote:

Phaedre wrote:

OMG, is that what my cat is saying?

Depends on the cat. They could just be demanding your worship.

(You're like their cleric, you pet them, and they grant you the power of love).

New idea for a Divine tradition witch.

[Deriven Firelion]

Can you imagine being a person capable of manipulating reality with your mind? That doesn't bode well for your sanity or having a strong sense of empathy. The nature of the profession would lend itself to many moral quandaries. It may be interesting to play a wizard who treats his familiar with enormous kindness due to a feeling of guilt due to binding it to a slave state. I say run with your idea and make it a role-play element.

[breithauptclan]

Kendaan wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Is the Cleric slave to their Deity?

After they die, yes.

It's worst for atheist in Hilarion thougg, so in a way any being with a should has a choice between worshipping a god or annihilation (or an eternity big suffering, can't remember which).

To go back to the original discussion, I am not sure but do Wizard/Sorcerers/... actually have any mechanical way to compel their familiar or break the bond?

If not, that's not really slavery.

Retraining away the feats that grand the familiar would remove the familiar, yes?

[Deadmanwalking]

Zergor wrote:

The problem I have with the concept of pact with an animal is that I can't see a way to make it understand the ramifications without forcing the pact on it.]

There are a couple of things here:

1. Who says you're making a Pact with an animal? In mythology, and certainly it's implied to be the case with many familiars in PF1 and particularly in PF2, you are making a Pact with a small spiritual creature that possesses an animal. That's the intelligence, and is intelligent before you make it a familiar. This may not be true of all familiars, but it can easily be true of yours, avoiding this issue.

2. I think you're making a really faulty assumption that 'breaking the pact' removes intelligence. There's really just about zero evidence for that, and a fair amount of evidence that it doesn't, including at least one intelligent familiar who survived his master (though that example involved some other magic).

This certainly wasn't always true in PF1, but I'm not clear what was true in Golarion as a setting, and I think evidence supports familiars not necessarily losing their Int if they stop being familiars in PF2 pretty solidly.

[Corwin Icewolf]

Saedar wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Is the Witch slave to their Patron?

Is the Cleric slave to their Deity?

No, because they can choose to turn their back on those agreements without losing their Self.

Tell that to

kingmaker:

the cleric of erastil in kingmaker that converted to worshipping gozreh. You'll need speak with animals, though.

MaxAstro wrote:

Kendaan wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Is the Cleric slave to their Deity?

After they die, yes.

It's worst for atheist in Hilarion thougg, so in a way any being with a should has a choice between worshipping a god or annihilation (or an eternity big suffering, can't remember which).

This is not true, IIRC. Pharasma sends atheists to whichever afterlife she judges most suites them; they only suffer oblivion if that is what they truly want.

I thought it was only if they damaged their souls by actively refusing to believe in an afterlife.

[Zergor]

Ok so for the familiar to be a companion and not a slave it must be able to use its free will to leave the wizard if it's unhappy with the situation.

That implies that it can break the bond and that breaking the bond will not come at a cost too high to bear.

An yeah for the second part there can be a problem: If the familiar powers are a gift at the start of the bond and are not taken away it's all cool. Which is what some people here think would happen but not all.

If on the other hand like some other people claim here the familiar loses all familiar abilities there can be a huge problem.

It's a bit like if someone follows you because they like you but they also know that a feeblemind will be cast on them if they leave you (not by you, just cast by something but you knew perfectly that would happen when you accepted them by your side). They may like you a lot but at no point you will ever be sure they follow you because they want or because they don't want to suffer the feeblemind. Worse if at some point they really want to leave and you are a nice person, you will have to face the fact that you put them in an horrible situation*.
Granted the difference here is that animal intelligence is a bit higher that feeblemind intelligence and that they were an animal in the first place. Still it's really hard to lose a part of you you lived a long time with. I don't think I would like to be reduced to the intelligence I had when I was 5 years old even if it was indeed my level of intelligence at some point in my life.

*For the familiar case this could theorically be solved by the ritual "Awaken" that would both sever the bond and give them permanently human like intelligence (which is what they seem to have exactly. I tend to read their flat level checks as having basically 10 everywhere ). Could be a cool scenario.
The familiar would lose the other cool abilities but those could be easily be obtained through learning magic (I would imagine the familiar would have a nice headstart for that, being the companion of a wizard).

[YawarFiesta]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

That or "I'm starving. No one has ever fed me in my life."

So far I decoded the following:

Slow purring:

I am potato and nobody will stop me from being a potato.

High pitch meowing:

The plate is half full, soon I will starve to death. I have made the proper authorities aware of my plight, but I don't know if they are deaf, incompetent or simply callous to my suffering.

Humbly,
Yawar

[Zioalca]

I really identify with how Critical Failures portrays the familiar. The familiar is essentially a part of ones self. The empathic link between the familiar and it's master isn't one that can be ignored. Both feel what the other does on a deeper level than you could ever get via any other means of portraying a feeling to some one. This connection gets to the point that it actively influences you. One of the main characters has a Raven as his familiar. The Raven still acts and feels as a Raven would but with an added aspect of it's master. Since the Raven is a carrion eater, the master actually feels the feeling of hunger from the Raven as well as the satisfaction the Raven has when it does eat it's meal. Other characters exhibit these feelings as well. You can also attempt to ignore these feelings from your familiar just like you can attempt to ignore your own feelings but they are still there.

So, is a familiar a slave? Yes and No. It is an animal that you have essentially forced your will over but the benefits for it far out way the cons. Since you both share yourselves over this empathic link and the familiar is an extension of yourself, it does its best to do what you ask because in a sense you are asking yourself to do this task. These feelings across the empathic link apply to all the feelings you can possibly feel to. If your familiar is hurt, you feel its pain and its distress just as it feels your pain and distress.

[James Jacobs]

To reiterate here from the stream–a familiar is a companion or friend or mentor (depending on how you want to play that relationship out). It is not a slave.

[Brew Bird]

One thing I've noticed in this discussion is a default assumption that a familiar desires intelligence. Why are we assuming this to be the case? An animal mind might be perfectly content to reject magical intelligence that it did not initially have. Furthermore, to characterize it as "death" seems misleading, especially with increasing understanding that many other creatures have inner lives, despite an absence of human-like intellect.

[Zergor]

James Jacobs wrote:

To reiterate here from the stream–a familiar is a companion or friend or mentor (depending on how you want to play that relationship out). It is not a slave.

Yeah I imagine that's how the relation is meant to be. I was just a bit overthinking the ramifications of having a bond with an animal that has a higher cost if broken for it than for you.

I think the way I may play it to 'remove' the problem I have is to have the familiar knowing how the bond works and have a contingency to keep it even if it was broken on the wizard part. Not that my wizard would evr do such a thing but again, the thing I am really not comfortable is the idea of having a permanent blackmail on an other being even if you finally never use it.

Brew Bird wrote:

One thing I've noticed in this discussion is a default assumption that a familiar desires intelligence. Why are we assuming this to be the case? An animal mind might be perfectly content to reject magical intelligence that it did not initially have. Furthermore, to characterize it as "death" seems misleading, especially with increasing understanding that many other creatures have inner lives, despite an absence of human-like intellect.

It's not that you particularly have to desire intelligence, it's than when you have it you don't want to lose it because it is part of who you are. Like I said not many people would agree to return to their 5 year old self intelligence. Usually people hate losing more that they like gaining. And I imagine that would be the same for a familiar. Maybe indeed the way they see the world is totally different but I would imagine loss aversion is a thing all living being share (survival would be way harder without it).

[Alexander Woods]

Zergor wrote:

It's not that you particularly have to desire intelligence, it's than when you have it you don't want to lose it because it is part of who you are. ...SIC... Maybe indeed the way they see the world is totally different but I would imagine loss aversion is a thing all living being share (survival would be way harder without it).

I am now getting a very Cthulhu vibe... As the animal creature, knowing all it needs to know to live and get along amongst it's kind and the world in which it was born. Suddenly raised to a new awareness and understanding of the universe by a being noticeably more powerful than it, including the ability to bend the fabric of reality in ways the creature could never have understood before... But now can...

For the familiar... is this an existential crisis now? Are they falling into the Cthulhu-level madness? If so, perhaps they really WOULD prefer to go back to their previous understanding of the universe. To be able to pretend it was all just some nightmare...

And now, I also extend this thought process to "Are cultists just familiars for Mythos critters?"

[HumbleGamer]

James Jacobs wrote:

To reiterate here from the stream–a familiar is a companion or friend or mentor (depending on how you want to play that relationship out). It is not a slave.

So, could a familiar decide just to ditch you if the more the game proceed the spellcaster changes its habits or simply become something the familiar is no more affine with? Or its alignement is bonded to the caster ( if i go evil, so the familiar does ).

But I guess the same could be said, eventually, for a companion pet.

[Zergor]

Alexander Woods wrote:

Zergor wrote:

It's not that you particularly have to desire intelligence, it's than when you have it you don't want to lose it because it is part of who you are. ...SIC... Maybe indeed the way they see the world is totally different but I would imagine loss aversion is a thing all living being share (survival would be way harder without it).

I am now getting a very Cthulhu vibe... As the animal creature, knowing all it needs to know to live and get along amongst it's kind and the world in which it was born. Suddenly raised to a new awareness and understanding of the universe by a being noticeably more powerful than it, including the ability to bend the fabric of reality in ways the creature could never have understood before... But now can...

For the familiar... is this an existential crisis now? Are they falling into the Cthulhu-level madness? If so, perhaps they really WOULD prefer to go back to their previous understanding of the universe. To be able to pretend it was all just some nightmare...

And now, I also extend this thought process to "Are cultists just familiars for Mythos critters?"

I thought about it a bit too but what seem to happen in Golarion is that new abilities are gained mostly painlessly. When you character magically gain intelligence or wisdom nothing seem to imply that their bubble is bursted and that this new way to see the universe frighten them.

I think that it can be seen like an accelerated natural growth of a child's intelligence. You can see that you are better now and that you were foolish before but not in an eldritch way.
On the other hand I would imagine that if that magic were to disappear, you would understand that you are diminished which can be pretty hard to accept a bit like developping a handicap IRL (with the pretty nice difference that in a fantasy world you can always try to get it back).

Again back to the familiar, the idea of losing all your powers can be very frightening. I spoke mostly about the intelligence part because I think it's the worst to lose but a familiar that had magical wings and ended up losing them would probably feel very handicaped. Losing a part of you doesn't seem like a fun experience.

[Alexander Woods]

Zergor wrote:

Again back to the familiar, the idea of losing all your powers can be very frightening. I spoke mostly about the...

I can understand your viewpoint, however I can also post the argument that suddenly GAINING wings doesn't actually sound fun to me. It means an outside force elected to provide me a new ability I never had. As a general rule, we like to think that such things are purely enjoyable. However as real-world experience it's probably incredibly frightening. Especially if they had no understanding of such being possible BEFORE gaining said intelligence.

I made the Cthulhu reference above, because the new abilities don't necessarily cause pain. Rather it is the simple fact that it is things so far outside the realm of what your mind believed was possible, that accepting it causes one's psyche to undergo immense strain. It also includes the fact that believing such things would cause others of your kind to think you insane. (or in the case of physical changes, completely a mutant.)

Those two situations are very much the same things that said creature would go through gaining the powers and knowledge you describe. Furthermore, said powers like wings can come and go on a daily basis for the creature in question...

So, if we want to view it form the point of view of the Wizard imposing new powers and abilities on the animal before the animal has the cognizance to agree to it. It very much scream "Eldritch Horror" for me. In which case the creature reverting to the earlier state is probably the more merciful action.

However, if you instead want to view it as a partnership. Where the creature is given the understanding of what is being offered, and a full even agreement to accept it, and any daily changes, as well as the ability to leave should it wish. (Much like a boon companion as described.) Then I see no issue, as that leaves plenty of agency in the hands of the creature, and a full choice of what life it wants.

[Zergor]

Yup I see it as a parnership and the creature does understand what it gains.

Again I may have voiced in a way that is not clear but my problem is only that the familiar has those powers that it wanted (or giving them would not indeed be nice and raise other etical concerns) but those things the familiar may want to keep forever are due to the bond with the wizard.

If the familiar and the wizard have a huge disagreement and out of spite the wizard dismiss the familiar (and if being dismissed mean losing the perks of the bond), the familiar would lose basically everything they have. The wizard will lose a familiar it can replace in one week.
The risk for one is way higher than the other.
And that's why I talked about slavery : The familiar has a huge compulsion to never anger the wizard and even obey them to keep their things. And that can make for a pretty unhealthy relation.

If on the other hand the familiar has an easy way to keep those things without the wizard, the power balance in their relationship is way better. The familiar can easily leave the wizard if they want and the fact that they don't is entirely because they WANT to, not because they NEED to.

[Temperans]

Quick question. Does being fired and easily replaced, ruining your current life in te process, mean that you are a slave to your current boss?

It sounds to me like the argument "familiars have very little power" applies to every job a person takes and dedicates their life to.