|
|
Post by Trollfiend on Jul 12, 2013 13:48:23 GMT -5
I know.. it's an old topic, but one I feel strongly about... Having been a member of the druid guild, and a lover of the class in general (extending all the way back to text based adventure games called MUD's {Multi-User Dungeons - The original MMO's} and my love of nature and animals in general), isn't it about time to let some of the animals into town? Let's use real life. Somewhere around half the population have pets. Mostly domesticated, but there are some who have exotics. I know most are on leashes when walked, but there are public beaches and parks where it's legal to take off the leash and let dogs of all sizes run around and play together. Near Seattle, there's a beach with a section called "Dog Park" for this very purpose. No one screams and runs away or pulls out their guns to kill the animals or their owners. I know, you're going to say, dogs aren't dangerous- birds are. Well, the only humans that have ever been killed by a bird died of the Avian Flu, not the bird's vicious talons. I went to a Renaissance fair and watched a bird trainer pull out birds ranging from the falcon to a bald eagle; all without leashes. He even let a couple of them fly above the crowd. Not one person felt threatened enough to cry out or even maim or kill the animals or the trainer. Now, in a fantasy world like Faerun, diseases aren't a problem and druids are certainly capable of magically removing any trace of a disease at the first sign of the animal's illness. And, unlike the trainers in real life, the druid is capable of innately bonding with the bird, which goes far beyond any training, and the druid can increase the animal's wisdom to human levels which means it won't be prone to aggressiveness; for the more exotic druid companions like bears, wolves, and panthers. Now, let me nip one more thing real quick... "It's an established FRC rule that is has been in place for thousands of generations and is doing just fine..." Well, not exactly true. One, it's not a rule- it's an IC law of Cormyr. And even if it were a rule, rules change and there have been many times that rules have changed on this server. Back in the day, the server had permanent haste robes- that was the FRC way. They were finally removed. I could write pages on everything that has changed since I started playing here. Two, this law has been rescinded long ago, but most people either ignore it, or they are completely unaware. The new law is treated like it doesn't exist... I'm only writing this to try and end what's probably the worst display of roleplay ever on this server. It's an IC Law, not a server OOC rule and as such, it should be treated as such. No lawmaker, or town official, or enforcer, or citizen has ever been known to completely ban animals or have them executed on sight purely based on the possibility that someone somewhere may or may not have a phobia of said animal. Before I begin to drift off topic or to a rant, I'll close this out... How about we take the modification that was made to the old law to heart and roleplay accordingly? Also, if your PC really IS the type to kill anything non-humanoid from a mouse to a dog or bird or cat (despite the law protecting cats), then please for the love of all things common sense, please continue this practice outside of towns by killing each and every animal you see- go out of your way to slaughter wolves, big cats, birds.. everything you come to out in the wilderness! Charge towards a little wolf spawn in full view of your party (who's probably full of people who only hunt animals in town and protect them outside of town) and watch their reactions! Also, one more thing... the next time a DM lands a sphinx or dragon in town, draw your weapon and demand it flee before you kill it for scaring the populace- the exact same way you did the druid who dared bring in a hawk  Don't back down- DEMAND it! Watch the reactions! See... if you're going to RP being the creature hater, then BE the creature hater. This is an RP server and flip-flopping around is contradictory to what this server stands for. |
|
spoonclacknredneck
New Member
IF YOU'RE NOT MADE OF GASOLINE, METAL, OR BACON, GET THE **** OUT!
Posts: 12
|
Post by spoonclacknredneck on Jul 12, 2013 18:49:26 GMT -5
I'm kind of failing to see what you are getting at. Are you saying that a PC who "hates animals" should be killing every walking steak they see, regardless of the consequences (livestock, domesticated animal, cats/cat like objects, bears, hamsters)? What if this PC doesn't feel like chasing after a deer with his battleaxe? What if he doesn't kill a herd of livestock he knows provides sustenance to the town (including him as well)? I'm only writing this to try and end what's probably the worst displays of roleplay ever on this server. Also, if your PC really IS the type to kill anything non-humanoid from a mouse to a dog or bird or cat (despite the law protecting cats), then please for the love of all things common sense, please continue this practice outside of towns by killing each and every animal you see- go out of your way to slaughter wolves, big cats, birds.. everything you come to out in the wilderness! See... if you're going to RP being the creature hater, then BE the creature hater. Not trying to be confrontational, but it sounds a lot like you want people to RP in a way that makes sense to you, when in reality, good/sensible RP is in the eye of the beholder. What seems batshit crazy to you may seem logical to another? PCs and players more often than not have a reason for what they do. I'm also feeling that the Comyrian Fauna Genocide Corps is not as pressing a matter as you feel it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Dobian on Jul 12, 2013 20:02:22 GMT -5
Well most games' treatment of animals has tended to be on the stupid side. Rats that attack people, people running around killing everything furry that moves. It's good that you have classes of animals on FRC that are marked friendly, including the lesser wolves. Save the killing for the monsters and the real menaces, leave the critters alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trollfiend on Jul 12, 2013 20:06:23 GMT -5
I'm also feeling that the Comyrian Fauna Genocide Corps is not as pressing a matter as you feel it is. The severity of the topic is of little relevance. It doesn't need to be the most important topic on the table before it is discussed in these forums. That's never been the case. I'm kind of failing to see what you are getting at. Are you saying that a PC who "hates animals" should be killing every walking steak they see, regardless of the consequences (livestock, domesticated animal, cats/cat like objects, bears, hamsters)? What if this PC doesn't feel like chasing after a deer with his battleaxe? What if he doesn't kill a herd of livestock he knows provides sustenance to the town (including him as well)? You may have missed my point. In the long number of years that I've played here, I've seen whole groups of PC's draw weapons and ready to attack any PC who brings in an animal companion or familiar, no matter how benign, into town. For no more reason than "It's a dangerous animal." Even though that's not the case. Or another favorite, "Someone may have a bird phobia." Then they attack to ""protect the town." Then, a DM brings in a wild animal for an event, or lands a magical beast that really CAN be viewed as a threat, and, because it's a DM event, no one draws weapons at all. They view it as a benign creature; dragons included. Or, the very same group that ran the druid and his "rabid and dangerous" wolf out of town, would then confront the warrior who slew a random wolf spawn claiming he slew innocent and harmless animals. Yes, I've seen this. It happens quite often. No, from an RP standpoint, if anything, it should have been the other way around. A trained and bonded wolf of a druid is far less of a threat than a wild hungry wolf pack. This can't be simply brushed aside with the defense that "It made sense to be that way for that PC." Not when you see the majority of the entire player base doing it. It's been said that players do this because they get to exploit the animals in town in order to draw steel against another player within the walls of a city and I tend to agree with that. That explanation is very logical. Normally, it's considered a crime to threaten and/or attack other PC's in town, so when the occasion arises to do so in a group against one player without repercussions, people will normally jump on it. Even AFTER the law barring animals in town was changed to allow certain ones in town. I hope that clears things up. I'm not saying there can't be one or two PC's who have a history of killing animals that normally wouldn't be called a threat. What I'm talking about in this thread has to do with people using that as a defense for harassing other players. |
|
Fenix
~
Sleepless Golem, aka Kenny
If you read this, send me a love note.
Posts: 2,183
|
Post by Fenix on Jul 12, 2013 21:46:32 GMT -5
I'm also feeling that the Comyrian Fauna Genocide Corps is not as pressing a matter as you feel it is. The severity of the topic is of little relevance. It doesn't need to be the most important topic on the table before it is discussed in these forums. That's never been the case. I'm kind of failing to see what you are getting at. Are you saying that a PC who "hates animals" should be killing every walking steak they see, regardless of the consequences (livestock, domesticated animal, cats/cat like objects, bears, hamsters)? What if this PC doesn't feel like chasing after a deer with his battleaxe? What if he doesn't kill a herd of livestock he knows provides sustenance to the town (including him as well)? You may have missed my point. In the long number of years that I've played here, I've seen whole groups of PC's draw weapons and ready to attack any PC who brings in an animal companion or familiar, no matter how benign, into town. For no more reason than "It's a dangerous animal." Even though that's not the case. Or another favorite, "Someone may have a bird phobia." Then they attack to ""protect the town." Then, a DM brings in a wild animal for an event, or lands a magical beast that really CAN be viewed as a threat, and, because it's a DM event, no one draws weapons at all. They view it as a benign creature; dragons included. Or, the very same group that ran the druid and his "rabid and dangerous" wolf out of town, would then confront the warrior who slew a random wolf spawn claiming he slew innocent and harmless animals. Yes, I've seen this. It happens quite often. No, from an RP standpoint, if anything, it should have been the other way around. A trained and bonded wolf of a druid is far less of a threat than a wild hungry wolf pack. This can't be simply brushed aside with the defense that "It made sense to be that way for that PC." Not when you see the majority of the entire player base doing it. It's been said that players do this because they get to exploit the animals in town in order to draw steel against another player within the walls of a city and I tend to agree with that. That explanation is very logical. Normally, it's considered a crime to threaten and/or attack other PC's in town, so when the occasion arises to do so in a group against one player without repercussions, people will normally jump on it. Even AFTER the law barring animals in town was changed to allow certain ones in town. I hope that clears things up. I'm not saying there can't be one or two PC's who have a history of killing animals that normally wouldn't be called a threat. What I'm talking about in this thread has to do with people using that as a defense for harassing other players. Hey HEY ZANTELL WAS A PANTHER NOT A WOLF! <3 Fenix The Druid. In reality though I do agree with you. There are dogs and such walking around in towns, is it so hard to believe that a panther for example would be much different in the hands of a druid? We communicate in the most direct level, to where we are almost one being. Why is it so bad that they follow us somewhere? Thats like killing a wizard's familiar because its a pixie and you think its dangerous, which I understand also happens. If the animal were to attack a citizen that is one story, but when they harmlessly follow in, there is no threat posed. I have personally had an RP situation in which a group I travelled with was attacked during our return to greatgaunt, and in the retreat I helped defend with the help of my Panther. As far as the IC story went, he followed us inside because of his natural instinct and desire to protect us due to the connection. He was promptly slaughtered for no other reason than "HES A BIG CAT THATS BAD." |
|
|
|
Post by Sadistic Hobo on Jul 12, 2013 22:03:04 GMT -5
I don't see the whole animal ban either. It's a rural community, right? Animals would be all over the place. Dogs, cats, all kinds of stuff are either just there naturally, or deliberately introduced because they serve a useful purpose. If a druid or ranger companion happens to be a predator, I figure people wouldn't accept their presence. Otherwise I can't imagine the population would even notice, let alone care.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rane on Jul 12, 2013 22:25:26 GMT -5
Yes but you cant forget that we are adventurers usually educated on the subject of a druids pet or a wizards familiar. Common farmers in a rural community with little to no edication are not.
They will freak out. They will freak out because they dont understand. If you feel so strongly about this as a druid or wizard, then try to educate them in game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trollfiend on Jul 12, 2013 23:07:07 GMT -5
Yes but you cant forget that we are adventurers usually educated on the subject of a druids pet or a wizards familiar. Common farmers in a rural community with little to no edication are not. They will freak out. They will freak out because they dont understand. If you feel so strongly about this as a druid or wizard, then try to educate them in game. Please explain how much education it takes to know what a hawk is. To know it's not a man eater... that a hawk doesn't kill and eat humans the way a dragon would... As it was mentioned in this thread, hawks and falcons are common animals and in a rural environment such as Cormyr, they would be viewed as beneficial animals- they eat mice, snakes, rats, and other menaces. They also are very useful as hunting birds, and since much of Cormyr is a hunting community, they'd be seen, as I have already stated, as beneficial animals. It doesn't take any education to know animals when you grow up with wild animals. |
|
|
|
Post by Rane on Jul 12, 2013 23:20:24 GMT -5
What about pixies? What about panthers wolves dire wolves, bears, pseudodragons, imps, mephits, succubus, devils demons, the list goes on.
People in greatgaunt have experienced very hard times. They have been sacked and taken over, slaughtered.
Alot of the times familiars have been involved, people just dont understand or trust them, and they especially dont trust the people who summon them hawk or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trollfiend on Jul 13, 2013 0:28:58 GMT -5
What about pixies? What about panthers wolves dire wolves, bears, pseudodragons, imps, mephits, succubus, devils demons, the list goes on. People in greatgaunt have experienced very hard times. They have been sacked and taken over, slaughtered. Alot of the times familiars have been involved, people just dont understand or trust them, and they especially dont trust the people who summon them hawk or not. We're talking about common animals. Or at least, I am. The law states that common animals (hawks and falcons and ravens, etc) are not viewed with suspicion. Thus, this thread, because these are the animals that are being treated like monsters by the majority of the player base. Special animals, like those you mentioned, would need a new thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Trollfiend on Jul 13, 2013 3:17:12 GMT -5
Alot of the times familiars have been involved, people just dont understand or trust them, and they especially dont trust the people who summon them hawk or not. And I must disagree with this specifically, because there's a sign sitting IN Greatgaunt STATING that they aren't mistrustful of hawks. Doesn't the mere existence of this sign make what you said untrue? It was placed there by the staff who DM this server. |
|
Fenix
~
Sleepless Golem, aka Kenny
If you read this, send me a love note.
Posts: 2,183
|
Post by Fenix on Jul 13, 2013 4:05:57 GMT -5
Alot of the times familiars have been involved, people just dont understand or trust them, and they especially dont trust the people who summon them hawk or not. And I must disagree with this specifically, because there's a sign sitting IN Greatgaunt STATING that they aren't mistrustful of hawks. Doesn't the mere existence of this sign make what you said untrue? It was placed there by the staff who DM this server. Actually it was placed there by the lawmakers of Cormyr. Still, players see a bird or a snake floating around, not necessarily detrimental animals as snakes for example eat rats, which greatgaunt has a huge issue with, and they immediately slaughter. this is the issue. A familiar is domesticated to a higher level. Its one thing if an NPC freaks out for the RP and attacks it, but why is it that just because theres a pretty sign that says do not bring a wild animal into the town, that immediately gives everybody rule to take the law into their own hands and slaughter the familiar mercilessley. If you kill a wizards familiar it hurts them, so technically they should have the right to strike back too or the killer be trialed for murder or assault. Druids wouldnt see their companions as wild, considering they are as civilized as the druid. Great gaunt may be a small town that has been abused, but they are used to adventurers, they are not idiots, they know what a druid is. |
|
|
|
Post by Savoie Faire on Jul 13, 2013 11:58:01 GMT -5
I would observe that in FRC, unlike the real world, hawks do indeed attack and kill people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trollfiend on Jul 13, 2013 12:42:12 GMT -5
I would observe that in FRC, unlike the real world, hawks do indeed attack and kill people. Ah, so... are we druids then to begin treating our animal companions as special monsters just because it's possible in the NWN engine to create hawks that can destroy dragons, or is it only because animal companions can have levels in NWN? No animal companion attacks without its master's command (Let's forget those players who haven't learned how to control them- I'm merely speaking form a role playing perspective). Or are you saying that, IC'ly, there are more bloodthirsty birds than there are dragons and sphinxes that land in town, or winged adventurers or necromancers with skeletal arms? Yes, as per the game engine, all animal companions and familiars have levels and buffs and can grow to be dangerous as with adventurers. And this server has animals that can kill seasoned adventurers. Yet, I've always been encouraged to treat animals like animals because it's not an action server- it's a role playing server. Does this rule not apply? Despite the lawmaker's posted sign? This is the heart of the entire problem with playing a druid on this server. Animal companions are what makes druids and rangers truly unique from an RP standpoint. You have no idea how much RP is completely destroyed by not allowing these classes the opportunity to have their pets out. Only to turn around and see a DM spawn a magical monster and have everything be okay.... The truth of the matter is that it's an OOC rule that is being disguised as an IC law, nothing more. And that's absolutely ridiculous. Doing such only serves to promote the awful role play that it has over the years. I hope your comment was tongue in cheek, I really do. Truthfully, I'd love it if not only hawks, but normal wolves as well were allowed into town. I don't think I need to point out again how much control druids and rangers have over their pets, but perhaps I do- as much control as a warrior has over his own sword or a wizard their own spell. To this day, I've never seen a warrior's sword just randomly leave its scabbard and start killing random townspeople. I've just never seen it happen. Perhaps it should... that would be entertaining. |
|
|
|
Post by Savoie Faire on Jul 13, 2013 16:52:15 GMT -5
Druids may have control over their companions, but what has control over the druids?
For that matter, why can't I summon a Balor if I'm going to keep it restrained and not hurt anyone? Oh, I know, it's not the character's intent, but people's perception that counts.
As a real world example, I owned a 65 pound brown-brindled half-boxer. She was very muscular, and could chomp a boiled ham-bone in a matter of minutes, but was timid as all get-out. People who knew her loved her, and my roommate at the time even remarked on how gently she would accept food offered from the hand. She wouldn't even bite rabbits, but she would chase them until they stopped running, whereupon she would bark at them until they ran some more. She was voice trained, and never required a leash other than to comply with the law.
Time and time again people would scramble to get to 'safety' when they saw her. There was more danger in getting away from her than anything else. She wouldn't approach a person, and would move away from a person trying to approach her. The only danger she represented was in the minds of those who saw her. And yet people saw her as a danger and reacted to her as if she were a hyena.
I would submit that if your roleplay is destroyed by not being able to keep your companion by your side you may have a self-imposed limit on your ability to roleplay. However, if we allow your hawk into Valkur's Roar, someone will want his bear, and 'prove' how harmless it is. But that will be a lie, because like police canines, they are trained to attack and because of that require treatment on a different level from the local pet dog who plays with the local children and hunts rats for the locals.
As a side note: my grandfather trained deer hunting dogs, and while they were permitted to run loose in the yard we were not allowed to play with them because they had triggers that would set off their kill instinct.
|
|
|
|
Post by Razgriz on Jul 13, 2013 17:52:42 GMT -5
What if a new law could be created instead?
Something like: Animal companions and familiars are allowed to be in towns and cities as long as they do not attack someone. If they do attack and one or more people or farm animals result injured/killed, the animal companion or familiar will be executed by the local guards, the owner will have to pay for the damage done and also spend some days in jail.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhatDorf on Jul 13, 2013 18:24:28 GMT -5
What if a new law could be created instead? Something like: Animal companions and familiars are allowed to be in towns and cities as long as they do not attack someone. If they do attack and one or more people or farm animals result injured/killed, the animal companion or familiar will be executed by the local guards, the owner will have to pay for the damage done and also spend some days in jail. "Question unjust laws by suggesting improvement or alternatives, not additional laws." You disappoint me. |
|
|
|
Post by Rane on Jul 13, 2013 18:31:15 GMT -5
It just doesnt make sense guys. Think about the helpless npcs and dreshaes iq level. We have no shot!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Trollfiend on Jul 13, 2013 19:26:12 GMT -5
Druids may have control over their companions, but what has control over the druids? For that matter, why can't I summon a Balor if I'm going to keep it restrained and not hurt anyone? Oh, I know, it's not the character's intent, but people's perception that counts. As a real world example, I owned a 65 pound brown-brindled half-boxer. She was very muscular, and could chomp a boiled ham-bone in a matter of minutes, but was timid as all get-out. People who knew her loved her, and my roommate at the time even remarked on how gently she would accept food offered from the hand. She wouldn't even bite rabbits, but she would chase them until they stopped running, whereupon she would bark at them until they ran some more. She was voice trained, and never required a leash other than to comply with the law. Time and time again people would scramble to get to 'safety' when they saw her. There was more danger in getting away from her than anything else. She wouldn't approach a person, and would move away from a person trying to approach her. The only danger she represented was in the minds of those who saw her. And yet people saw her as a danger and reacted to her as if she were a hyena. I would submit that if your roleplay is destroyed by not being able to keep your companion by your side you may have a self-imposed limit on your ability to roleplay. However, if we allow your hawk into Valkur's Roar, someone will want his bear, and 'prove' how harmless it is. But that will be a lie, because like police canines, they are trained to attack and because of that require treatment on a different level from the local pet dog who plays with the local children and hunts rats for the locals. As a side note: my grandfather trained deer hunting dogs, and while they were permitted to run loose in the yard we were not allowed to play with them because they had triggers that would set off their kill instinct. I find your lack of faith in druids disturbing. -- Darth Vader voice |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2013 20:36:09 GMT -5
I really would second the comment that druid and ranger RP does center a lot around a companion as something that makes them different from other characters. I mean, if you strip the classes of their nature oriented skills, abilities, and outlook, you have fighters that dual-wield for no apparent reason and clerics that ... well, just clerics. Anything that allows a ranger or druid to look a bit more like a ranger or druid and less like everyone else is good, in my book.
Cormyr is a place of laws and regulations, right? Why not grant characters who can pass test X by using animal empathy of at least skill level Y a license to transport or accompany animals in town on a leash with a muzzle?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2013 20:43:52 GMT -5
Addendum: If a license were granted and required, it would give Cormyr's legal system one more thing to be pedantic about, which would be very true to setting, and players and DM's one more hook for potential RP. Like PDK's that now stop people in the street to check their license and hassle them a little bit if they happen to have an animal with them, not for the sake of getting rid of the animal as an OOC goal, but for the sake of prompting and driving some RP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Razgriz on Jul 13, 2013 20:58:49 GMT -5
What if a new law could be created instead? Something like: Animal companions and familiars are allowed to be in towns and cities as long as they do not attack someone. If they do attack and one or more people or farm animals result injured/killed, the animal companion or familiar will be executed by the local guards, the owner will have to pay for the damage done and also spend some days in jail. "Question unjust laws by suggesting improvement or alternatives, not additional laws." You disappoint me.  |
|
|
|
Post by Trollfiend on Jul 13, 2013 21:03:22 GMT -5
Addendum: If a license were granted and required, it would give Cormyr's legal system one more thing to be pedantic about, which would be very true to setting, and players and DM's one more hook for potential RP. Like PDK's that now stop people in the street to check their license and hassle them a little bit if they happen to have an animal with them, not for the sake of getting rid of the animal as an OOC goal, but for the sake of prompting and driving some RP. Eh.. I've given up with this topic. When players and DM's alike begin comparing common animals to demons and devils, it's time to throw in the towel. No amount of logic can return this discussion to any semblance of reason. |
|
Fenix
~
Sleepless Golem, aka Kenny
If you read this, send me a love note.
Posts: 2,183
|
Post by Fenix on Jul 13, 2013 21:56:59 GMT -5
Druids may have control over their companions, but what has control over the druids? For that matter, why can't I summon a Balor if I'm going to keep it restrained and not hurt anyone? Oh, I know, it's not the character's intent, but people's perception that counts. As a real world example, I owned a 65 pound brown-brindled half-boxer. She was very muscular, and could chomp a boiled ham-bone in a matter of minutes, but was timid as all get-out. People who knew her loved her, and my roommate at the time even remarked on how gently she would accept food offered from the hand. She wouldn't even bite rabbits, but she would chase them until they stopped running, whereupon she would bark at them until they ran some more. She was voice trained, and never required a leash other than to comply with the law. Time and time again people would scramble to get to 'safety' when they saw her. There was more danger in getting away from her than anything else. She wouldn't approach a person, and would move away from a person trying to approach her. The only danger she represented was in the minds of those who saw her. And yet people saw her as a danger and reacted to her as if she were a hyena. I would submit that if your roleplay is destroyed by not being able to keep your companion by your side you may have a self-imposed limit on your ability to roleplay. However, if we allow your hawk into Valkur's Roar, someone will want his bear, and 'prove' how harmless it is. But that will be a lie, because like police canines, they are trained to attack and because of that require treatment on a different level from the local pet dog who plays with the local children and hunts rats for the locals. As a side note: my grandfather trained deer hunting dogs, and while they were permitted to run loose in the yard we were not allowed to play with them because they had triggers that would set off their kill instinct. See this is where this post takes a turn though. Youre not talking about losing control of an animal at the start, but now a person. That would be more of a discrimination thing. By that thinking, we shouldnt allow anybody who owns a weapon in any way into towns. Because the weapon may be sheathed, but whats to stop them from coming in and slautering the entire town? The animal companion should not be treated so much different. With your story, sure people FEARED your dog, (im not saying this in any form of an offensive way if it sounds so) but did somebody come up with a knife and try to stab it? No. They showed their discomfort and backed away. You were not told you should leave the neighborhood for having a bond with that dog. Bringing the summoning of a Balor is not a fair point either. It is illegal to summon demons and such because they cannot be controlled reliably first, but besides that, the summoner does not have a BOND with the creature. They called it from another plane to serve them. The creature does not wish to be there, they do not have any connection with that summoner, and would likely enjoy seeing it and everything related to it ripped to shreds. If a druid or ranger is able to control their creature because they are connected to it, there is no completely valid reason that animal should be prevented from entering the town as well, seeing as it would be no different than a warrior bringing in their magic axe. You trust that person to keep it in check, and not have a mass beheading. EDIT: For that matter now that I think about it, there is nothing stopping a wizard from walking into town and using cry of the banshee to kill all of the bystanders nearby. It is a trust thing here at this point. Morality. |
|
spoonclacknredneck
New Member
IF YOU'RE NOT MADE OF GASOLINE, METAL, OR BACON, GET THE **** OUT!
Posts: 12
|
Post by spoonclacknredneck on Jul 13, 2013 22:05:50 GMT -5
]Eh.. I've given up with this topic. When players and DM's alike begin comparing common animals to demons and devils, it's time to throw in the towel. No amount of logic can return this discussion to any semblance of reason. You are right, we are wrong, and will strive to RP more to you fashion in the future. Better? |
|
|
|
Post by Trollfiend on Jul 13, 2013 22:09:44 GMT -5
Eh.. I've given up with this topic. When players and DM's alike begin comparing common animals to demons and devils, it's time to throw in the towel. No amount of logic can return this discussion to any semblance of reason. You are right, we are wrong, and will strive to RP more to you fashion in the future. Better? Yes, because that was the whole point of this thread and my posts within it. If this is truly what you believe, then you either haven't read a single word I posted, or were unable to understand it. Personally, I fail to see how my being dismayed at players comparing a 2.5 pound common place bird to a 800 pound demon lord from the Abyss could possibly be construed as wanting everyone to RP my way or not at all. If you could explain it to me, I'd be grateful. |
|
spoonclacknredneck
New Member
IF YOU'RE NOT MADE OF GASOLINE, METAL, OR BACON, GET THE **** OUT!
Posts: 12
|
Post by spoonclacknredneck on Jul 14, 2013 2:47:05 GMT -5
Kay bro, I may not be a member of the FRC ole' timer's club, but I have seen, be it hooded PCs or the way PCs react to animals, you have a streak of demanding other players conform to the way you RP.
I don't play that game. I'm here to have a good time, I'm here to RP with intelligent folks, and I'm here to have some party PVE fun. I'm honestly not sure what you ae here for, but I've seen a multitude of threads you have started where you ae actively demanding that other players play the way you want them to.
The libertarian in me says "If it ain't causing you real physical harm, leave it the hell alone".
The gamer in me is saying "Dude, STFU."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2013 5:30:54 GMT -5
Addendum: If a license were granted and required, it would give Cormyr's legal system one more thing to be pedantic about, which would be very true to setting, and players and DM's one more hook for potential RP. Like PDK's that now stop people in the street to check their license and hassle them a little bit if they happen to have an animal with them, not for the sake of getting rid of the animal as an OOC goal, but for the sake of prompting and driving some RP. Eh.. I've given up with this topic. When players and DM's alike begin comparing common animals to demons and devils, it's time to throw in the towel. No amount of logic can return this discussion to any semblance of reason. *blinkblink* What? I don't see the word "demon" or "devil" in my post. I actually trimmed it out, having made comments to the exact same effect originally, saying that it didn't make a lot of sense to compare animals to fiends. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2013 5:36:23 GMT -5
Kay bro, I may not be a member of the FRC ole' timer's club, but I have seen, be it hooded PCs or the way PCs react to animals, you have a streak of demanding other players conform to the way you RP. I don't play that game. I'm here to have a good time, I'm here to RP with intelligent folks, and I'm here to have some party PVE fun. I'm honestly not sure what you ae here for, but I've seen a multitude of threads you have started where you ae actively demanding that other players play the way you want them to. The libertarian in me says "If it ain't causing you real physical harm, leave it the hell alone". The gamer in me is saying "Dude, STFU." Eh ... that doesn't look so productive, to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Trollfiend on Jul 14, 2013 5:54:27 GMT -5
Eh.. I've given up with this topic. When players and DM's alike begin comparing common animals to demons and devils, it's time to throw in the towel. No amount of logic can return this discussion to any semblance of reason. *blinkblink* What? I don't see the word "demon" or "devil" in my post. I actually trimmed it out, having made comments to the exact same effect originally, saying that it didn't make a lot of sense to compare animals to fiends. Sorry, my mistake... I didn't mean to say that you had... I was merely posting to you directly stating why I'd given up on this thread. It was both a player and a DM who'd mentioned demons and devils in their posts as reasons why not to allow common animal companions in town  My apologies |
|
Don't back down- DEMAND it! Watch the reactions!
