Are Animal Companions Allowed in Cities?

[darkstorme]

To weigh in on this once again:

Adventurers walk through cities every day, certainly - but there are strict proscriptions on what they are allowed to do.  The guard frowns upon anyone walking through town with a bow in their hand or a weapon drawn - in fact, the guard requires that weapons be peace-bonded while in the city.  This doesn't prevent them from being drawn in a dire emergency, of course, but it makes the populace happier.

Likewise, there are proscriptions against using combat spells - those that cause injury or death - within the walls of many cities - particularly those on Mistone, where peace is more common than violence.

It's harder to peace-bond a wolf.  Or a panther.  Or a bear.  You could muzzle them and hobble their legs, I suppose, but what Ranger or Druid would do that to their animal companion - or any animal - just to bring them into an environment that they'd already find unpleasant?

Now, discussing acclimatization.  Remember, adventurers are in the top 1% (or higher) of all individuals in the world.  They are smarter/faster/more dexterous/more in-tune with their god or nature.  Their abilities are truly extraordinary.  So a hedge-witch or wizard might be 0th or 1st level in your average town, and no further.  A wizard who has permanent pyrotechic effects moving about his or her person is someone who people would glimpse once a year passing through their town, perhaps, unless they worked in a high traffic area (the temple of Deliar, say).  Your average commoner would still draw back in fear of such an apparition.  Likewise, your average commoner lives in a big city with big walls to keep the wild animals out.  During the Dark Ages, as food grew more scarce, animal attacks would have been far more prevalent, so recent history as well would be working against Rangers and Druids seeking to assuage public concern over whether their animal was truly tame.

And there's the other part - it's not!  As Rowana stated above:

One more point about those big, scary animals. They aren't tame. They fight along side you and kill for you. They aren't trained. As a general rule they are wild creatures who have agreed to walk by your side because they find something in you and your understanding of nature that's worth their while. If some child walks up and pulls on their ear, they will retaliate, they may even kill said child. It will happen far too fast for the druid or ranger to stop. The creature will feel pain and they will respond. They won't even necessarily understand that's a 'cub' that they just killed, and as such be remorseless. In other causes, they won't care even if it is understood to be a 'cub.' Law of nature, the fittest/strongest survive. An event like would cause the guard to hunt down and kill your animal companion that you care so much for. As a druid or ranger or mage of at least average intelligence, you would know these things with out having to experience them. Would you want to put your family/friend/companion in that position?

Everything about the logic behind large animal companions not being welcome within cities aside, the Silverguard (and other major cities' guards) don't need the headache of having to deal with the hundreds of reports of "wild animal in the city" that would come in any time a bear strolled through the gates after his master.  So the guards of said cities will, upon encountering such a pair, kindly but firmly insist that the animal be parked outside, preferably away from the trade roads, if you please.  The Ranger or Druid is welcome to apply for special dispensation, of course... but barring official sanction by the guard, for a worthy cause, there's no way that gate guards will permit entry to a Ranger accompanied by their huge, powerful animal companion, any more than a gnomish inventor would be allowed to haul a loaded ballista ("It's my own design!") through the city.

[Gulnyr]

I'll have to disagree on this one. Despite the fact that we don't see them, commoners surely sees the adventurers on a daily basis. Sure they can hear that there is one bad apple somewhere, but there is one simple thing called accustomisation.

To clarify, I said that awareness does not equal acceptance or understanding, and that commoners don't necessarily know anything about Druids or Rangers or mages, anyway.

Let's forget about commoners for a second and just use adventurers in the example.  Consider Jennara, a devout Rofireinite, who is a Section Commander in the Knights of the Wyrm and the Heart of the Dragon, none of which is secret.  A lot of other adventurers are aware of her, certainly, but do they all accept her?  Do other adventurers understand her?  Do they know what it means to be a Knight of the Wyrm?  Do they have any idea what the Heart of the Dragon is?  Do they have any idea what her duties may be?

Not necessarily.

As to acceptance, there are plenty of adventurers who would turn away from her just because of her faith.  So, not all adventurers would accept Jennara, despite seeing and possibly even traveling with her often.

As to what it means to be a Knight of the Wyrm, or what level of responsibility her rank entails, or what it means to be the Heart of the Dragon, almost no other adventurers (at least among the PCs) know anything about that stuff, despite seeing and possibly traveling with Jennara often.  They don't understand.  There are a few who do know, and probably a few more who think they do, but becoming accustom to Jennara has done nothing to fill in the blanks.

Now consider the commoners.  How much less would they know of random Rangers and Druids and mages they pass in the street than adventurers know of Jennara?  While any given commoner may be good friends with a Ranger or may simply know in general what Druids do, commoners in general don't necessarily know anything specific about things they aren't involved with.  The less meaningful and/or more fleeting the contact, the less they really know, just like with adventurers.

So, I'm not saying commoners can't know about Rangers or Druids or anyone else, but that they typically don't know much more than rumors and guesses about anything that isn't part of their daily routine.

As to "one bad apple," one bad apple spoils the bunch.  Sad but true.  Our PCs aren't the only adventurers in the world, and all Rangers and Druids aren't adventurers, remember.  There are a lot more than just one "bad" Ranger or Druid out there.  There are plenty guarding the mahogany, for example, and some like them likely travel wherever they feel the need.  They aren't necessarily "bad Rangers" and "bad Druids," since they are doing what they feel is right for nature, but they definitely aren't city-friendly folk, so they are "bad" from a city perspective.  While they may not visit the unnatural cities, they probably do disrupt logging operations and such often enough.  All those "bad apples" help cancel the good will other Rangers and Druids have built doing city-friendly things, leaving a fluctuating, indeterminate opinion among the citizens.

That, of course, doesn't even get into the animal question, but if you can't necessarily trust a given Ranger or Druid, you can't necessarily trust a given Ranger or Druid with a wild, carnivorous animal in tow.  And, in addition to everything everyone else has said, it's a lot easier and more fair to enforce a law equally across the board.  Animals are usually prohibited, regardless of the status or acceptance of the character.  Fewer complaints that way.  

On that note, something tells me Trent lobbies once to twice a year, at least, to get the ban on certain races enforced equally with no exceptions just because he's tired of someone spotting the few who are allowed and causing a ruckus.

[Rowana]

I'd just like to point one thing that I think has been missed. An animal companion or familiar has an empathy connection to his owner. If the owner is calm paused and secured, the companion or familiar would sense it and it would certainly have it's effect on it. So if the owner presence calms the animal ( providing the owner is calm himself) then even if a kid ran yelling, it wouldn't take long for the owner (sorry to use that term, as they are not owners but really more symbioses) to calm them.

Sorry to nitpic but this is hardly the point. The empathy connection does not mean total control of the animal in question. They still have minds of their own and are completely in control of their own actions. There is nothing to stop them from deciding to maul someone short of a hold spell if they chose to do so. Regardless, the guard, commoners, rich merchants and nearly everyone else in town don't care. They see big scary critters and they want them out.

As for people running in fear, I'm not sure, but if we take history here, there has been rural performers with animals, big or small, throughout the ages. Now we could (by judging of the settings) assume that this is medieval (pre medieval?) times, and performers were quite common, going from city, big or small, to do their shows. Granted most of them were leashed, but people would be somewhat used to it.

To take from the same history pages, those creatures large or small, dangerous or not, were caged and often times sedated. The thrill of the experience was because they could get close to an animal that was presumed dangerous and get a good look and be 'in control' but not get hurt.

Also this being a fantasy world, we have to take into account that the commoners are aware of the rangers, druids, and mages (including sorcerers in there for ease) abilities to connect with their animals. They would most likely be able to recognize a ranger and druid, when they walk into a town> And so would have a certain re assuredness when they see their companions or familiar (for the mage type) with them

Those people being aware of these 'other' kinds of people is precisely the problem. As was pointed out, above, just because one or two rangers/druids happen to be nice, does not mean all the rangers of the world are. I know for a fact not all of the PC ranger/druild people are nice. As well, just as it was pointed out above, there are -many- NPC druid and rangers who are beyond not nice. So rather then run the risk, these creatures are outlawed, and it's entirely possible in some places the druids and rangers could see themselves asked out of towns on prejudice alone.

Folks, it probably goes with out saying but I will reiterate for clarity. This isn't the twenty first century Layonara. It's the middle ages. In our own middle ages, the only way you were even allowed to have an open opinion of things was if you met certain stringent qualifications. Prejudice runs rampant in this little fantasy world of ours. In fact, equality is a foreign concept to most. Forget racial prejudice (the real kind, elves and dwarves, humans vs monstrous races, just to begin), there's prejudice in house holds. Dark elves have superiority issues over gender, to a degree so do the humans of this world. People are prejudice on Rank, and Quality of a person. Commoners, heck anyone that's not nobility, are still scum to most nobles.  It's not any where near the same thing as Earth Middle Ages, but these are still very active situations Layonara wide.

I think when people cry "That's not fair!" they forget that these things are not chosen for fairness. It's just a truth of the world situation. If you feel they are unfair IC, they should be dealt with in an IC manner, not debated on the forums in and OOC manner. If you have questions, that's a fine thing to post about and receive an explanation, but debating OOC is not the way to go here. There are a plethora of ways to affect the world, both positive and negatively. It's just a part of the charm of this place. So... get to thinking... Start making changes. Just do it the right way, IC, and with GM supported activities (not simply meta-gaming that if there's no GM then it must be okay).

~row