mounts and pets

[Dresan]

This is probably more of an IC problem to solve but i would love to see more mounts and pets in the game.

I define pet in the game as a mount you cannot ride, but can still use to carry stuff somewhat like the Erdlu. Otherwise from a code perspective it would work the same including ability to stable them and most of the limitations with bringing it into buildings. No combat abilities to keep things simple.

But otherwise would love to see some more useful mounts or pets that could climb better or be more camo'd without sacrificing too much stamina, as long as they arent carrying too much, or perhaps small flying beetle that can only carry a water skin or two, etc.

[Bushranger]

...
I define pet in the game as a mount you cannot ride, but can still use to carry stuff somewhat like the Erdlu. Otherwise from a code perspective it would work the same including ability to stable them and most of the limitations with bringing it into buildings. No combat abilities to keep things simple.
...

I quite like this idea as pets being animals you can hitch and walk around that can be kept in the stables. I also think that while some may carry things, like the Erdlu example, other pets could provide different things.  An Escru kept as a pet might be sheared or milked time to time to provide wool and milk, a barakhan lizard might lay eggs, and a jozhal might be walked around on a lead to draw attention to their wealthy owner.

[roughneck]

As long as crim flags aren't activated for killing pets, sure.

[Kavrick]

As long as crim flags aren't activated for killing pets, sure.

I'm actually curious about this, why is your first concern about pets being added to the game being able to kill them legally?

[Lotion]

subdue a rat and leave it in your apartment, just be ready to shovel lots of poop

[Dresan]

As long as crim flags aren't activated for killing pets, sure.

I'm actually curious about this, why is your first concern about pets being added to the game being able to kill them legally?

Its been a while so it may have changed but i believe if you attack an animal and the animal defend themselves, the crim code activates and kills the animal.

[Lizzie]

I have enough trouble trying to roleplay the idea that some guy in the tavern has a deadly hunting bird of prey sitting (and shitting) on his shoulder while people trade bags of raw meat at the bar next to him.

Most "pets" I've seen have been inanimate props, and it's easy to treat them as such. I'd prefer that they be ICly toys - not actual animals. You can have a pet stuffed bird - but you can't have a real living bird.  I've seen noble house bedrooms with cages of songbirds, abandoned by their dead/stored noble owners. Maybe if those birds died when the owner died, that'd make more sense. But right now I just can't take pet ownership seriously for myself or anyone else in the game.

[Dresan]

I have enough trouble trying to roleplay the idea that some guy in the tavern has a deadly hunting bird of prey sitting (and shitting) on his shoulder while people trade bags of raw meat at the bar next to him.

I've seen noble house bedrooms with cages of songbirds, abandoned by their dead/stored noble owners.

I think what would solve these issues is making some of these into NPC mounts with limitation on where they enter as well as potentially disappearing after crash or reboot if not hitched or stabled. With some buildings such as apartments allowing pets flagged as 'small' to enter while others still keeping them out. This would force people to actually pay more attention to their 'pets' lest someone comes along and decides to lead their pet to the butcher shop for profit.

For a number of other smaller things like songbirds in cages, I think they should probably have some partially random decay timers. So they eventually turn  into dead rotting bird items that can no longer be worn.

[dumbstruck]

I have enough trouble trying to roleplay the idea that some guy in the tavern has a deadly hunting bird of prey sitting (and shitting) on his shoulder while people trade bags of raw meat at the bar next to him.

https://forums.avianavenue.com/index.php?threads/question-for-people-with-shoulder-birds.60539/
That sort of assumes poor training or no training as well as a number of other factors. It's not only unfair but also unrealistic to treat it like everyone with a bird on their shoulder has this thing just shitting all over their shoulder. Many birds don't do this.

[Dracul]

Bring in the templarate leashed cilops!

[The Lonely Hunter]

I don't think it would be realistic on Zalanthas for the average person to waste resources on a pet that serves no purpose other than companionship.

Maybe a noble or very successful merchant but the average person that is supposed to be living in a harsh poverty-stricken world where they would kill for a drink of water?

[Kavrick]

I don't think it would be realistic on Zalanthas for the average person to waste resources on a pet that serves no purpose other than companionship.

Maybe a noble or very successful merchant but the average person that is supposed to be living in a harsh poverty-stricken world where they would kill for a drink of water?

Human beings are social creatures and enjoy company. On top of this, animals actually can service than more than just companionship pets, dogs help with hunting, cats help with pest control, these were the original purposes. The idea that 'nobody would waste resources on having a pet' portrays everyone in Zalanthas as a robot with no feelings, people do unoptimal things in real life just to follow their feelings. You see homeless people or people in less developed countries with pets, they don't just abandon the idea because life is tough.

[NinjaFruitSalad]

I don't think it would be realistic on Zalanthas for the average person to waste resources on a pet that serves no purpose other than companionship.

Maybe a noble or very successful merchant but the average person that is supposed to be living in a harsh poverty-stricken world where they would kill for a drink of water?

But that's under the false assumption that everyone is on the brink of starvation and cannot spare even a single coin towards other expenditures. In that case, one could argue that booze and spice shouldn't exist because it's a "harsh poverty-stricken world", and only the rich can afford to get buzzed!

Even in these tough times and in this harsh world, there are elastic supplies and demand, and a poor commoner or a beggar taking care of a pet simply means forgoing some booze, or extra tears on your worn-out clothes that need replacement, one less spice hit, not buying a little bangle. Or settling for some food that is more stale than normal, or going some time without.

Having a pet doesn't make it impossible to survive. In fact, maybe the company is what keeps people going.

[Riev]

Go buy yourself a barakhan and tell me how great it is having a pet.

RIP Sergeant Hissy-Fit. You truly were the best of us.

[MarshallDFX]

hi I have done some moderating, please keep it respectful and not political.