Do Animal Allies have a Wealth Level? (And other issues with animals & social traits)

[jan_b_b]

Suppose in a 100-point campaign that a character has an animal ally worth 25% of the starting total (25 points). Is it reasonable to assign the -25 point disadvantage Dead Broke to the animal, thus resulting in an extra 25 points to spend on the animal?

On the one hand, this strikes me as legitimate by a strict interpretation of the rules (including comments made in the Bestiary thread in the Next Big Thing forum). On the other hand, it seems rather exploitative. In a 100 point campaign, 25 points is a LOT!

I considered ruling that Dead Broke was acceptable, but an equal and opposite Patron advantage would be required, cancelling out the cost, but is it legitimate for a character to have as an Ally someone for whom she is a Patron?


Of course, this touches on some issues with building animals in general that I think is problematic, namely Social traits. Do animals have a Status? A Social Stigma (apparently they can, since it's included in the Domesticated Animal trait . . . but do wild animals get one)? A reduced TL?

Of course, it doesn't really matter how many points an animal is worth if it's just an NPC. NPCs are worth the number of points they're worth. You can throw hundreds of points of social disadvantages at an animal, and it'll wind up with a point value well below zero. But when the point value becomes relevant to a PC's abilities--a PC wants to have one as an Ally, a Dependant, or an Enemy; a PC wants ot change into an animal form--the animals point value matters a LOT.

For PCs who transform into animals, presumably they don't take on the social disadvantages of the racial templates they're adding, as they're not permanently becoming that animal. If they did, they could shift into much more powerful forms (because the target form is to some extent determined by point value, and the more disadvantages it has the more positive traits can be added). But does that mean we have to create two versions of racial templates for animals--one for animals and one for shapeshifting PCs?


Sorry this is a bit rambly, but I'd welcome any thoughts (or official rulings) on the subject.

--jan

[laserdog]

I generally only allow "Social Stigma(Valuable property)" and keep it at that...

Can property own property?

Another way to look at it is "Is it limiting to their character?"

I mean if they build a character that is incapable of working a paying job (due to low IQ, lack of language, lack of clothes to hold the money), or is ineligable to qualify as an entity able to possess money in society, or has no legal way to spend the money, then is "Dead Broke" really a disadvantage?

If it doesn't limit their actions... They shouldn't get the points for it.

I mean, in someways it's like trying to give a donkey Odious Personal Habit "Never wears clothes"... =) Sure, he has it, but it simply isn't worth any points.

[NorthSaber]

I think Dead Broke is a valid disadvantage for animal allies, for example. If you compare two allies of the same point value, one with assets of their own and one without, obviously the one with $$$ is worth more as an ally - he/it can lend you money or purchase equipment or whatever.

The example about a donkey with an OBH doesn't really correlate with this situation: it's perfectly normal for a donkey to not wear clothing, and that's why it's not a disadvantage (there's no reaction penalty). Basically, whatever disadvantage any PC or NPC has compared to an average human should yield points - and the average human has normal wealth (and thus funds to spend). Any social limitations, reaction penalties, lower status, lower wealth, all are valid disadvantages.

[Mehmet]

Like Kromm said here,

Originally Posted by Kromm

Like everything in GURPS, such a sword would have three front hexes, two side hexes, a back hex, and a 180° arc of forward vision, unless given special traits to change all of that. You have to think, "Use standard GURPS assumptions about a character unless noted otherwise," and not, "Use what I'd assume about a sword unless noted otherwise." The latter kind of thinking gets people in trouble all the time when designing nonhumans in GURPS.

You have to have some trait to define the character as an animal and as someone who cannot acquire wealth or have legal status/job/property etc. Standard GURPS character can do these - you don't waive your right to own property when you decide to play someone with "bestial" disad and "fur" ad.

How do you do that? I think the answer to that is somewhat game dependant. An official ruling may clear things up of course but I believe it can be "dead broke+social stigma(valuable property)+taboo trait(any welath level other than dead broke)+etc. etc." or "social stigma(valuable property) only" or anything to a similar effect.

Cheers...

[Kromm]

Animals being designed as characters do, for the purpose of point value, receive Wealth (Dead Broke) [-25]. Their point values as Allies need to reflect their full capabilities relative to non-animal Allies with the same points. If a 50-point human and 50-point tiger both cost the same as Allies, then they had better be using the same standards. The human has money, and can buy equipment that makes him more useful; the tiger does not. Ergo, the tiger's 50 points has to include the -25 for Dead Broke.

Animals don't qualify for Low TL or reduced literacy unless they have IQ 6+ and can use technological skills and languages to begin with; see the boxes on pp. B15, B23. This isn't a double standard, but a consequence of IQ 5 or less. In effect, below IQ 6, your TL is "n/a" and your language abilities are "n/a."

By default, Status is 0 for animals, just like anyone else. Strictly speaking, their Status is "n/a" as well . . . by human standards. They aren't in charge of anyone, but then again, they aren't serfs or street people. Wild animals are essentially free (Status 0), while domestic ones enjoy their master's Status by association (on average, also Status 0).

Finally, animals get either Social Stigma (Valuable Property) [-10] or Bestial [-10], depending on whether they're domestic or wild. In a few societies, they might get Social Regard instead. Plenty of animals are revered for religious reasons.

[Chef Groleau]

-25 pts is a lot of pts in a 100 pts campaign, but you'll need these pts to buy the innate abilities of your animal. A blank character has to be human- like. You'll have to get advantages and disadvantages that will model your character as an animals. A lot of them should have Enhanced move worth 20 pts/level. A horse or a lion run faster than a human or an elf.

For the status, I think that most of them should be Status 0. An abandoned domestic animal might have a negative Status, while the king's dog might be Status 3 or 4.

[Nikolai]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Animals don't qualify for Low TL or reduced literacy unless they have IQ 6+ and can use technological skills and languages to begin with; see the boxes on pp. B15, B23. This isn't a double standard, but a consequence of IQ 5 or less. In effect, below IQ 6, your TL is "n/a" and your language abilities are "n/a."

I find this somewhat unsatisfying.
It means that a character in a campaign with (campaign) TL 3 is drastically better off buying IQ 6 [-80], Native Language (None) [-6] and Low TL -3 [-15] (-101 CP total) than buying IQ 5 [-100].

In campaigns with a higher (campaign) TL, it's even worse. At TL 12, IQ 8 and Low TL -12 gives you the same points as IQ 5!

By the way, according to pp. B15, 23 and 168 it seems that it is not racial but personal IQ that is relevant for if you get a language and TL. Correct?
F.e., if you are an incredibly dumb human (racial IQ 10) with personal IQ 5, you cannot learn languages or technological skills, right?

[Chef Groleau]

Originally Posted by Nikolai

I find this somewhat unsatisfying.
It means that a character in a campaign with (campaign) TL 3 is drastically better off buying IQ 6 [-80], Native Language (None) [-6] and Low TL -3 [-15] (-101 CP total) than buying IQ 5 [-100].

Have you ever seen an animal with IQ 6? I think the short answer is No. If it happens, it will a very rare specimen or race. With conventional animals, maybe only some species of monkey and the dolphins might qualify for IQ 6 or more. Below IQ 6, you don't have enough IQ the suffer from Low TL. Living today or in the 1200's makes no difference for a dog.

[laserdog]

My post is clearly wrong, the Kromm has spoken.

However, it still seems strange to me.

A wolf that starts with $1000 bucks in it's mouth isn't really at any more an advantage than a wolf that doesn't...

Why get 25 points for not having money you have no way of spending anyway, or is a part of Dead Broke "Society won't let me possess monkey", even though the reasons for society not to give you money have more to do with the mental, physical and social disadvantages you already took?

(To be clear, I'm not trying to argue the point with Kromm here, he's clearly right. I'm more fishing for some insight on the decision.)

[Nosforontu]

Originally Posted by Nikolai

I find this somewhat unsatisfying.
It means that a character in a campaign with (campaign) TL 3 is drastically better off buying IQ 6 [-80], Native Language (None) [-6] and Low TL -3 [-15] (-101 CP total) than buying IQ 5 [-100].?

Except that for an animal character that IQ 5 is likely to be part of his racial cost and not count against his disad limit while for a nonanimal character buying down IQ down to 6, native language none and low TL is likey to come from his disad limit.

If you awere instead referring to a particulary bright animal character however in your example it wouldnt quite work out that way. Instead he would have IQ +1 (20), and the TL -3 (-15) and Native language none (-6), would then be coming from his disad limits.

Originally Posted by Nikolai

In campaigns with a higher (campaign) TL, it's even worse. At TL 12, IQ 8 and Low TL -12 gives you the same points as IQ 5!

Again the animal character with its racial template IQ of 5 would get it as part of it racial template, while presumably the IQ 8 TL 0 space barbarian would have to use up his personal disadvantage point limits to buy down his IQ to 8 and take a TL -12 penalty.