First off I want to apologize if my attitude has sometimes been snarky. I don't wish you to feel attacked. But I do often feel that your arguments miss the point a lot.
Avanti wrote: ↑
Thu May 16, 2019 2:36 pm
Moreover I did a bit of research in our world, and there are animals that do not take to domestication at all (not to mention training for riding). One example is a zebra.
Sharkforce wrote: ↑
Thu May 16, 2019 7:42 pm
and if you can train a griffin to gladly take a rider on its back, it seems improbable that it is the result of immutable biology. so how are they suddenly developing this absolute hatred for taking a rider on their back? are the adult griffins training the young to hate it somehow? where do they get this behaviour from? if it was like a zebra (or a jungle griffin), then they wouldn't be trainable whether they are young or not
ChrisDDickey wrote: ↑
Fri May 17, 2019 5:43 am
Nobody is suggesting that there is immutable biology that a griffin suddenly develops an inability to serve as a mount at adulthood. Nor is anybody suggesting that adult Griffins suddenly develop an absolute hatred of the idea. That is the wrong end of the stick. We are suggesting that almost all animals (including horses) are born with an aversion to serving as a mount. Not wanting to be a mount is not a learned behavior that the other horses are teaching it. It is instinctive.
Sharkforce wrote: ↑
Fri May 17, 2019 8:28 am
so first off, people have EXPLICITLY compared griffins to animals that are untameable because of their biology. so frankly, you are wrong: somebody IS suggesting that it is a problem. here, allow me to give you the exact text: "One example is a zebra. Seems close enough to a horse to work right? Nope - zebras cannot be domesticated simply because the do not have the character for it. Even if taken young, as they grow up their nature takes over and they become unbearably mean. A lot of wild predators, even if captured young and raised by humans retain a lot of their predatory instincts and are not considered domesticated."
now, go ahead, feel free to explain to me *why* that was brought up in this thread if *not* to compare it to a gryphon and provide an example of a creature that, because of its biology (and if this happens with all zebras then no, it isn't just a specific personality trait any more than fear of not fitting in is merely a specific human personality trait) is incapable of being mount-trained.
Wow you really managed to grab the wrong end of the stick with both hands this time. I mean I told you that you had a hold of the wrong end of the stick and was criticizing a position I don't even hold and ignoring the point I was making, then you really doubled down and ran with it.
You are perfectly 100% correct that the Zebra was brought into this thread for the purposes of comparing it to a Griffin and provide an example of a creature that, because of its species temperament is unsuitable as a mount. 100% correct.
And if I had said that it was not, I would have been 100% wrong.
I did not say that. Not even close. You are paying attention to the wrong part of the sentence. You are ignoring the three whole paragraphs (the paragraphs that you said you did not understand why I even bothered to write) that develops the thesis further than the first half of the first sentence does. The first half of the first sentence does not have my complete theme. The first half of the first sentence does not even have the thing that nobody is suggesting. The thing that nobody is suggesting is in the middle of the first and second sentences.
If I had said "Nobody is suggesting that there is immutable biology that a griffin can't be trained as a mount in adulthood", then I would have been wrong. I have suggested that exact thing, so have others. If I had said "Nobody is comparing a Griffin to a Zebra" I would also have been wrong. But I did not say that ether.
What I DID say was "Nobody is suggesting that there is immutable biology that a griffin suddenly develops an inability to serve as a mount at adulthood.". The key word here is "develops". I was trying to communicate that Griffins are not born "gladly willing to take a rider on its back" (as you had stated) and then at adulthood suddenly develop a biological inability or a psychological hatred of the idea. There is no "sudden development". They (like horses and zebras) are born not wanting to be mounts. I spent three whole paragraphs developing this point These are the paragraphs you were not sure why I put in there. The reason I put them in there is because I was not saying that nobody had ever compared Griffins to Zebras. I was talking about animals being born with an antipathy to being a mount.
It might very well be that I did not make myself adequately clear, I don't consider myself a very good writer. My point seems fairly clear to me and others seem to be following it, but I apologize if my phrasing lead to confusion. But in my own defense I did clearly say that the point you were attacking was not my actual point.
If you re-read the whole three paragraphs, you will see that it is stating that there is no sudden development (change) of biology or attitude, which you had asserted was there.
ChrisDDickey wrote: ↑
Fri May 17, 2019 5:43 am
Nobody is suggesting that there is immutable biology that a griffin suddenly develops an inability to serve as a mount at adulthood. Nor is anybody suggesting that adult Griffins suddenly develop an absolute hatred of the idea. That is the wrong end of the stick. We are suggesting that almost all animals (including horses) are born with an aversion to serving as a mount. Not wanting to be a mount is not a learned behavior that the other horses are teaching it. It is instinctive. Horses trainers find it fairly easy to overcome this aversion, but even after millennia of domestication, each individual horse must be individually broken of this aversion. It took me a few seconds on google to find an article where the author mentions that some people think that a nine year old horse is to old to be rider trained, but she argues it just takes a different technique.
Have you ever heard the saying "you can't teach an old dog an new trick"? That is totally incorrect of course, but training an old dog is usually different and/or harder than training a young dog. Training a dog is considered an easy task, but some people can't manage to train an old dog new tricks, even if they can teach young dogs tricks. It's harder, even with dogs and horses.
So my point is that all Griffins are born with an extra-ordinarily strong aversion to serving as a mount for namegivers. However trainers can overcome that aversion in a young common Griffin. They can't overcome that aversion in an adult common Griffin, or a Jungle Griffin of any age. Doing so is not theoretically impossible, but it would be a legendary feat of training.
Again, you had argued against the position that griffins are born "glad to take a rider on its back", and that it does not make sense for them to suddenly develop an "inability to serve as a mount". I was pointing out that nobody was actually suggesting that they have such a progression of attitude. Rather the attitude starts off as "I don't want to be a mount", and unless changed, stays that way. It is harder to train older animals, and there is no reason why a griffin can't be right on the line, and the increased difficulty of training older animals changes the difficulty from "very hard" to "nearly impossible".
The statement "Nobody is suggesting that there is immutable biology that a griffin suddenly develops an inability to serve as a mount at adulthood. Nor is anybody suggesting that adult Griffins suddenly develop an absolute hatred of the idea. That is the wrong end of the stick." is true because nobody is suggesting a change (or development) of biology or attitude (except for you). Note that just because a poster said of Zebras "as they grow up their nature takes over and they become unbearably mean", does not, in and of itself, mean that Griffins also grow meaner as they grow older. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I don't recall anybody suggesting they do. I posit that the Griffins attitude "hardens" so that it is almost impossible to change, but I do not posit that this hardening is itself a change. It was born not liking people trying to ride it, and unless it is trained out of that attitude young, they keep it forever.
To add Zebras to my argument, Zebras are born not wanting to be mounts. It is instinctive. They keep that antipathy. They can't be broken to the saddle. They are not suitable as mounts for any race.
Horses are born not wanting to be mounts. It is instinctive. They don't like people climbing on their backs. They can and routinely are trained to overcome this antipathy and get used to having people on their backs.
Griffins are born not wanting to be mounts. It is instinctive. If you train them young, when their minds are most pliable, you can, with great difficulty, break them to the saddle. If you do't train them when their minds are young and pliable, it is almost impossible to break them to the saddle later.
Nobody is suggesting that an adult griffin can't be trained as an Animal Companion. We all agree that an adult griffin can be trained. The book says it is suitable as an AC. The book also says an adult Griffin can't be trained as a mount, which is very different. They can be trained to do some things. There are some adjustments they just can't make past a certain age.
Thanks for pointing out where the rule about Talent Effects ending on death rule is. I searched the PDF for Death, Dead and Dies, but did not search if for Unconscious. I should have remembered you saying a few times that you did not think going to "sleep" would end Animal Training. I did not understand those comments at the time, now I do. With that rule pointed out, I do see that Talents like Dead Fall, Frighten, and Battle Bellow would all end as soon as a character dies or goes unconscious. I do note that it says "In most cases,
if the adept using the talent is knocked unconscious, the talent’s effect ends." Off the top of my head, the Talents I would think most likely to qualify for an exception to "in most cases" would be "Forge Armor / Weapon", and "Animal Training". I don't think the rules specifically list any talents as being the exception, but Forging and Training seem like they ought to be candidates to me, for the reasons that you have already mentioned. I understand your saying that in the absence of a specific listing you don't consider them an exception, but ... No I don't consider that when a Weaponsmith dies, all the blades he forged in the last year all lose all their forgings. Nor do I think that all Animal Training tricks probably are instantly lost when a trainer dies. I would say those are probably among the exceptions to the general rule that was mentioned exist.
You have mentioned Dispelling Animal Training several times. Yes, I believe that that Animal Training of a magical and non-permanent nature can be dispelled. I have heard somebody make a fairly good argument as to why it should not be, but I personally think the argument falls out that it can be dispelled. Once again, we don't have any official information on permanent training other than that exists. We have no idea if it is magic Talent or Skill based and any speculation is nothing but speculation, so I will not speculate upon whether it can be dispelled other than to note that generally, permanent effects can not be dispelled.
But as far as the known rules go, we have everything we need to examine the case where an adventuring adept uses the Talent to Bond a potential mount, and then then uses the Talent to Animal Train the creature to be a war mount. Per the 4th edition Companion, it takes 3 Animal Training "tricks" to teach a Journeyman Challenge creature with Willful 1 to be a war mount. If somebody trains such a mount themselves using the talent, it will be a magic effect with a duration of Rank Months, and thus I see no reason why it could not be dispelled.
If some or all of the Animal Training tricks were dispelled, I do not think a mount would turn on its former master if the Animal Bond is still at Loyal. It would just become less controllable. And if the right trick was dispelled it would forget how to behave as a war mount and revert to it's natural fighting style rather than a war mounts cooperative style.
Note also that I don't think that Animal Bond can be dispelled. The Dispelling Magic section on page 265 says that " Dispel Magic can also be used to dispel magical effects produced by talents and Discipline abilities. Only magical effects with an extended duration—measured in rounds, minutes, hours, days, and so on—can be dispelled. Permanent effects cannot normally be dispelled". Animal Bond does not have a specific listed duration. It just changes the attitude and the attitude stays at the new value until something changes it to a new attitude. This might be considered an instantaneous effect, or it might be considered a (semi) permanent effect - but ether of these cases can't normally be dispelled.
You mentioned the not quite domesticated but sort of friendly animals.
The book says that some creatures are suitable as mounts. Trojin can be trained as mounts. Some creatures are not suitable as mounts. Bears, easily big and strong enough to bare the weight, are not listed in the book as being suitable as mounts. The deficiency is probably not physical, it is probably mental or temperamental. Some can only be trained while young. The difference is not physical, it is mental or temperamental.
For example the GM guide says that the following are suitable as animal companions, but not mounts: Storm Wolves, Ethandrille, Wolves,, Volus, Thunder Birds, Skeorx, Sand lobsters, Molgrim, Gate Hound, Espagra, Behemoth, Bear, plus about 8 variety of great cats (there are two varieties of cats that are listed as suitable as mounts)
The GM guide says that all of these are capable of being Loyal Animal Companions, but none are listed as being suitable as mounts for any race. I would presume that many of these were excluded as mounts solely for reasons of temperament. I mean I can think of little physical
reason you could not strap a saddle to a bear or Behemoth, I would think that the main impediment would be that such creatures will not put up with it. They would get lethally irritated about the situation, even if they felt very friendly (loyal even) towards the person trying to climb on their back.
It seems to me that most of the reasons you give that the magic of Talents is strong enough to tame a savage Griffin would apply to these creatures as well. My own opinion is that the magic of Animal Bond and Animal Training is not sufficient to overcome a disagreeable temperament and an antipathy towards somebody climbing on your back. Espagra are willing to follow you around and be Animal Companions. Why, in your opinion would they or would they not be usable as mounts? How would reasons why bears or esperaga would or would not be suitable as mounts compare with the adult Griffin? I mean if magic can cause an adult griffin to agree to be trained as a mount, why not a behemoth?
Anyway, as other people have pointed out, it is probably time and past time to just agree to disagree.