Ultimately, I'd like to see this modified to have a requirement that you take care of your pet in order to keep the pet's loyalty.

I'm picturing it as a pet-specific variable that can take positive or negative values. The more positive the variable, the greater the loyalty. The lower the value, the more likely that the pet will 'rebel'. If it's sufficiently negative when the pet rebels, it will turn hostile. If it rebels (less likely) in the midrange, then it will simply lose interest.

As for *how* to influence the value (I'll call it "Pet Loyalty"):

1. Pet Loyalty naturally decreases over time, not entirely unlike piety (but always decreasing, not moving towards zero).
2. Pet Loyalty can be increased through feeding the pet. Different pets prefer different foods, and there are foods that certain pets simply will not eat. In this sense, also somewhat like piety. Pets could also have a second variable, "hunger"; if at the maximum, Pet Loyalty starts to decrease at an increasing rate. If at zero, you can't continue to feed the pet, because they're simply not hungry at all.
3. Pet Loyalty can be increased through healing the pet after it has been injured. Conversely, injuring the pet yourself significantly reduces Pet Loyalty (note that it doesn't immediately turn the pet hostile, in this case, unless the pet is already significantly negative in loyalty).
4. Certain classes get reductions in Pet Loyalty decay in certain situations; Farmers for race-based pet species (Human farmers have Big Dogs, for instance), Druids for any "natural" pet species (dogs, cats, bears, etc), Merchants for humanoids (influenced by Charisma, though), and Bards in most situations.
5. Some pets have preferred "gifts" that can also influence Pet Loyalty. For instance, Big Dogs will take bones even if not hungry, while many of the "Chaotic" humanoid species, such as Goblins, like to be given weapons.

Now, as you might imagine, leaving a pet unattended for a significant period of time would result, due to Pet Loyalty decay, in a pet that may become disinterested or even hostile. This provides an impetus to keep the pet with you, so that you can keep it happy with you.


Hmmm... maybe I should make this a separate feature request.

Added a minor loyality system for pets.

Sorry for bringing this up, but recently played a couple of farmers, the same situation repeats with alarming frequency -
Large dog gets critically wounded, panics, decides to fight to the blind rage when no monsters are around and sees me as the only target -> goes hostile. Kinda goes strange with the whole "fierce loyalty" thing from monster description.

Yes, I can confirm the above. I think what might be happening, is that the game goes into some code that ignores the tamed condition. I think when a monster 'panics' a routine is run as to where the monster wants to escape to, if the PC is in the way then it 'rages'. You remember how monsters used to get in their own way, attacking themself. When it was trying to escape to the tile it was already on and couldn't swap with itself. As it cannot swap position with the PC and it absolutely must reach the destination tile.

Ironically this behaviour is actually more dangerous to the PC than the companion turning hostile was.

My main reason for posting though is,
@_Ln_ I'm thinking that if this gets reported as a bug it might get attention sooner.

If this is a bug? I'll happily add a +1, having had a death recently to this very thing.

If you are referring to this death ; this is not the same. You damaged your dog, turning it hostile. We are talking about a still tame critically injured companion or critically injured neutral(not alighnment) monster.

Ah! I understand now. Misunderstood in this. Carry on, then.

...

Can I still argue that I wish my dog hadn't killed me? ;)

Yes, although I'd think merely having it leave your FOV for a bit should not incur as grave a penalty as attacking the creature.