 I feel like both the plans for pets and what constitutes a pet is in a state of flux as what was posted yesterday doesn't seem to be consistent with the last list of examples. Not even sure how to respond at this point, but I'm just going to throw a few random thoughts out there about the topic. A particle effect that accompanies a certain spell or ability giving you back mana or helping you track is not really a pet. A mob that follow you around giving you some sort of persistent buff, is not a pet either, but at best, a companion or familiar. I'm all for the examples listed in Brad's last post. Those sound like solid ideas. However, I'm not forgetting about the previous posts which described some rather conflicting ideas. I find pets to be a less appealing method of empowering or enabling players. If you want to give me more storage, create items or crafting recipes or spells which give players bags for their person or mount. If you want to give me a persistent buff, just give me a clickie without the clutter of pets following everyone around. Lastly, if you want to empower a player, just provide a rare spell or ability that directly increase their effectiveness; theres no need to incorporate pets in these processes unless its suitable for the class. My personal opinion on pets (beyond "pet classes") in mmos today is that they serve as nothing but meaningless clutter lacking any redeeming value or prestige. I understand that they have a place in mainstream games and appeal to that audience. For Pantheon, however, I feel they should be a rarer occurance and exist in a more limited capacity so as to maintain their distinctiveness. Lastly, I only just noticed that certain pledges come with cosmetic pets. Maybe that was always there and didn't notice it before, but I'm just not a fan of the idea. If this is really going to be a thing, I'd like to stress the need for commands like /hidepets passive, /hidepet cosmetic, /hidepet temporary, etc. 