And that's totally fair. The Dm has done his part. He's made orc babies not an issue. Now, if the player chooses to make it an issue, that's on the player. The player has obviously changed his mind here. But, since it's up to the player, what's the problem? If the Paladin player doesn't want to deal with it, he lets them go and nothing more is said. And, implied here, that choice doesn't then bite him on the ass either.
Why not? Presuming there's no mechanical benefit from the companion (now allosaurus is a bit on the big side, so, I'm assuming a high level campaign), what difference does it make if the companion is backgrounded? Realistically, how much of a difference is it actually going to make in the game? Without Backgrounding, the player spends time ensuring that the allosaurus isn't a problem - maybe hiding it somewhere. Which is fine. But, after the fifteenth time that he has to hide his pet, it gets a tad repetitive.
What are we actually losing here? It's not like this is a balance issue at all. Having an Allosaurus, for example, is perfectly allowed by the 3e rules for druid companions. It's already balanced in the class which assumes that you are going to have a pet of a certain beefiness by a certain level - whether that's an upgraded basic pet or a new, more exotic one. I'm kinda failing to see the problem here. At the end of the day, it's going to wind up being exactly the same - the pet gets hidden and the group moves on because we don't want to waste the table's time futzing about with it every time they go into a town.
Yup, you got me [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]. It's all about power gaming despite example after example showing that it's not.
The player just wanted a cool bike. He liked the image. But, he didn't want to spend table time screwing around protecting it. So, we placed it in the background and off we go. Whoopee. He's got a motorcycle. Man, in a game with immortal vampires who can rip the side out of a tank, that's totally game breaking.
But, let's run with the Enterprise example. Say we're running an SF game where the PC's have a spaceship. But, the players don't want to futz about with the spaceship being the center of attention. It's just something they use to go from A to B and a base of operations. Kind of like how no one steals/takes over the Millenium Falcon. Or Luke's X-Wing. Or any number of other space ships that appear in SF serials. How is the game harmed by placing the Enterprise in the background?
The players are telling you, again, quite clearly, that they don't want the action of the campaign taking place on their spaceship. They want stuff to happen "out there". Away missions, exploration, that sort of thing. The Enterprise then just becomes a starting place for adventures, not the site of adventures itself - just like Luke's X-Wing or, really, the Millenium Falcon. Or, most of the time, the Tardis. While there are a few episodes of Doctor Who which focus on the Tardis, the vast majority don't. The Tardis is the starting place and the ending place. But, most of the time, it's not the locus of adventure. Would Doctor Who fail as a series if you replaced the episodes that focus on the Tardis as the locus of adventure?
Is this really too much of a limitation on a campaign? Are people really that incapable of building a Star Trek campaign that doesn't feature the Enterprise being taken over by aliens?