Druid Sacrificing Nature's Ally?

[Webscar]

Hello Everyone,

I've got a bit of an oddity. My Druid has Leather Crafting and Engineering. As far as I know, normally, druids prefer to -not- dabble in metals and the like. However, looking through everything I could find the main focus of the Druid is that they revere nature and that they stay lawful.

My character is more of a realist, I guess. He's a bit of an outcast in the Druid society, but is not considered an Anti-Druid as he hasn't forsaken nature or taught the language to non-druids, etc, etc. He just skirts around the edge of what most druids feel is right because he feels that for the greater good of nature one must embrace technological advances of those who are not so in tune with nature as they cannot be stopped. He feels that altering the way those advances take place to benefit nature is the only way to keep the world from becoming entirely machine in the distant future.

So, instead of trying to shun such things he will dabble in them and try to sway people into mixing things to better suit nature's future rolls within the various societies.

IMPORTANT PART: At the moment though, we're on a quest where the whole world is going to end. As such, my character has taken up a "For the Greater good" mentality. This leads to some strange conflicts. For instance, recently I had an alter we needed to fill will blood. So much blood that it would kill whomever we got the blood from. We were in the middle of a peaceful castle so there were no hostiles to kill and use.

The idea I had was to summon one of my Nature's Ally's. I then utilized Calm Animal, Charm Animal, and Wild Empathy to calm and soothe and finally asked that he allow us to sacrifice him for the blood we needed. The GM said "OH HELLS NO", and did not allow it saying it -had- to be against the Druidic code. I argued that Nature's Allies do not die, instead they go back to the dimension from which they came. I said that it would be a quick and painless death, and I argued that I was revering nature by requesting permission before the sacrifice. As it ended up, my Ally touched a thing it shouldn't have when fleeing the room and burst into ashes... and we decided to go get a guard to sacrifice instead.

I'm trying to find out if it's cool to do or not =P Anyone have any precedence on this sort of thing?

[Jiggy]

Judging from the tone of the GM's reply (assuming it was as you imply in your retelling), it sounds less like there's actually an issue with your idea and more like he felt proud of forcing you into a moral quandary (needing to kill an innocent person) and decided to get all butthurt when you came up with a plan that circumvented his beloved railroad.

I think the key here is that you asked. You didn't kidnap and slaughter. You didn't coerce or manipulate. You asked. The creature was capable of saying no and walking, with no repercussions.

Think of it this way: suppose a similar creature happened to have been chilling in that room and heard you discussing your dilemma. That creature then volunteers to be that sacrifice because it's worth it to him. Would the GM have said "OH HELLS NO" if your druid agreed to that? This is no different. There was a creature present, it was (as I understand your story) aware of the situation, and it had the opportunity to either volunteer itself or not.

Again, this is all assuming that what came across in your account is accurate. With that in mind, it sounds like the GM was protecting his carefully-planned plot rather than letting the players participate realistically.

[Serisan]

Jiggy wrote:

Judging from the tone of the GM's reply (assuming it was as you imply in your retelling), it sounds less like there's actually an issue with your idea and more like he felt proud of forcing you into a moral quandary (needing to kill an innocent person) and decided to get all butthurt when you came up with a plan that circumvented his beloved railroad.

I think the key here is that you asked. You didn't kidnap and slaughter. You didn't coerce or manipulate. You asked. The creature was capable of saying no and walking, with no repercussions.

Think of it this way: suppose a similar creature happened to have been chilling in that room and heard you discussing your dilemma. That creature then volunteers to be that sacrifice because it's worth it to him. Would the GM have said "OH HELLS NO" if your druid agreed to that? This is no different. There was a creature present, it was (as I understand your story) aware of the situation, and it had the opportunity to either volunteer itself or not.

Again, this is all assuming that what came across in your account is accurate. With that in mind, it sounds like the GM was protecting his carefully-planned plot rather than letting the players participate realistically.

This. Also, how many charges of CLW from my wand are needed for somebody to just bleed into it for a while and fill it up? We'll just keep slicing the wrist if that's all it takes. :-p

[Rory]

Webscar wrote:

I then utilized Calm Animal, Charm Animal, and Wild Empathy to calm and soothe and finally asked that he allow us to sacrifice him for the blood we needed.

Jiggy wrote:

I think the key here is that you asked. You didn't kidnap and slaughter. You didn't coerce or manipulate. You asked. The creature was capable of saying no and walking, with no repercussions.

I agree with your overall summary.

I wouldn't say that he didn't coerce or manipulate though.

Using a summoned nature's ally, whom you know is not actually going to "die", versus grabbing the nearest guard whom you know you are killing is definitely within reason in my opinion. Really, what's the difference between summoning it for this purpose instead of summoning it into a suicidal combat to slow a monster for 1 round?

The bigger constraint the GM/player should have is if the blood of a summoned critter would even work in such a situation. If so, there has to be some critter that a caster can summon that has some valuable parts that can be hacked up and kept for vast profit.

"Tyrannosaurus steak here... get yer tyrrannnneesoros steak here..."

Solving the world's hunger problem one summon spell at a time!

[Webscar]

whoops, Sorry. The "OH HELLS NO" was meant more as a sarcastic and playful tone than a "You must follow my story exactly" response from the GM.

The GM has been very accommodating of all the ways we have screwed over his plans. However, in this instance he was concerned that being a Druid the act of sacrificing my Ally would go against my Druidic Code.

In the bases of senses, I'm curious if "killing" a nature's ally is against the code or not. I do not believe so, as they are summoned to fight and it's expected that they'll eventually be wounded and killed.

I guess I could have simply summoned him and told the Fighter in the party to behead the creature... but it seemed that -would- go against the code, as it wouldn't revere nature in the least.

If no one comes forth with a reason why this is against the Druid's code, I will ask the GM to work it as a intimidate or such roll in the future; if he himself cannot locate a reason.

[Cartigan]

Lo, ye can of worms shall be opened and out of it shall spilleth a great many horrors unimaginable.

1) Your DM was both right and wrong
1.a) You couldn't get the blood from a summoned creature - it isn't really there
1.b) SUMMONED CREATURES DIE ALL THE TIME.

2) This can of worms has been opened before and shall be opened again. Apparently many DMs, in their infinite forest blindness, have decided that summoned creatures can and will do nothing but fight and you can only use them to fight because otherwise they don't want to die so will refuse to doe anything that kills them - other than fighting. Oh, and they can't do any utilitous things that DON'T kill them because that would mean the Wizard is being clever and we can't have that.

[Velcro Zipper]

Webscar wrote:

the main focus of the Druid is that they revere nature and that they stay lawful

I think you mean Neutral.

Almost without fail, when people start throwing around the phrase "For the Greater Good," it indicates they're slipping into non-good territory and probably well on their way to evil. In your case, you might be headed for life as an ex-druid. There are such things as evil druids, but I'm thinking your GM was right to react the way he did with one caveat. Matters of spell duration and the death of summoned creatures aside, I would have let you do it, but I'd only be nice enough to drop a hint about the possibility of repercussions.

The way I see it, regardless of how you play your character, a druid, like a cleric, is a priest. They've got responsibilities to their faith and only have the abilities they have because of their faith. I don't know anything about the altar you encountered but I'm assuming it wasn't an altar to some nature deity meaning what your druid attempted could be considered heretical. By using the powers nature gave you to sacrifice a life, even a summoned one, to another deity, you're symbolically saying this other religion is greater than your own and that nature is subservient to the religion of this altar because it will sacrifice its own power to appease this other deity.

An evil druid might choose to destroy certain types of animals or vegetation because of some Darwinian philosophy about weeding out weak species but, at the end of the day, he knows where his magic comes from and isn't going to use it to empower somebody else's god.

[Jiggy]

Rory wrote:

Webscar wrote:

I then utilized Calm Animal, Charm Animal, and Wild Empathy to calm and soothe and finally asked that he allow us to sacrifice him for the blood we needed.

Jiggy wrote:

I think the key here is that you asked. You didn't kidnap and slaughter. You didn't coerce or manipulate. You asked. The creature was capable of saying no and walking, with no repercussions.

I agree with your overall summary.

I wouldn't say that he didn't coerce or manipulate though.

Hm, I forgot about the use of Charm Animal, though on the other hand he said he just used it to calm and sooth, not to pseudo-dominate.

But either way, yeah, the "will the blood even work?" issue is a biggie.

[TarkXT]

Jiggy wrote:

But either way, yeah, the "will the blood even work?" issue is a biggie.

An interesting thought. I would say no simply because of the bad precedent it sets not because it's against the code.

An alternative would have been to find a creature, hunt it down, and then slay it over the altar. This is also not against the druids code for a couple of reasons.

[hgsolo]

Cartigan wrote:

Lo, ye can of worms shall be opened and out of it shall spilleth a great many horrors unimaginable.

1) Your DM was both right and wrong
1.a) You couldn't get the blood from a summoned creature - it isn't really there
1.b) SUMMONED CREATURES DIE ALL THE TIME.

2) This can of worms has been opened before and shall be opened again. Apparently many DMs, in their infinite forest blindness, have decided that summoned creatures can and will do nothing but fight and you can only use them to fight because otherwise they don't want to die so will refuse to doe anything that kills them - other than fighting. Oh, and they can't do any utilitous things that DON'T kill them because that would mean the Wizard is being clever and we can't have that.

Ultimately 1.b) would have been my rationale against your plan. Otherwise I like it. It seems perfectly fine for the druid to consider such a plan.

Also, one little nitpick. Druids have to be any neutral, not lawful.

[Webscar]

Yeah, I get what you guys mean about the whether or not the blood could be used... I guess once the Ally "dies" it goes back to the other plane. Which should mean that the blood would poof too.

The only way I could have possibly done it was to injure, not kill. But then, that'd be inhumane would cause suffering which, in my opinion, -would- be against the code.

I'll keep that in mind in the future, but do want to discuss these points with the GM so I can get some things ironed out.

Thanks for the catch on "Any Neutral"... I must've read the wrong page, as I was borrowing a few things (Going with Weather Domain instead of a companion).

[Cartigan]

hgsolo wrote:

Ultimately 1.b) would have been my rationale against your plan.

Except 1.b is why the DM is wrong...

[hgsolo]

Cartigan wrote:

hgsolo wrote:

Ultimately 1.b) would have been my rationale against your plan.

Except 1.b is why the DM is wrong...

Oops... Meant 1.a. XP

Good catch.

[Drejk]

First of all all the creatures conjured with summoning spells vanish when "killed" with all their equipment they had on themselves as a part if the summoning (not important in case of most of nature allies but still) so they are rather poor source of anything that requires their death. I would also say that the force or power connected to the altar would not be appeased with such false sacrifice - false because the summoned entity is not complete and thus does not constitute a valid sacrifice.

If the case was with real creature instead of a summoned one I would say that respectful asking animal or spirit to allow for its sacrifice I would deem rightful action on the druid's party - as long as he would be willing to accept animal's refusal - which would be more than probable. Using calm animal and wild empathy would be viable options, charming animal into greater level of cooperation would be evil act, however.

[FireclawDrake]

This is my 2 coppers:

Summoned monster: No.
Planar Binding? Hell yes.

[hgsolo]

Drejk wrote:

First of all all the creatures conjured with summoning spells vanish when "killed" with all their equipment they had on themselves as a part if the summoning (not important in case of most of nature allies but still) so they are rather poor source of anything that requires their death. I would also say that the force or power connected to the altar would not be appeased with such false sacrifice - false because the summoned entity is not complete and thus does not constitute a valid sacrifice.

If the case was with real creature instead of a summoned one I would say that respectful asking animal or spirit to allow for its sacrifice I would deem rightful action on the druid's party - as long as he would be willing to accept animal's refusal - which would be more than probable. Using calm animal and wild empathy would be viable options, charming animal into greater level of cooperation would be evil act, however.

Come to think of it, charm person never should have been used at all:

d20pfsrd.com wrote:

An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.

[Banpai]

Cartigan wrote:

Lo, ye can of worms shall be opened and out of it shall spilleth a great many horrors unimaginable.

1) Your DM was both right and wrong
1.a) You couldn't get the blood from a summoned creature - it isn't really there
1.b) SUMMONED CREATURES DIE ALL THE TIME.

2) This can of worms has been opened before and shall be opened again. Apparently many DMs, in their infinite forest blindness, have decided that summoned creatures can and will do nothing but fight and you can only use them to fight because otherwise they don't want to die so will refuse to doe anything that kills them - other than fighting. Oh, and they can't do any utilitous things that DON'T kill them because that would mean the Wizard is being clever and we can't have that.

I agree if anything this should be about the question what you can harvest from a summoned creature.

That said the OP went to a lot of efford to calm the summoned animal so, this should have worked.

The "best" way might have been to cut a party member and heal him, that way the price is paid without cheating. Or the party can use it as chance to bond where everyone bleeds (wasn´t something like this in one of the SAW movies?).