Druid willingly flame strikes Animal Companion and kills it - punishment?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

We're playing Age of Worms (if that matters). Party is level 8, going to level 9.

Animal Companion wolf is in a grapple with a Hellcat. Druid casts flame strike on them both.
Hellcat takes 16, 8 after fire resistance. Wolf takes 33, chars, and dies.

Druid player expresses no remorse.

This is the 4th or 5th wolf he has gone thru. Earlier deaths were not directly his fault. But he does not mourn at all.

The cleric in the campaign has taken the leadership feat, and is going out of his way to equip the cohort and keep him safe. When the cohort died, the cleric paid for a reincarnate (the cohort had earlier expressed a desire to come back, no matter the cost.) So there is a sort of precedent for caring for your companions.

The druid just throws the wolf on the pile and goes and calls another a day later.

I want to show him there are repercussions to this sort of thing. The companion is supposed to be just that, a companion, not just another weapon in your reptoire.

I am thinking of denying him the animal companion when he tries to summon one. Not sure for how long. Not sure if an atonement spell would work - if it did he'd definitely need to perform some sort of task.

I don't want to punish the other characters though, and I don't want to completely derail the campaign. They just finished with Zyrxog, so its kind of a down time before the next chapter. Seems like the perfect time.

I am open to all suggestions, inlcuding those of 'just move on'.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I direct your attention to this paragraph on page 51 of the core rulebook, under the section titled: Ex-druids:

Pathfinder RPG wrote:
A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).

Sounds like your druid is guilty of not revering nature, if he sees his animal companion as an expendable resourse to throw at the enemy senselessly. It sucks to come down so hard like that, but this about as blatant a case as I've heard of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the problem is that the player is seeing his animal companion as a class feature, instead of a living thing.

This is something that requires you talking to the player if you want to change his in-world view of things.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

In general, the animal companions and familiars of my characters stay out of combat as much as possible. To the point of staying at home while the character goes adventuring if need be.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It is just another weapon in his arsenal if his character feels that way stop trying to make him conform to your desired play style. The summon natures's ally spell summons real world animals to your side in combat with a damn good chance they will die in battle, it is something the gods or powers that be give them and it is expected.

His character can see animals as disposable tools to get a job done or as food, not every druid is a tree hugging vegan who thinks animals are just as important as people, some are militant revolutionaries who see any means to an ends as a good justification for their actions.

Druids can be C.N or N.E and do all kinds of crazy/evil things.

Plus he should really have a tiger maybe he wouldn't want to BBQ an animal that could hold his own in a fight.


Familiar yes, but animal companions are BUILT for combat.

Isn't "mourning" largely a human reaction?


I agree with wolfman, your druid isn't revering nature and as such loses the things that make him a druid. Make him realize his character is a druid and there is a punishment for not acting like one. I also wouldn't let him just take a level of another class without him role playing it some (if he levels up before he atones).


18 people marked this as a favorite.

He killed his companion just to do half damage with flamestrike against a fire immune monster? Daaaaaaaaang....

...Can he lose his druid powers for stupidity? Like, that's actually insulting to me more than not caring about the companion. That's like Xykon, comical level villain evil indifference. "I can kill ten thousand of my followers to save $5 a month on car insurance?! Sold!"

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Distinguish whether the concern is a character matter or whether thee issue is a player matter. If the PC doesn't care...look toward in game resolution such as intervention or atonement. If the player focuses on mechanical elements of the game and DOES see the wolf as just another weapon to use and replace as needed....look toward player education and/or incorporation into your group's table culture.

The relationship between the other character and cohort is somewhat immaterial; that is what THAT character does and it is what THAT cohort wanted.

If you do choose to do something in game, it might be fun to handle it through the summoning of a weak wolf, wolf puppy, three-legged wolf, wolf with sinus problems, elderly wolf, insane commoner who thinks he is a wolf, etc. Use the in-game parade of unacceptable animals to show something is wrong; divination or consultation with a mentor then gives the in-game mechanism to deliver the in-game correction.

Could be turned into a fun situation.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

He's revering natural selection. Nuthin wrong.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would remove all spells, spell-like, and supernatural abilities until he atones, ideally through a quest that helps wolves in some way.

Druids are a very powerful and versatile class that is "balanced" by having a code, just like paladins and clerics. The code must be enforced.

Hopefully, the wolf quest is fun, so there is some carrot with the stick.

EDIT:

Using Howie23's idea of deviant animal companions is a great hook for the wolf quest.


@ Maxx, Deux, Paraxis - I agree. Revering nature does not equate to the modern belief of all animals having equal rights. Revering nature to me is about revering balance - life and death. The natural world.

Trading a normal and easily replaceable animal companion for trying to remove an unnatural predator from the plane; or saving a party members life, it completely legitimate.

The player should respect the sacrifice of the animal, but that also does not require weeping and hand-wringing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The codes don't balance either class. They are mostly fluff that is hard-wired into the mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's one thing for the animal to sacrifice it's life. It's another to die by friendly fire. The druid showed absolutely no concern for the animal being in the line of fire.

However, they were having difficulty with the encounter (there were a couple of octopins in there as well). And the wolf did have evasion - he just blew the save.

Silver Crusade

Okay, when he next sleeps, have him plagued by the ghosts of his slain animal copanions, looking as they had died, blaming him for their deaths and telling him that he does not deserve to be a druid and stripping him of his power until he truly makes atonment and also make all wolves hate him. Don't let him pick the next animal companion, you pick it. He goes and meditates, once he cleans up his act, and gets back on the druidic track.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Jason Stormblade wrote:

@ Maxx, Deux, Paraxis - I agree. Revering nature does not equate to the modern belief of all animals having equal rights. Revering nature to me is about revering balance - life and death. The natural world.

Trading a normal and easily replaceable animal companion for trying to remove an unnatural predator from the plane; or saving a party members life, it completely legitimate.

The player should respect the sacrifice of the animal, but that also does not require weeping and hand-wringing.

Stormblade, Maxx, etc. could be right, if you think the forces of nature have room for such a philosphy. Paraxis's opinion that punishing him for his actions would be cramping his playstyle, however, is wrong. If there are no moral consequences for your actions, that's one less enjoyable challenge you've given the players and one less reason to be emotionally invested in the story.

What is your interpretation of the setting? What is the player's alignment? What are the nature gods like? If you're running this in Golarion, you should have these answers available to you. If you're running it in Greyhawk, where the AP is originally set, I don't know much about the setting. If it's a homebrew setting, you need to come up with the answers yourself. Even if nature is fine with the death of an animal companion for a cause or "natural selection", that doesn't mean that these forces or gods of nature are ok with a druid killing the companion bequeathed to them through their own action.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Your best bet is to take the player aside and talk with him about it, expressing your concerns and citing the behavior of the Cleric as an example of what you think constitutes a good example. Talk it and get your player's side of the story, because that may be all it takes. Also, be sure to point out that a Druid is supposed to revere nature and that, if the player keeps this up, you are required to make him into an ex-druid.

Liberty's Edge

Phrennzy. wrote:


This is the 4th or 5th wolf he has gone thru. Earlier deaths were not directly his fault. But he does not mourn at all.

The druid just throws the wolf on the pile and goes and calls another a day later.

I want to show him there are repercussions to this sort of thing. The companion is supposed to be just that, a companion, not just another weapon in your reptoire.

Have you called him on the first four wolves he went through without showing remorse?

If not, a nudge to encourage proper roleplaying and a reminder to revere nature could be appropriate. I think a removal of powers would be a bit much at this point.


Could we maybe get a bit more info on the player, and his character? Whatever happens is going to be closely related to:

1. Does the character claim to love nature, or is he more the survival of the fittest type thing. what's his alignment? If it's good, then it seems shooting into allies wouldn't really fit, but if he's neutral or evil it might very well fit his character.

2. Does the PC know that there is an issue? Talking to him before hand might be all it takes to let him know that treating his animal companion as a tool might not be the best idea. And if that is how he wants to play it make it more convincing from a roleplaying experience.


Its clearly a disconnect between what you, and your player, think is appropriate behavior for the Druid.

I second (or third or fourth or whatever it is) that you take the guy aside and discuss it with them. The two of *you* seeing eye to eye on the situation is probably the single best way to resolve the issue in-game. And even if you two disagree- at least that way he knows your stand on the issue so that next time he nukes his AC he'll know something is coming down the line.

-S


He didn't do anything wrong if he's playing a neutral evil druid. If you think killing off your own wolf goes against revering nature then I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Do druids have to atone every single time they burn down a tree, how about killing another being? His character can throw animals at others as cannon fodder, just remember how that may effect others perspectives on the druid. If he can roleplay it then let him do it.


He is Neutral Good and describes seeing the Animal Companion as a pet. Not quite a party member, but more than just a weapon.

He has brought up that there should be some sort of penalty.

It should not be losing all druid abilities, since this is the first time we've dealt with it.

We're also discussing the possibility of raising the companion. But I think that a full Raise Dead is a bit expensive. I'm leaning more toward a Reincarnate (but it still comes back as a wolf). Its a monetary penalty, but also sets a precedent so he can Reincarnate again if (when) it dies.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Animal companions are loyal and true friends, not cannon fodder. It's not so much not revering nature as betraying your friend. Do it often enough and you have no friends.

I would have word get around the local wolves to avoid this druid. Next time he starts statting up his new wolf animal companion, tell him it was a no-show. Let him sweat it out for a session or three before one shows up from outside the area. This should get the message across that animal companions are not to be treated as expendable resources.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Best Goblin! wrote:


Stormblade, Maxx, etc. could be right, if you think the forces of nature have room for such a philosphy.

It seems he still gets spells each day and isn't actively mistreating his animal on a common basis. I'd say not caring that his companion is in the way when minding his usual business (protecting nature with his magical gifts given by said nature) is darn bending toward Neutral Evil ; not un-druidic.


If you don't want to do the full loss of druid abilities you could quite reasonable say that the next time he tries to summon his companion its fails and no companion appears.

If he since already re summoned you can have this companion walk off and disappear.

Then present him with a chance to atone for his transgression against nature with some appropriate saving nature situations.

e.g. villlages burning down part of a forest to make way for crops. group of mercs torturing a bear for fun etc.

If he intervenes on natures behalf he gets his companion back, if not he dosen't ;)

as always you need to talk to your player to make this work.

Silver Crusade

Too many stories of psychopath players...

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

IIRC, There was a cartoon in one of the last print issues of Dragon. It was a young bear cub going back to his cave telling his mom and dad bear that he got a job being a companion for a druid and how proud he was. The parents and cub argue back and forth. The parents think he will not be safe. But the cub says he knows the druid always has best interests of animals first.

So the next day the cub shows up to be the animal companion. The druid looks at him and says "your name from now on is meat sheild #6".


"revering nature" does not mean a Disney-princess(tm) level of love and harmony. Nature can be a cruel mistress: "red in tooth and claw".

The problem is a player problem. You expect a certain amount of roleplay from your players, maybe the druid player is not as interested in roleplay as you are? You can't solve a player problem in character. Try talking to the player about your concerns and the two of you can come to an understanding.

Removing divine character's powers should only be done when the player acknowledges that they should be removed to help the story. Otherwise you have, at best, an annoying side-quest before you can get back to the fun adventure. At worst, you will have hurt feelings and upset players.


You know, I just realized... it's not 3E, in PF grappling doesn't mean sharing the same space. Couldn't he have just like..aimed the spell to not hit the wolf's square?

Phasics wrote:

If you don't want to do the full loss of druid abilities you could quite reasonable say that the next time he tries to summon his companion its fails and no companion appears.

If he since already re summoned you can have this companion walk off and disappear.

Yes, this. He's not treating his companions right, the most logical consequence is...none show up for him anymore.


Neutral Evil is a valid Druid Alignment, NE Druids are significantly present in Golarion for example.
I don't see how this behavior is at odds with Evil Druidism...

I don't see why you should bother with coming up with some penalties, etc, even if the player is into that:
that is evading the issue that the character is consistently acting Neutral Evil, and allowing him to continue to 'detect as' Neutral Good is the real disconnect, NOT how he treats the Animal Companions. Atonements, etc, should only be relevant if the character actually intends to change his actions, but since he has no powers dependent on actually being Good, there's no reason he can't just SLOWLY move back towards Neutral Good (if his character decides to change his ways).

ALSO remember that the Animal Companion IS just another NPC/creature, the Druid doesn't usually have direct control over it, beyond the Handle Animal skill. Nothing about Animal Companions makes them suicidal, more than any other trained animal... Likewise, nothing makes them exempt to having Friendly/Helpful/Unfriendly/etc attitudes towards any character, INCLUDING THE DRUID. The Companion themself may refuse to follow certain orders, or only partially follow them, etc. I would consider whether you, the GM, should be controlling the Companion, to facilitate that... The player doesn't have a 'right' to control the Companion directly.

The main 'repurcussion' I see is in-game NPCs/(other PCs) actually acknowledging/responding to the actions...
I would say that such actions would make Good-aligned characters tend to trust him less.
But there straight up ISN'T any repurcussions re: maltreating Companions, compared to Leadership which DOES have such repurcussions. If you really wanted to, I might 'start out' new(replacement) Companion's attitude as one step worse... but whether you do that or not, if the PC doesn't Role-Play acting friendly towards the Companions, they are not going to end up being Friendly to him - MALTREATMENT is just one step worse than that.


I presented this thread to my whole gaming group. EVERYONE thinks he should get hit with Ex-Druid for his complete disrespect for his animal companions.


Well, probably alot of Evil Druids should be then as well, by that rationale,
but that would probably mean the population of Evil Druids is drastically cut overnight.
They're Evil because they're Evil, after all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

it's natural selection that he reveres. the strong survive, and the weak are merely food for the strong. it's more lawful neutral than neutral good. think of charles darwin. not some modern vegan hippie. still a valid druid.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I look at it as more of a blatant abuse of a class ability myself.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phrennzy. wrote:
He is Neutral Good and describes seeing the Animal Companion as a pet. Not quite a party member, but more than just a weapon.

Neutral Good? Anywhere from temporary loss of druid powers to a forced wild shape into the form of the bear he killed (and the inability to use Natural Spell until he has spent X number of days in bear form) could be suitable.

Heck, a viciously 'red in tooth and claw' version could be to forced reincarnate him into a bear (unable to wild shape out of bear form until he atones), or even force him to suffer the same fiery death of his companion, causing him a permanant negative level.

A lesser version could cause him to feel the fiery death of his bear companion through their empathic link, over and over, every night, giving him an unremovable fatigued condition, until he can atone and end the dreams.


Quandary wrote:

Well, probably alot of Evil Druids should be then as well, by that rationale,

but that would probably mean the population of Evil Druids is drastically cut overnight.
They're Evil because they're Evil, after all.

Being an evil druid is one thing. You expect evil people to be evil, but NOT to their immediate allies. That is just a quick way of losing said allies. One of the downsides to being evil is people don't like you and it's hard to find people who will want to work with you.

This druid should not be immune to this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
I look at it as more of a blatant abuse of a class ability myself.

This.

The arguments of him not "revering nature" are just more "Paladin Falls" posts. You can love Humanity and still hate some people, the two positions are NOT at odds.

The AC is not 'Nature', and to be pedantic and claim it is just opens up a whole new level of the ridiculous. "You can't eat fruit or vegetables anymore, becuase thats killing nature" "You can't kill orcs and goblins anymore, because they are naturally born" "You can't stop that house burning down, because fire is nature".

Really guys...


If he's playing a Neutral (depending on diety), Chaotic Neutral (self-centered alignment), or Neutral Evil Druid, he might be fine (if wastefully stupid).

Which nature diety is his patron? The attitude that diety promotes might matter, too, in deciding whether he's just an uncaring jerk or if he's actually breaking the demands of his class and faith.

It is a bit boggling to do what he's done, but that's because most of us (myself included) tend to woobify our companions/cohorts/followers at least to the extent to caring whether they live or die.

OtoH, in many campaigns (including some i was involved in when younger), players don't fret too much about including even *each* *other* in AoEs (often this leads to. . .friction). So this is no worse than that.

Yes, I do agree that there is a difference between summoning an animal and having it die in battle, or sending your companion into a fight and it dies in battle, vs. including it as a target of your own attack. But quite often druids summon animals just so they can be expendable distractions for monsters, set up flanking until they go down, be used as an expendable "rear guard" so the druid and friends can escape to fight another day, and so on.

Charring your own wolf is bad, mind. I don't like it. But I don't quite think it's on the level of "loose druid powers forever," *necessarily* - even if this behavior continues. It depends a lot on the specific Druid's alignment, and the nature (heh) of the diety that Druid reveres/gets their benies from.

Also, even if, usually it's best to lead off with some "milder" punishment before hitting the player with a total class nuking. Perhaps the next summoned animal gives the druid harsh glares. Or simply the next time the Druid summons a replacement to add to the pile, it doesn't show up for days, and the Druid knows that his companion abuse is why it is "dawdling." Or the next one refuses to leave the Druid's side (it doesn't flee, and it defends the Druid, but it stays in the Druid's own square if possible and adjacent if not, so that if the Druid includes it in an AoE attack, the Druid will also be fried).


The rest of an ant swarm, antelope herd, or wolf pack doesn't hesitate when one of their members goes down. Individuals serve the group, not the other way around.

So, I don't see anything inconsistant about a druid who sees all members of his group, including his companion (and himself), as resources to be expended when needed.

However, from a humanoid perspective, this is not a Good attitude -- it is at best Neutral and most likely Evil. Actually, Lawful Neutral would not be a bad alignment for someone with this attitude.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Deliberately flame striking your animal companion when the companion is grappling with a flame-resistant foe and killing the animal companion is either total disregard for the life of the animal companion, abject, pathological stupidity or both.

I'm going with both since the player had the druid show no remorse over the act.

I'd strip his druid powers in a heartbeat and have an out of game conversation about role playing.

This is about as good an example of anti-druidic behavior as I can think of. So of course I'm not surprised by the many posts defending it.


dis is da way i see it, who is his gawd? read up on dat gawd and den see how you should punish him.

i say you put 'em in da meat grinda!!


Phrennzy. wrote:
I want to show him there are repercussions to this sort of thing. The companion is supposed to be just that, a companion, not just another weapon in your reptoire.

Few questions about the druid:

1) What is the druids alignment?
2) What deity, if any, does he worship/serve and what is that deity's view on animals?

Neutral Evil druids may very well take the view that they animal comanions are there to serve their will. The are a lesser animal in the pack and bound to obey or perish. In the grand scheme of things, nature is a harsh mistress and the law of survival of the fittest is the only one that matters in the long run.

As such they may go through a great many companions and from one aspect of nature, the unforgiving, harsh live or die aspect, that would not be completely wrong.

Then again if it is a neutral good druid, it may very well be the direct opposite of the above and they will use their companion as just that, a true valued companion, and but them in harms way as any adventuring companion may be, but make every attempt to keep them from death needlessly.

The reaction is as varied as the god and alignments involved.

But there is merit in the above quoted section where Druids of any ethos and alignment must revere nature. Wasting life on a whim is generally not somethiung that happens in nature. Accidents happens of course and things die but, generally, nature kills to live and feed, not on a whim or out of convenience. Wastfully burning through companion after companion is a sign that the druids is taking the gift for granted and losing respect for what that gift represents.

It really comes down to deity and alignment and by extension, the religion the druid follows and how that interects with the setting your running.

From what you have posted, I would think there would be a serious reality check coming to your neutral good druid. Animal companions are a special living gift. Life should not be wasted foolishly. Druids are, in a way, the primary defenders of life itself, for it is the air, earth, water, trees and animals of the world that are the basics of life itself. Wasting life with no regard is a sign of indifference. If someone said that this druid burned down a forest to kill a foe in it, I bet folks would have an issue with it. Why not when he burns down his animal companion?


Erm no it would just be an jerk move if the Hellcat was fire IMMUNE and the Druid also knew that fact. In that case, and absent any other rationale as to why, then I'd consider him having his Companion suspended for a while.

He isn't 'bound' to have massive regard for his AC and a Care-Bear mentality about it, because if that WERE the case there would be clear cut mechanics in place to make it so: the Cavalier is a perfect example - see what happens when they drop an AC? Massive impact and a river of tears.

Magus and Druid? they just Criss Angel up a new pet and keep right on trucking in RAW.

Liberty's Edge

I'd at least consider forcing him to switch to the domain option of Nature Bond rather than the animal companion, possibly the Animal domain (he gets another AC, but it is noticably weaker) - even if he is still "revering nature" while mistreating his animal companions, it seems to me that he's not demonstrating the tight bond one would expect, and perhaps he should therefore find that he's forced to connect to nature in a more abstract fashion...


Shifty wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
I look at it as more of a blatant abuse of a class ability myself.

This.

The arguments of him not "revering nature" are just more "Paladin Falls" posts. You can love Humanity and still hate some people, the two positions are NOT at odds.

The AC is not 'Nature', and to be pedantic and claim it is just opens up a whole new level of the ridiculous. "You can't eat fruit or vegetables anymore, becuase thats killing nature" "You can't kill orcs and goblins anymore, because they are naturally born" "You can't stop that house burning down, because fire is nature".

Really guys...

Look up the meaning of the word 'revere' and you'll see the strawman here. If you want, you can replace revere with respect without changing the meaning.

You can eat fruit and vegetables while still respecting them. You can kill orcs and goblins while still respecting them. You can stop a house burning down while still respecting fire. You can even get your AC killed while still respecting it.

If you read the OP, you'll see that the Druid did not respect his AC.


Perhaps he should not receive another animal companion. His god, or nature, or whatever has decided that he doesn't treat his companions with the respect they deserve, and he's denied any more until he atones. If he does that again, he goes into ex-druid territory.

This player appears to be about as dumb as wood, BTW.


A highly regarded expert wrote:

Perhaps he should not receive another animal companion. His god, or nature, or whatever has decided that he doesn't treat his companions with the respect they deserve, and he's denied any more until he atones. If he does that again, he goes into ex-druid territory.

This player appears to be about as dumb as wood, BTW.

^This^

The act isn't so bad the druid should lose his powers, I think, although he certainly isn't acting the way a Neutral Good druid should act, that may just be stupidity. I think TarkXT has the right of it - he is treating class and alignment as just words and stats when the DM is expecting a little more attempt at immersion.

I see nothing wrong or illogical about the animals locally starting to give him a wide berth; in just the same way, the Leadership feat has negative modifiers for letting your followers get killed. Let him reap what he sows until he figures out how to give a damn.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shifty wrote:
The arguments of him not "revering nature" are just more "Paladin Falls" posts.

Exept that there IS the possibility that Paladins can fall. That druids CAN lose their powers by not living up to their commitments and continuing to revere nature. It is part of the classes and has been since the inception of them in gaming.

It is the GM's job to make sure that should these issues arise they are RP'd and if required, that the characters experience the repercussions of them.

As much as you may find 'paladins falling' trite and annoying, I find the general theory that these RP points are 'unfair annoyances' to the player to be cop outs by people who just want 'kewl powerz'.

Classes are as defined by their weaknesses and limitations as by their abilities and strengths, and without them they degenerate into homogenized generic classes that lose all flavor is individuality or uniqueness about them.

Those lines in their descriptions are there for a reason. Or else they would not be there to begin with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Player IS dumb as wood.

I just disagree with 'Playstyle enforcement' of inventing mechanical ramifications above and beyond what the game prescribes, especially in the face of precedents set elsewhere which mechanically RAW deal with what you are trying to enforce on the Druid via NRAYD (New Rules as you decided)


Quantum Steve wrote:
Shifty wrote:
The AC is not 'Nature'
If you read the OP, you'll see that the Druid did not respect his AC.

OK, that has nothing do with Shifty's primary point though.

Again, nothing in the AC class feature over-rides NPC/creature attitude categories to you, both for the AC and for other characters/creatures who witness/are aware of the actions. That doesn't mean that the AC class feature itself should be over-ridden by GM fiat just because he doesn't like how you use it. That said, the player does sound like an idiot, especially if he's insisting that the character is Neutral Good (and remember, the player has indicated they are OK with penalties re: the AC, in lieu of facing alignment issues head-on)

1 to 50 of 335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Druid willingly flame strikes Animal Companion and kills it - punishment? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.