Is it against a druids code to torture animals?


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To properly revere nature one must understand its wonders. If that involves a little vivisection, well, you can't make a litter of fox pups without brutally killing a few rabbits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My reading of the "...ceases to revere nature" line in the ex-druids section is that it is essentially talking about something more akin to a cleric changing gods, rather than what's gone on in this thread.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think the scale of what you are doing matters a great deal for druids. Killing a single animal of a common species or chopping down a single tree is probably fine, but killing an entire herd or burning down an entire forest would be a direct violation of the druid's code. The most likely measuring stick would be whether you are using up more resources than nature can renew over time.


David knott 242 wrote:

I think the scale of what you are doing matters a great deal for druids. Killing a single animal of a common species or chopping down a single tree is probably fine, but killing an entire herd or burning down an entire forest would be a direct violation of the druid's code. The most likely measuring stick would be whether you are using up more resources than nature can renew over time.

Even your examples are justifiable. If the druid believes that the forest or herd poses a significant threat to the rest of nature (i.e. diseased/cursed/whatever) their destruction is an act in keeping with the code. Nature is the ultimate example of the ends justify the means. It has no morality.


Korginard Wintersfury wrote:

Has anyone noted that dominating an animal to do something suicidal negates the spell? Even if a Rat doesn't know that running down a hall MAY be suicidal, the Druid does, and it's the Druid's intelligence that is guiding it. His exact thought process is "I don't want to go down this hall because there may be a trap that will harm or kill me".

So end result is, Rats say piss off and spell is negated.

On the morality issue, I wonder if the animal companion may be a good indicator of if this action would be against the druid code. Would the druid be willing to sacrifice his companion (or whatever benefit he gains from not having one) to accomplish this? I doubt it, and that tells me that using animals like this would probably offend whatever aspect of nature the Druid reveres. Instead of looking at it as "naughty" which is a concern for goodish druids, look at it as wasting or disrespecting the gifts they gain by revering nature.
So, while I believe an Evilish druid would send his animal companion into battle, I doubt they would use it as a mine sweeper, and I don't feel that Nature in whatever form would approve.

But the spells says, it won't do something obviously suicidal.

Holding off Tarrasque (or a dragon) as you run for a few roubds is okay'd by the spell.
So walling down a aisle should be fine. Telling it to run into a fire that it can see would be suicidal (as it is directly obvious).


Calth wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

I think the scale of what you are doing matters a great deal for druids. Killing a single animal of a common species or chopping down a single tree is probably fine, but killing an entire herd or burning down an entire forest would be a direct violation of the druid's code. The most likely measuring stick would be whether you are using up more resources than nature can renew over time.

Even your examples are justifiable. If the druid believes that the forest or herd poses a significant threat to the rest of nature (i.e. diseased/cursed/whatever) their destruction is an act in keeping with the code. Nature is the ultimate example of the ends justify the means. It has no morality.

Nature is not an example of "ends justify the means." That philosophy is a human rationalization for committing otherwise immoral acts. Nature doesn't rationalize its behavior because there is no "ends." Nature isn't trying to achieve anything. Nature runs its course. What may or may not happen in nature is, in no way, a justification for what a druid can do.


Calth wrote:
If the druid believes that the forest or herd poses a significant threat to the rest of nature (i.e. diseased/cursed/whatever) their destruction is an act in keeping with the code.

I want to address this separately and suggest people examine the paradigm of a druid a little more closely. Let's look at the PRD

PRD wrote:
these often misunderstood protectors of the wild strive to shield their lands from all who would threaten them...

In my opinion, the druid's mandate isn't to stop things in the forest from dying. The druid's mandate is stop unnatural things from interfering with nature. It's entirely consistent with a druid of any alignment to let a naturally occurring disease or fire sweep through the forest. But if that disease is a result of magic or fires are from sharecroppers, then the druid gets involved.

While I agree that there is a trope of the good druid healing sick animals, I don't actually see that as the druid's role. Heck, druids aren't even given any special powers to heal plants or animals. Druids aren't expected to protect ecosystems from nature, they protect ecosystems from the unnatural.


David knott 242 wrote:

I think the scale of what you are doing matters a great deal for druids. Killing a single animal of a common species or chopping down a single tree is probably fine, but killing an entire herd or burning down an entire forest would be a direct violation of the druid's code.

But wildfires are both natural and critical to an ecosystem's growth in many areas. And the destruction of one habitat can create new ones. Burning down a forest doesn't destroy nature, it just changes it. :)


Take it back to the woods hippy!

...wait a minute...


By the way, N N, for all your (entirely non-RAW) insistence that druids aren't allowed to manipulate nature by, say, burning down a forest or distributing invasive species, the very line you quote as gospel to shore up your entire argument contradicts that.

Quote:
Allies to beasts and manipulators of nature

"Manipulators of nature". As long as they continue to respect an aspect of nature (disease, the sun, plants, f*@%ing starlings and zebra mussels) they can meddle as much as they want. What you call "unnatural" they call "differently natural".

Nature isn't just animals. If animals ceased to exist, nature would go on. And druids can manipulate as much as they like as long as, at the end of the day, an aspect of nature endures. That's why blight druids and urban druids don't contain any modification of the "code": There is none. Barn swallows and viruses are as much a part of nature as cute dolphins and fuzzy pandas. And if a druid wants to manipulate nature to drive a species extinct, this text explicitly sanctions it.

See? If you can put disproportionate weight on flavor text, so can I.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
By the way, N N, for all your (entirely non-RAW) insistence that druids aren't allowed to manipulate nature...

Except that I never said that. Never said nature was just animals either.

But by all means continue to march out that straw army. Straw men go down easy don't they?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The way I see it druids revere nature not individual natural creatures. They are not concerned with the survival of the individual animal, but rather the survival of the species. They have no problems killing individual animals as long as they are not threatening the species. The same is true with trees or other plants. Things like over hunting or completely destroying natural habitats so the species had nowhere to live would be a problem.

Druids like nature have come in many different forms. To say all druids have to be the same is like saying all animals are the same. Some will be viscous and cruel killing anything that gets in their way, while others will be gentle protectors helping those in need. The only thing that they all have is respect for nature. How this respect manifests will also vary from druid to druid.

The argument of the thread is whether using summoned animals violates the druids respect for nature. Below is the text of summoning from the core rule book. Notice the bolded par.

Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.

Using an animal to detect traps is not going to affect the survival of the species. Nor is it likely to destroy a natural habitat or in any other way affect the balance of nature. That being said there should be no problem with a druid using a summoned animal to detect traps. Since a summoned creature is not permanently killed or even killed at all it does not even affect the survival of the individual animal.

If the animal remembers what happens to it this could even be looked on as strengthening the animal. Normally when an animal is caught in a trap it is killed. Since the animal is not killed it may actually learn from its experience. You could even look at this as a way for a druid to teach animals to avoid traps thereby improving its chances of survival. If you buy into the argument that druids have to protect animals that would mean that a druid who does not summon animals to check for traps is being derelict in their duties and has ceased to revere nature and becomes an Ex-Druid.

Sovereign Court

"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down?

.
.
.

We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.”

-Jack Handy


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing that just occurred to me, showing reverence for something is really more about the character's attitude than it is about following any specific course of action. A druid can burn down an entire forest if his attitude is "When the forest grow too thick a fire the natural way to cleanse the land, and what emerges from the ashes will be even stronger" but not if his thought process is "I hate trees and love watching things burn!"


Seconded @Chengar


The fundamental mistake is in declaring that the actions of humans are unnatural. Just as it is in the nature of parasites to mind control insects, it is in the nature of tool users to manipulate their environment. Termites build. Ants sew and reap. Elephants deforest. Insect parasites* mind control their hosts. Kobolds set traps. Adventurers send anything convenient to spring those traps. All of these are part of the natural order of things.

* that's things that parasitize insects, not insects that parasitize things.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
One thing that just occurred to me, showing reverence for something is really more about the character's attitude than it is about following any specific course of action. A druid can burn down an entire forest if his attitude is "When the forest grow too thick a fire the natural way to cleanse the land, and what emerges from the ashes will be even stronger" but not if his thought process is "I hate trees and love watching things burn!"

Unfortunately that approach doesn't work. Reverence is not defined by the individual committing the act. It's defined by a reasonable person (druid) standard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

To demonstrate the problems with what you suggest, a druid who truly believes that flaying every living animal is the utmost sign of respect, is not given a free pass. A druids actions are weighed against an objective standard: what would a reasonable druid do in this situation? Just because you believe what you're doing is correct does not make it so or absolve you of wrong doing

The rules do allow the character to define what reverence means, it's defined by the GM. Yes, the GM might define it slightly different depending on the archetype and or deity the druid worships, but it's not based on what the character believes but on a what a reasonable druid of that worship or archetype would or would not do. A simpler approach would be for the GM to pretend the druid's actions were being evaluated by a council of similar (in archetype or worship) druids. How would they view the act?

Liberty's Edge

There are NE druids though


N N 959 wrote:


Unfortunately that approach doesn't work. Reverence is not defined by the individual committing the act. It's defined by a reasonable person (druid) standard.

Except it's not. Reverence is defined as:

Dictionary.com wrote:


a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration.


What do you get when you have virtually no setting but plenty of assumptions, and then mix vague fluff with class features? Threads like these. Let your player do what he's planning and then have it come up in roleplaying with his order, god, or peers as they find out. Otherwise maybe you should write up the moral dictates of classes with codes before hand. Though I'm curious if there was any real substance to his beliefs beyond what the druid class said, or how his class is connected to the setting.


cannen144 wrote:
N N 959 wrote:


Unfortunately that approach doesn't work. Reverence is not defined by the individual committing the act. It's defined by a reasonable person (druid) standard.

Except it's not. Reverence is defined as:

Dictionary.com wrote:


a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration.

Respect and veneration can only be determined based on actions. We know someone truly respects and venerates someone based on actions that are objectively indicative of respect and veneration.

Just because you believe respecting and venerating someone is demonstrated by shooting someone through the head, doesn't mean you respect and venerate someone. Your intentions don't define respect, your actions do as seen through the public eye.

The idea that how the druid feels determines whether they are reverent means there is no definition of reverence because anything someone does would be considered respectful as long as the person believed it was.


N N 959 wrote:
cannen144 wrote:
N N 959 wrote:


Unfortunately that approach doesn't work. Reverence is not defined by the individual committing the act. It's defined by a reasonable person (druid) standard.

Except it's not. Reverence is defined as:

Dictionary.com wrote:


a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration.

Respect and veneration can only be determined based on actions. We know someone truly respects and venerates someone based on actions that are objectively indicative of respect and veneration.

Just because you believe respecting and venerating someone is demonstrated by shooting someone through the head, doesn't mean you respect and venerate someone. Your intentions don't define respect, your actions do as seen through the public eye.

The idea that how the druid feels determines whether they are reverent means there is no definition of reverence because anything someone does would be considered respectful as long as the person believed it was.

Except the why is just as important as the how.

If someone respects someone because they're told they're supposed to, that isn't veneration, that's obedience. If someone respects someone in a way you disagree with, but they do it out of genuine respect, that is veneration. You don't get to decide for someone else how they revere someone or something.
And for a druid, that could mean they revere nature in its aspect as a bringer of death and suffering.
Now if you want to rule that at your table, druids can't revere nature and cause an animal suffering at the same time, then fine. But if you are going to start telling people that your interpretation is the only correct interpretation, that is not okay, just like it wouldn't be okay for me to tell someone that my interpretation is the only correct one.


cannen144 wrote:


Except the why is just as important as the how.

No, it's not. If, in your heart, you hate me, but your whole life you treat me with respect and veneration, then you've treated me with respect and veneration.

If in your heart, you love and respect me, but you beat me and abuse me, then you've disrespected and have not venerated me.

Quote:
If someone respects someone because they're told they're supposed to, that isn't veneration, that's obedience.

To show veneration and respect requires obedience to a type of conduct that is indicative of veneration and respect.

Quote:
If someone respects someone in a way you disagree with, but they do it out of genuine respect, that is veneration.

Demonstrably false. If your idea of respect is slapping someone in the face, it's irrelevant that you think this is veneration. It's not. Your definition is irrelevant. The terms are defined based on an objective set of behavior. There are acts that are objectively respectful and there are acts that are objectively disrespectful. The community that you live in is what determine what those acts are. That is why respect and veneration are based on the public/communal concepts of what it is to respect and venerate someone, not your individual misconceptions.

Quote:
You don't get to decide for someone else how they revere someone or something.

As the GM, I absolutely do get to decide. And I evaluate you based on your actions, not on your intentions when you act. And that's exactly why the court system employs the reasonable person standard, so that people that have a legal duty or obligation to others can't weasel out of it by claiming they thought stealing all their client's money was the best way to help their client.

Quote:
And for a druid, that could mean they revere nature in its aspect as a bringer of death and suffering.

No, druids are not bringers of death and suffering. It's not their job to intervene for nature and judge the forest. Their jobs is to protect their lands from outsiders. Blight druids are an exception because they worship nature "corrupted" and even their ethos is not about suffering. Blight druids aren't chartered to make animals suffer. They just like it when things die and rot and the land lays barren. The Dark Side of nature, as it were.

Quote:
But if you are going to start telling people that your interpretation is the only correct interpretation, that is not okay, just like it wouldn't be okay for me to tell someone that my interpretation is the only correct one.

I'm providing people with a framework that makes sense and is consistent with the rules of the game. People can do what they want. But telling people that the druid gets to decide how they revere nature is not consistent with the rules of the game and results in essentially zero actual requirement to revere nature. If you as the GM are going to let the player rationalize every action, then you should just dispense with the requirement because it's a waste of everyone's time.

The entire point of these types of classes is to operate within the box. The concept that all druids, evil and good, subscribe to a cohesive feelings and approach to nature enriches the game. It's a powerful idea that evil and good druids agree on nature. The idea that every druid can do what he or she wants undermines the class concept because it essentially means that there is no code of conduct. An objective sets of rules regarding nature is what binds the druids together, regardless of alignment.

You think druids should be able to use bunnies to blow up traps...knock yourself out.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Quote:
If someone respects someone in a way you disagree with, but they do it out of genuine respect, that is veneration.
Demonstrably false. If your idea of respect is slapping someone in the face, it's irrelevant that you think this is veneration. It's not. Your definition is irrelevant. The terms are defined based on an objective set of behavior. There are acts that are objectively respectful and there are acts that are objectively disrespectful. The community that you live in is what determine what those acts are. That is why respect and veneration are based on the public/communal concepts of what it is to respect and venerate someone, not your individual misconceptions.

Actually no, respect is very much a personal and subjective concept. Respect is dependent on both the subject and the actor. If a person decides that spitting in visitors eyes is respectful, that doesn't mean someone else is going to find it respectful. Hell, if an entire group decides something is respectful, but someone else disagrees, that person isn't required to feel respected.

Quote:
Quote:
You don't get to decide for someone else how they revere someone or something.
As the GM, I absolutely do get to decide. And I evaluate you based on your actions, not on how your intentions when you act. And that's exactly why the court system employs the reasonable person standard, so that people that have a legal duty or obligation to others can't weasel out of it by claiming they thought stealing all this money was the best way to help their client.

As a GM, I also get to decide. See, that argument is functionally useless when you are using a qualification that absolutely anyone can claim. And as for the standards of a court of law, they are irrelevant. We are not in a court of law.

And like I said, at your table, rule how you want. But don't go and say that everyone has to rule that way and that they are wrong for ruling otherwise. One of the key tenets of Pathfinder is that everything is subject to table variation, regardless of what anyone not at any given table says.


cannen144 wrote:


Actually no, respect is very much a personal and subjective concept. Respect is dependent on both the subject and the actor. If a person decides that spitting in visitors eyes is respectful, that doesn't mean someone else is going to find it respectful. Hell, if an entire group decides something is respectful, but someone else disagrees, that person isn't required to feel respected.

You're conflating two independent concepts: being respectful and feeling respected.

We aren't talking about whether the druid feels respected. We aren't talking about how anyone feels. We're talking about whether the druids actions are consistent with revering nature.

Quote:
As a GM, I also get to decide. See, that argument is functionally useless when you are using a qualification that absolutely anyone can claim.

It's not useless. The point is that the GM decides whether any course of actions is consistent with revering nature, not the player.

Quote:
And as for the standards of a court of law, they are irrelevant. We are not in a court of law.

I am not talking about "standards" I'm talking about how one adjudicates this as a GM. Courts use this system because it works, because it's fair, because it makes sense and doesn't result in arbitrary and ridiculous outcomes that would result if we judged things based on how the individual felt about their own actions.

Quote:
And like I said, at your table, rule how you want. But don't go and say that everyone has to rule that way and that they are wrong for ruling otherwise.

This is the rules forum. The entire point of these forums is do try and decide what is right and wrong within the context of the rules. If you don't like that type of discussion, then you are in the wrong forum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:


This is the rules forum. The entire point of these forums is do try and decide what is right and wrong within the context of the rules. If you don't like that type of discussion, then you are in the wrong forum.

In the context of the rules the druid's code is deliberately devoid of any actual meaning because while druids need to have a code to satisfy the grognards, codes of conduct are f#@~ing stupid in the context of a game. They do not work for balance. They close off perfectly legitimate character concepts. And they give abusive GMs with chips on their shoulders an excuse to screw over their players. All of these make the game less fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
cannen144 wrote:


Quote:
And like I said, at your table, rule how you want. But don't go and say that everyone has to rule that way and that they are wrong for ruling otherwise.

This is the rules forum. The entire point of these forums is do try and decide what is right and wrong within the context of the rules. If you don't like that type of discussion, then you are in the wrong forum.

Fine, if you'd like to discuss rules then here, let's use the example of the Uskwood druid, from the Inner Sea NPC codex:

Inner Sea NPC Codex wrote:


Inside the shadowed, silent reaches of the Uskwood Forest in Nidal, albino druids watch for intruders and enforce the natural order as they see it. These “pale ones,” as those who live near the Uskwood all them, serve the majesty of the Midnight Lord, Zon-Kuthon. Sworn and bonded to the Uskwood’s bleak power, they celebrate the inevitable pain and death inherent to the natural order. To live is to know suffering, and the druids of the Uskwood ensure that any intruders in their forest know the full measure of pain.
...
An Uskwood druid who wins such a battle captures and shackles the animal companion of his slain rival, keeping the creature alive for as long as possible but never freeing it or giving it any release from its suffering.

(emphasis mine)

Uskwood Druid|Archives of Nethys
Here we have an NPC, created by Paizo, using the rules of the system, which specifically indicates a druid, not an ex-druid, that is able to, by virtue of their nature as a current druid, revere nature through the infliction of pain and suffering.
This serves as an example, again, by Paizo, of a druid that could conceivably use the tactics that OP mentions without losing their status as a druid.

Liberty's Edge

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Am I the only one on this thread that actually lives with a cat?

Animals torture other animals all the time. Cats, in particular, are notorious for killing animals simply "for funsies," and something like 50% of their kills are neither eaten nor presented to their owners -- they're simply left to rot.

Even dolphins kill not only other animals for no apparent reason, but also their own kind.

"Nature red in tooth and claw" is not a joke. The joke is to think that a druid must give a hamster turd what happens to any particular animal. "Nature," after all, is what put that chipmunk in front of that alley cat. If the chipmunk didn't want to die horribly, it should have paid more attention to what was going on.

I want to point out that well feed cats "kill for funsies" and "leave the body to rot".

The cat hind brain say: "You must hunt 10 times to catch 2 targets, what you need to survive" and the cat obey. But when it get its prey his stomach say "I am full, no need to eat" so the cat release the prey.
But then it see the prey running and its hind brain start again: "Prey running catch it" and the cycle restart, until the prey dies and is left to rot as the cat don't need to eat.

It is nothing about funnies or not funnies, it is about instinctual reaction to seeing a prey combined with a full stomach.

The writer of that post had the right information but gave a very anthropocentric interpretation to them.

Liberty's Edge

Orfamay Quest wrote:
GM_Beernorg wrote:
Nature is harsh, nature is brutal, nature is however not cruel or evil, as those are motivating factors that animals do not have. The chimps do indeed kill for food, and fight for territory, but such is the struggle of nature, the cycle of predator and prey, often not pretty, and never "nice", but neither is hunting or killing in nature malicious. There is no life without death.

But in a broad sense, the druid who uses animals to spring traps is also simply killing for survival. As a human, she has a greater understanding of survival needs than most animals, and she understands that traps can kill you just as dead as food or lack of territory.

An animal that puts itself in front of a hungry predator is unfortunate, but, as you put it, "there is no life without death" -- and this applies if the predator is a sentient humanoid as well as another animal. But an animal that puts itself in front of a sentient humanoid that needs a way to spring a trap is equally unfortunate -- but again, "there is no life without death."

Revering nature in the abstract does not require that I treat any of nature's specific products with any specific regard. If I am the apex predator, I can take what I wish from nature to fill my needs, because that's the natural role of an apex predator. The lion does not ask the antelope if it wants to be killed, and the antelopes as a whole are even benefitted by having the slow and weak removed from their herds. I'm doing the antelope population a favor by removing the ones with weak Will saves as well.

Granted. My druid will not do it with a controlled animal. But he is NG.

With a summoned one that will not die or suffer permanent injury? It would depend on the situation.

Using animals isn't failing to revere nature. A druid is using them constantly. What he eat? What is used to make his garments and armor?

Over using would be not revering nature, but that is vastly different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:


This is the rules forum. The entire point of these forums is do try and decide what is right and wrong within the context of the rules. If you don't like that type of discussion, then you are in the wrong forum.

Since the people you are discussing with have not pointed this out I will. You are exercising a double standard in requiring your debate opponents to stick to rules arguments when you yourself have not done so.

Your arguments have been:

1) Moral/philosophical - You argue that if one holds sincere reverence in their heart but acts irreverently then they are irreverent. However, the rules do not address whether the reverence required of druids is in attitude or action. That is your assertion.

2) Universality of Respectful Behavior - You argue that because some actions, e.g. a slap in the face, are universally considered irreverent that all actions are, therefore, reverent or irreverent regardless of culture. Again this is something the rules don't address and is demonstrably false. In some Muslim cultures showing someone the sole of your shoe is considered extremely irreverent but that is not universally true. Belching at the table is in some cultures a sign of respect and in other cultures is considered rude.

3) Real World Legal - That the GM should use a legal standard used in real world courts to judge a character's actions. This standard is once again not derived from the rules and in fact cannot be used in a fantasy rpg because it is much more difficult to determine how reasonable people in a world vastly different from our own would reasonably behave. A good example is that in our world regardless of the actions of the adults in a culture it is universally considered immoral to kill the children simply because they may grow up to be like their parents. However, that is far less clear when you are talking about goblins and goblin children. Real world standards are not suitable for adjudicating in game actions.

So not only have your arguments been outside of the rules but they have also been fallacious.

Liberty's Edge

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
"Allies to beast" completely shuts down any rationale that druids are free to dominate wild animals and use them as mine sweapers.
Depends on how you use your allies. Also, you aren't using rules text, so, yeah, this is completely pointless. Your entire argument hinges on the flavor blurb.

Let's expand a bit that citation:

PRD wrote:


Allies to beasts and manipulators of nature,

It seem that the expanded citation give a good rationale for the druids to dominate wild animals and use them as mine sweapers.


Diego Rossi wrote:
It seem that the expanded citation give a good rationale for the druids to dominate wild animals and use them as mine sweapers.

Casting Entangle makes you a "manipulator of nature."


I know its part and parcel of the world Pathfinder has created, but I always find it very amusing when people try and assign human morality to nature.


cannen144 wrote:


Inner Sea NPC Codex wrote:


Inside the shadowed, silent reaches of the Uskwood Forest in Nidal, albino druids watch for intruders and enforce the natural order as they see it. These “pale ones,” as those who live near the Uskwood all them, serve the majesty of the Midnight Lord, Zon-Kuthon. Sworn and bonded to the Uskwood’s bleak power, they celebrate the inevitable pain and death inherent to the natural order. To live is to know suffering, and the druids of the Uskwood ensure that any intruders in their forest know the full measure of pain.
...
An Uskwood druid who wins such a battle captures and shackles the animal companion of his slain rival, keeping the creature alive for as long as possible but never freeing it or giving it any release from its suffering.

(emphasis mine)

Uskwood Druid|Archives of Nethys
Here we have an NPC, created by Paizo, using the rules of the system, which specifically indicates a druid, not an ex-druid, that is able to, by virtue of their nature as a current druid, revere nature through the infliction of pain and suffering.
This serves as an example, again, by Paizo, of a druid that could conceivably use the tactics that OP mentions without losing their status as a druid.

You seemed to overlook that this druid causes pain and suffering to "intruders" and the animal companions of its rivals. So no, this druid does not dominate wild animals and blow them up to avoid traps based on what you've quoted.


IMO:

How one treats the "venerate" nature portion of the oath is more dependent on the potion of their alignment that is not Neutral.

LN = Nature has an order, follow it.
LG = Respect life and try not to harm it.
CN = Nature is unrestrained, like a wild fire.
NE = Nature is uncaring, do what you will it will not care.


N N 959 wrote:
cannen144 wrote:


Inner Sea NPC Codex wrote:


Inside the shadowed, silent reaches of the Uskwood Forest in Nidal, albino druids watch for intruders and enforce the natural order as they see it. These “pale ones,” as those who live near the Uskwood all them, serve the majesty of the Midnight Lord, Zon-Kuthon. Sworn and bonded to the Uskwood’s bleak power, they celebrate the inevitable pain and death inherent to the natural order. To live is to know suffering, and the druids of the Uskwood ensure that any intruders in their forest know the full measure of pain.
...
An Uskwood druid who wins such a battle captures and shackles the animal companion of his slain rival, keeping the creature alive for as long as possible but never freeing it or giving it any release from its suffering.

(emphasis mine)

Uskwood Druid|Archives of Nethys
Here we have an NPC, created by Paizo, using the rules of the system, which specifically indicates a druid, not an ex-druid, that is able to, by virtue of their nature as a current druid, revere nature through the infliction of pain and suffering.
This serves as an example, again, by Paizo, of a druid that could conceivably use the tactics that OP mentions without losing their status as a druid.

You seemed to overlook that this druid causes pain and suffering to "intruders" and the animal companions of its rivals. So no, this druid does not dominate wild animals and blow them up to avoid traps based on what you've quoted.

It does not perfectly map to the situation, admittedly, but it does provide an example of a druid who acts as an agent of nature through the application of pain and suffering, while still remaining a druid. This lays the ground work for using animals as trap-finders, arguably.


OldSkoolRPG wrote:


1) Moral/philosophical - You argue that if one holds sincere reverence in their heart but acts irreverently then they are irreverent. However, the rules do not address whether the reverence required of druids is in attitude or action. That is your assertion.

When things are not defined within the game, then we use the real world definition. For the game to determine whether a druid ceases to revere nature, the GM must use the player's actions. There is no other logical way to do it. There is no other fair way to do it.

Quote:
2) Universality of Respectful Behavior - You argue that because some actions, e.g. a slap in the face, are universally considered irreverent that all actions are, therefore, reverent or irreverent regardless of culture.

Wrong. I did not say regardless of culture. Concocting bogus statements and then attributing them to me is bad faith arguing. I explicitly stated that reverent actions are based on one's community.

Quote:
3) Real World Legal - That the GM should use a legal standard used in real world courts to judge a character's actions. This standard is once again not derived from the rules and in fact cannot be used in a fantasy rpg because it is much more difficult to determine how reasonable people in a world vastly different from our own would reasonably behave.

You're entitled to your opinion, but now you're just making stuff up. What's amusing about your attempt at a logical argument is that GMs are required to role play fantastical races throughout the game. GMs are constantly required to determine how NPCs will act given certain situations. Pretending that a GM can't adjudicate how a reasonable druid would act with regard to the forest is simply a transparent attempt on your part to argue for the sake of arguing.

Quote:
However, that is far less clear when you are talking about goblins and goblin children. Real world standards are not suitable for adjudicating in game actions.

Your confusing morals with methods for adjudicating moral behavior. Two completely different discussions.


cannen144 wrote:
It does not perfectly map to the situation, admittedly, but it does provide an example of a druid who acts as an agent of nature through the application of pain and suffering, while still remaining a druid. This lays the ground work for using animals as trap-finders, arguably.

No it doesn't. This class specifically targets intruders and enemy companions. That's not even in the ball park of using wild animals as mine sweepers. What your'e trying to do is focus on the bit about pain and suffering and rationalize that if this druid can cause pain and suffering to anyone or to another animal, then why not wild animals? Why not? Because the rules specifically say who is targeted. Causing pain and suffering to others is what makes the druid evil. But evil druids are not absolved from revering nature.

The way I read the rules, the reverence to nature is what binds all druids. If you want to ignore/undermine the importance of this fundamental aspect of the class, that's entirely your prerogative.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
KestrelZ wrote:

Basically - torturing animals is evil, using them as minesweepers when there are alternatives is usually evil. Is it against the druidic code? That's more complex than what a forum post could answer. To play devils advocate -

Neutral Evil druids are a thing. They aren't nice. They will harm others for profit, advantage, and maybe even entertainment. That is what defines evil. They will torture animals. They just might not torture specific animals they are attached to (animal companions, etc.). Same goes for people, they will torture people, just not ones they are attached to.

No, this is wrong. You and others are making a fundamental mistake about evil and how it would manifests with a druid. Above all else is a druid's bond and passion for nature. Evil druids are no more going to harm wild animals than they would burn down their own forest.

You're mistake is that you think evil is the same in everyone. It's not. The evil that a demon would do is not the same evil that a devil would do or an evil dwarf or an evil human or an evil druids. There are lines an evil druid won't cross because their requirement to revere nature creates a boundary they won't cross.

Arguing that an evil druid will treat animals and plants as callously as an evil human will treat other humans is to completely not understand the point of the druidic code.

Would like to stop you right here, I am still reading throug this post and am only on the second page, but in regards to buringing down their own forest, a druid would do that.

Read up on the stonewilds of the worldwound, the druids there not only petrified their own forest, in turn destroying nature and killing all wildlife, but were also turned into undead druids who still have all their powers but kill anything and anyone to enter in order to protect the druidic stones. So druids would destroy nature if it served the greater good.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

He is useing the druids of uskwood as an example of Druids can torture animals and inflict pain and suffering upon them without losing their powers or not revering nature.

The druids of uskwood only do this against intruders, but that is a second point and irrelevant of the fact that they can and will torture animals and not break the druid code.


Shadowlords wrote:

He is useing the druids of uskwood as an example of Druids can torture animals and inflict pain and suffering upon them without losing their powers or not revering nature.

The druids of uskwood only do this against intruders, but that is a second point and irrelevant of the fact that they can and will torture animals and not break the druid code.

No, that's not what the text he quoted says. It specifically and explicitly says the "animal companion" of "rivals". A specific and unambiguous category that does not include wild animals in your area.

And more to the point, what any specific group of druids can do does not open the door for that activity to all druids. Specific trumps general. Just because one specific order of Paladins are allowed to lie or cheat or steal does not mean all of them are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Druids, the next frontier of Paladin arguments.

Yep prepare for 2016 the year of "Does the party Druid fall?" threads! Coming soon to a forum near you.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Also now that i have finished reading this entire thread. Very interesting and entertaining.

N N you seem to have a certain view of druids and how they work and that's fine. but you also ignore or reword other examples of druids to suite your own view and to try to discredit other peoples views. That is a dangerous approach, many people have different ways to interpret rules and flavor. Strictly saying people are wrong because it does not fit your view does not make them wrong, they have a different philosophy then you and have read different works or have different information then you.

the two primary examples of druids from the pathfinder verse that do not fit in well with your view of druids are:

The Druids of Uskwood: they torture and bring pain to animals, it does not really matter these animals were intruders, they still will torture and let them suffer for no reason other for them to suffer

The Druids of the Stonewilds: These Druids destroyed their forest by turning it all to stone, which in turn destroyed nature. They did this to stop the demons from getting their hands on ancient druid knowledge and power the lay within the forest. A side effect of this is they turned into sibreas undead druids. they still have all their powers and are not ex druids but are evil and kill any one and anything that enter plants animals humans demons.

these are just 2 examples of druids from just the pathfinder world who do not fit perfectly into your view of druids, so it not unreasonable to assume druids can be of many different philosophies on what revering nature is and it can be as far stretched as any persona in the game.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:

He is useing the druids of uskwood as an example of Druids can torture animals and inflict pain and suffering upon them without losing their powers or not revering nature.

The druids of uskwood only do this against intruders, but that is a second point and irrelevant of the fact that they can and will torture animals and not break the druid code.

No, that's not what the text he quoted says. It specifically and explicitly says the "animal companion" of "rivals". A specific and unambiguous category that does not include wild animals in your area.

And more to the point, what any specific group of druids can do does not open the door for that activity to all druids. Specific trumps general. Just because one specific order of Paladins are allowed to lie or cheat or steal does not mean all of them are.

But your druid is a specific druid that can be part of your own specific druid group, maybe that group does torture animals. you are not generic druid #7 you are your own druid with your own story and your own reasoning and your own philosophy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:

He is useing the druids of uskwood as an example of Druids can torture animals and inflict pain and suffering upon them without losing their powers or not revering nature.

The druids of uskwood only do this against intruders, but that is a second point and irrelevant of the fact that they can and will torture animals and not break the druid code.

No, that's not what the text he quoted says. It specifically and explicitly says the "animal companion" of "rivals". A specific and unambiguous category that does not include wild animals in your area.

And more to the point, what any specific group of druids can do does not open the door for that activity to all druids. Specific trumps general.

Animal companions are still animals...

Kind of strange logic that you aren't supposed to harm animals but an animal in the service of one who reveres nature is fair game to be brutally killed.

Those Druids weren't specific until after the craziness happened. A bunch of completely normal Druids did something that you would say would make them Ex-Druids and are still Druids.

So Paizo believes there are cases where Druids can do things that look like they are not revering nature in one aspect as long as they justify the reasons as revering a different aspect of nature.

I am inclined to believe the developers have a more conducive and enjoyable opinion of what Druids can do than yours.

151 to 200 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Is it against a druids code to torture animals? All Messageboards