Spoilage, just so's you know.
I know that druids are one of the best classes to have on hand for this AP becuase it's set in the untamed jungle of the Isle of Dread, but I was curious as to how other DMs have handled having one around.
The PC is a LN halfling druid who is a cannibal from the Amedio Jungle who's a big believer in the 'laws of nature'. That's not a big deal, really, and just adds to the roleplaying. However, I've noticed that several of the encounters that the party comes across in HTBM and TOD are just hungary or territorial animals that the party stumbles upon. A druid, IMHO, wouldn't just kill them outright and the player has been playing the druid that way as well.
When the hungary TRex came charging out of the jungle, the druid rolled so well on his wild empathy and what not that the TRex wound up leaving the party alone. This happened again with the Nest Mother of the terror birds and one of the random terror bird encounters. I gave the party full XP becuase they did handle the encounter well and did 'defeat' the monster, albeit without any bloodshed which I thought was apropriate for a team of druids. I haven't read all of TOD yet but I know the party fights several of the legendary monsters on the island. How have other DMs handled druids in those encounters? Did they end up killing the animals anyway? Would that make them lose their druid-ness or would that be lost by repeated slaughtering of animals?
Creative Director
|
Having a druid defuse encounters with dinosaurs is perfectly fine. Keep in mind, though, that like Diplomacy checks, wild empathy checks take a minute to use; if you do them as a full-round action, there's a –10 penalty to the check. Plus, the druid's gotta be within 30 feet of the target. And when a dinosaur's hungry, he's hostile; making it a pretty tough DC.
That all said... kill or be killed is what nature's all about. Druids are just as justified in killing animals as lions or tigers or bears are at killing animals. They wouldn't go hunting down animals to poach them or ship them to the city, of course, but there's nothing in the druid that says he must avoid killing animals. You can just as easilly be a druid who views himself as a top predator. Of course, animals he kills are probably done to provide food, but they can also be killed over territorial squabbles.
That makes sense, especially for a LN druid. But I don't think that a druid who knowingly invades another creature's territory really has the right to say that it was 'kill or be killed' time, mostly becuase he was the invader on the animals territory. On the other hand, though, a speak with animals spell could rectify the matter quite quickly with good results on the wild empathy/diplomacy checks.
Thanks for the quick response, James. I've been thinking about this problem for a while and appreciate the clarity.
That makes sense, especially for a LN druid. But I don't think that a druid who knowingly invades another creature's territory really has the right to say that it was 'kill or be killed' time, mostly becuase he was the invader on the animals territory. On the other hand, though, a speak with animals spell could rectify the matter quite quickly with good results on the wild empathy/diplomacy checks.
Thanks for the quick response, James. I've been thinking about this problem for a while and appreciate the clarity.
Hmm, kill or be killed - "survival of the fittest" ? One of the prime laws of nature, as far as I know...
A good/capable druid should realize when he is entering the territory of another predator ( they tend to mark their hunting grounds ) , and.... well, if the resident predator objects (he likely will, faced with a humble halfling, nothing really to be afraid of at first glance, and therefore something toestablish dominance over )....
So, if the druid might have moral qualms or ethical issues, perhaps he should not enter said area or check twice if carefully if he does ?
As for "speak with animals" - I have the nagging suspiciaon that the sole thing going through the T-Rex's head - if spoken too - will be "oh, nice, talking food !" as he chomps down... Their INT-score is not that big, while their appetites are =)
I'm currently playing a Druid with a Porpoise companion. Granted, he was USELESS fighting on the Blue Nixie, but hey, i'm sure he'll serve some use, somewhere.
As he lived in Sasserine for his entire life, however, I'm gonna play him so he knows little about 'real nature', only the sheltered style he gets. He ventured into the jungle at one point, but never got very far. So, the Isle of Dread will be surprising to him...
I don't see druids as being PETA-types. They are for protecting nature's bounty and balance, so they would be opposed to actions that destroy the natural environment (excessive logging, pollution, cutting an unnecessary road through an old-growth forest, overhunting or overfishing). Killing wild creatures for subsistence or self-defense is perfectly within the bounds of druid values--druids might even oversee hunting rituals that emphasize the spiritual side of that activity and encourage hunters to respect their quarry and ensure that its spirit passes on to its next incarnation peacefully, to thank the nature deities for providing them food, not to kill wantonly or cruelly, etc.
As far as awarding XP for defusing a run-in with an animal by wild empathy, I think that is absolutely correct. Only in video games do you get XP only for the kill. I always define "victory" situationally--I think whether the objective of the encounter is self-defense, putting the enemy to flight, protection of some valuable person or site, or successfully negotiating an agreement of some sort, and award XP if that objective is reached. Sometimes I'll even dock some of the XP for a kill if the kill was obviously detrimental to the PCs accomplishing their goals and they knew that ahead of time.
I also don't see druids as PETA types but I also can't quite justify just killing one of the top preadators in a habitat becuase the humanoids of the region want it dead. Such actions are severely detrimental to the balance of the ecosystem and can lead to a growth in second tier feeders (herbivores like deer or large dinosaurs, depending on where you are) that could eventually really mess up the balance of herbivore-carnivore in the ecosystem, which a druid would recognize. Many of the 'legendary' creatures play vital roles in maintaining the populations of herbivores on the Isle, which is a completely isolated ecosystem.
I could see a druid justifying the killing the Emerald Anaconda, for example, by stating that this is now part of the humanoid's territory. But, such thinking can be applied to justifying the Isle of Dread Shopping Mall and Suburban Homes Project as well.
This train of thought has been running around in my head for a while. Thanks for the feedback!