Here's the scenario. My druid's party is investigating an underground cavern full of corrupted animals and plants. They eventually traced the source of the corruption to a large oak tree in the cavern. The tree itself looked normal from the outside, but the GM described it as looking "stressed." My druid flew up into its branches and attempted to use "speak with plants" on the tree to determine the story of the area and find out what was harming the tree.
Instantly upon touching the tree, the GM had me make a fortitude save, which she failed, and she took 1d6 (5 points) of constitution damage (her con is only 10) and 25 points of other damage, reducing her to about 1/3 of her hit points. He described the attack as the tree attempting to suck the soul out of my druid's body.
Well, my druid flew away from the tree and told the party to attack and kill the tree.
Our cleric player insisted that a druid would never attack a tree, and that this was completely out of character for a druid. I disagreed strongly, pointing out that druids were all about balance and that this tree was clearly an evil, corrupted blight on the earth, not a "tree" at all. Trees don't suck your souls out through your nostrils. The branches had several skeletons in them so it was clear that sucking the souls from things was its primary means of sustenance.
Anyway, the tree turned out to be nearly invulnerable to any attack we could do on it (including fire) and we have since moved on to look for other ways to fight the corruption, but the issue of whether my druid acted inappropriately has not been resolved.
Just for the sake of argument, my druid is lawful neutral, if that has any bearing.
Not at all -- the thing is corrupting animals and other planets.
In this case druids would be extremely interested in getting rid of it.
Just like they would want to stop a rampaging fungus from completely destroying a forest.
Cycle and balance also includes the death of things, and protecting the cycle itself -- if destroying this 'tree' will prevent the further spread of contamination then the druid is actually obligated (in my opinion) to do so, since it plainly isn't natural (in an even bigger sense than many things).
That was exactly my argument. Thanks.
And besides, when it comes to plant and animal issues, a druid doesn't have to answer for his actions to (condescending air) NON-druids (/condescending air).
J/K of course. What Abe said rings true. I'm surprised another PC even called your druid on it frankly.
I agree with Abraham.
Pshaw, all Druids should have to make Will saves or be forced to hug the nearest tree.
His main argument was that my druid's immediate reaction to a corrupted tree would be to seek for some way to heal the tree and restore it to normal, not to attack and kill it.
My argument is that my druid is lawful neutral, not chaotic good, and that trees die all the time. My druid is no vegetarian. She understands the circle of life and appreciates that death is part of life. She kills things all the time. In fact, she sort of enjoys fighting and killing things in the name of natural law and balance. This is a well established aspect of her nature and has been for a long time.
She's also a very young druid, and is somewhat naive and self-conscious, especially when hanging around with axe-weilding dwarven clerics. She tends to overreact to situations like this and it is not uncommon for her initial approach to a situation to be a violent one. Again, this is well established in her character. She's got issues, and one way for her to cope is to unleash her inner frustrations and anger on targets she feels are in need of a beating.
For some reason the cleric's player just seemed to feel that druids would not attack a tree, even though we were at that moment looking for a corrupted treant upon whom we had already planned our first attack. I feel she was both justified and in character in attacking the tree.
Pshaw, all Druids should have to make Will saves or be forced to hug the nearest tree.
LOL, One thing my druid could never be accused of is being a hippy tree hugger....
You attack and kill other dangerous natural and unnatural things, I don't see why a tree should get special treatment.
Developer
|
When looking at a forest as a whole, triage is completely viable, especially if you're neutral. Real herbalists would do this. You quarantine and destroy corruption. Some might save it, but it's not evil or somehow against nature... in fact there's nothing more natural than triage. Kill one diseased entity to save the many. The same way a herd shuns and rejects diseased members, or they die by predator. Sacrifice the few to save the many.
You don't get more LN than utilitarianism. Your actions seem perfectly druidic, and perfectly in line with how you described your character.
Your GM doesn't get to say what your character would do in a situation. Heck, you can even break your code if you're willing to accept an atonement (though you clearly don't need one)(do druids ever even need atonement in PFRPG... only played one in 3.5?). There is no "you would have done this." You are not an NPC. You cannot be told what to do.
Heck it isn't even the GM -- I wouldn't worry about it unless the GM says something -- if he hasn't you are all good and don't really have to explain yourself.
On what basis is the other player so intimately familiar with your character as to know what they would do in a given situation? It sounds like they`re dictating how they feel you should play, which is absurd. A completely valid and coherent character concept could be a Paladin who may in fact break his vows at certain points, and that is consistent with his character. Do they also claim to know better than you on whether your character prefers vanilla or chocolate ice cream?
Fact is, there is no Druid rule agaisnt killing trees, in fact you can chop down a completely healthy tree, there isn´t anything against that anywhere.
I would get together with some other players and agree to start discussing the Cleric character`s Worry Rating or something, in such a way that they feel it is actually an in-game mechanic that is fluctuating depending on this kind of stuff, yet don´t know exactly how it affects them (insinuate bad stuff). Maybe that`s a dorky kind of joke, but it`s really what they deserve. If they have a complaint that you aren´t role-playing a coherent personality and that is impeding on their game, that can be discussed, but second guessing what your character would do is patently absurd. Even if one accepts for arguments sake that such an action is against Druidom, how the f@#& do they know that your character isn´t coincidentally just about to become an ex-Druid?
Pshaw, all Druids should have to make Will saves or be forced to hug the nearest tree.
I've played with someone that treats them that way... O_o
Seriously though in my opinion a druid can cut down a normal tree as long as it's being used. Now burning down a forest because it's funny... well that's what Blighters are for.
Whoa! I didn't mean to suggest that this was any sort of major conflict or that the cleric's player and I have any unresolved issues. Quite the contrary, we are great friends and are almost always in synch with rulings.
He was just surprised when my druid told the party to kill the tree and out of game simply said that he didn't think a druid would do that. It wasn't any huge argument or anything, and I only posted it here because it is one of those rare times that we don't see eye-to-eye so I seriously considered the possibility that I might be the one who might be educated here.
But it seems the majority here (near unanimity in fact) say that my actions were completely in line with the druid concept and my character's personality.
So I'll just go tweak his nose a little now.
It's all good. He's a good guy and a great player. I certainly don't want anyone to get the notion that he's any sort of problem player. Quite the contrary, he's one of the best gamers I've ever played with.
Oh, and as to the question, why would the other player have such intimate knowledge about my character? Well, the answer to that is that he was the original GM for the campaign where my druid was created. We went to great lengths to create a unique race (the "drylf") for the character and we spent a lot of time working on the concept together. He really was pretty intimately involved in her creation, and I do value his opinion highly.
Usually. :-P
|
Developer
|
Heck it isn't even the GM -- I wouldn't worry about it unless the GM says something -- if he hasn't you are all good and don't really have to explain yourself.
I missed that it wasn't the GM. Yeah, that player can stop whining. He has absolutely 0 say. Tell him to roll his own druid if he wants it played like that.
Players like that really, really annoy me.
[edit]
Seems I misunderstood again. Yeah, if all it was concerned a small question, you were fine. I somehow read into it that he was one of those guys yelling "you wouldn't do that" at you across the table.
Not at all -- the thing is corrupting animals and other planets.
In this case druids would be extremely interested in getting rid of it.
Just like they would want to stop a rampaging fungus from completely destroying a forest.
Cycle and balance also includes the death of things, and protecting the cycle itself -- if destroying this 'tree' will prevent the further spread of contamination then the druid is actually obligated (in my opinion) to do so, since it plainly isn't natural (in an even bigger sense than many things).
I agree on all counts.
Heck it isn't even the GM -- I wouldn't worry about it unless the GM says something -- if he hasn't you are all good and don't really have to explain yourself.
+1
As a GM I say burn that *expletive deleted* down. The natural order is not spelled with "nice".
Heck it isn't even the GM -- I wouldn't worry about it unless the GM says something -- if he hasn't you are all good and don't really have to explain yourself.+1
As a GM I say burn that *expletive deleted* down. The natural order is not spelled with "nice".
"Whatever it is, it ain't natural. Let's burn it boys!"
|
You know what's healthy for forests from time to time?
(although that doesn't help in this specific case, that is something that should be pointed out to anyone that hurfdurfs about how druids would never EVER think of harming a plant or allowing one to come to harm. TO say nothing of one that attacks the souls of other beings....
Dealing with the merits of the action (i.e. apart from other players questioning the action),
and assuming a somewhat standard Fantasy Druidic ethos,
it rather depends on the nature of this tree IMHO.
if this is just some tree that nobody was aware of, but is apparently infected by something, and is threatening everything else around it, the simple, non-sentimental choice is to destroy it.
if it is some ur-tree which was already known, and was previously somehow the basis for supporting all the surrounding natural life, then destroying it means giving up on it`s life supporting role, and more effort might be expected into exploring how to cure it. but without that special role? not so much.
While this has little to nothing to do with your tree...
I did play a druid once who had a habit of punting cats. Of course my animal companion was a dog, and I was constantly trying to protect dogs or give them proper burials etc...
Anyway, the tree turned out to be nearly invulnerable to any attack we could do on it (including fire) and we have since moved on to look for other ways to fight the corruption, but the issue of whether my druid acted inappropriately has not been resolved.
You actually used Speak with plant. You, sir, are more druid than most of us!
Aa you said, the thing was corrupted. It was attempting to such your soul out. There's no problem in wanting to destroy the source of the corruption to bring back neutrality and peace to the forest. It's the same for destroying evil fey such as ones that appear in kingmaker and the scythe tree being a plant, but chaotic evil and takes pleasure in killing all other plants in it's path.
If it's a blight on the land in this reguard as that ancient corrupted oak is, then yes your druid acted perfectly in character. Hell, if your character didn't do that I'd suggest she was acting out of character for not giving a damn or still trying to communicate with it.
What, has the cleric never heard of managed forestry?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_forest_management
Modern day druids do this all the time. Gardeners have been doing it for two plus millennium. They call it "weeding."
You actually used Speak with plant. You, sir, are more druid than most of us!
Anyway, the tree turned out to be nearly invulnerable to any attack we could do on it (including fire) and we have since moved on to look for other ways to fight the corruption, but the issue of whether my druid acted inappropriately has not been resolved.
Well, I can't take too much credit. As I mentioned, we knew we were looking for a treant, and that the treant had been roaming around this underground area full of corrupted plants and animals. My druid had prepared "Detect Animals or Plants" with the specific intention of using it to locate the treant, and was then going to attempt to speak to the treant in plant privately to find out what was going on so had prepared "speak with plants" for that purpose. Upon encountering the Oak tree, and having been unable to locate the treant, it seemed reasonable that she would use the spell to talk to the tree. She doesn't normally prepare "speak with plants" in a 3rd level spell slot, this was a rather unique situation. We still haven't found the blasted treant.
I do not have a problem with a druid attacking a tree,
I seem to recall a bit of controversy
<<spoiler snipped>>
I see no problem with your PC acting the way you want your PC to act, in fact other players telling you what to do shuld result in - Rp XP....
Put that behind a spoiler tag, please! Some of us are playing Kingmaker and don't want the surprise ruined.
When looking at a forest as a whole, triage is completely viable, especially if you're neutral. Real herbalists would do this. You quarantine and destroy corruption. Some might save it, but it's not evil or somehow against nature... in fact there's nothing more natural than triage. Kill one diseased entity to save the many. The same way a herd shuns and rejects diseased members, or they die by predator. Sacrifice the few to save the many.
This. Druids don't have to be concerned for the life of every single plant and animal in the world. Trees are sacred, yes. They are not sacrosanct. Your druid doesn't know what the problem is with this tree, but it is certainly unnatural and dangerous. What if this spreads?
Trees are killed all the time: by disease; by fire; by humans harvesting wood; by parasites; floods. Your druid's reason for doing so is no more wrong than any of those others. The destruction of one twisted tree is certainly not against what a druid stands for: living in harmony with and reverence of the natural world.