Druid Abuse of Animal Companion


Advice

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I dont think there is a wrong way to roleplay a class , even the one with restrictions. Explain the character you want to play and the way you want to play it. No one can tell me im playing a character that I invented wrong. BTW , in RL I love animals. I have 5 dogs and treat them all very well. Beter in most cases then humans.


Tagion wrote:
here correct. I bow before your superiour opinions.

Well, it's about time.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
See, here you're establishing that you're unwilling to see two sides to an issue -- which is your right when you're the DM. The DM absolutely has the right to put his foot down. But the time to bridge the gap between your ideas of what's required and the player's ideas of the same is in advance. Letting him know after the fact that you hold him to standards ten times more restrictive than he envisioned isn't the way to do it.

Just as the paladin is explained in the PFRB, so is the druid. Druids who don't treat their animal companions properly are clearly out of line with the druid as described in the PFRB.

If you want to play a class that gets a pet and can abuse them at leisure, play a World of Warcraft Hunter. Druids in Pathfinder are expected to treat their animal companions with respect and compassion.

I don't see how there is debate on this point.


Madclaw wrote:
Kobold Cleaver is correct.

And we're back to square one.


Tagion wrote:
No one can tell me im playing a character that I invented wrong.

That depends. If the character you invented is a 1st level fighter, and you insist that you're casting meteor swarm, then you ARE playing it wrong, because 1st level fighters don't have that ability.

The restrictions on druids and paladins are a bit less well-defined, which means you need to establish in advance with the DM what is expected. There might have to be some compromise there. Your sense of entitlement as a player is important, but it's not more important than the DM and the other players.


brassbaboon wrote:

Just as the paladin is explained in the PFRB, so is the druid. Druids who don't treat their animal companions properly are clearly out of line with the druid as described in the PFRB.

I don't see how there is debate on this point.

Because the restrictions are NOT clearly spelled out; they're open to interpretation. Often, the DM interperets them far more strictly than the player does, which means the DM's personal interpretation needs to be spelled out, in detail, in advance.

See the paladin example above.


brassbaboon wrote:
Tagion wrote:
here correct. I bow before your superiour opinions.
Well, it's about time.

Well whatever , no where in the book does it say I cant kick and abuse my animal companions. RAW it doesnt matter what I do I can get a new one. Revere nature is a term open to interpitation. I can choose any single method I like as long as I can explain it away in my "fluff". If animals are so smart then why do they choose to stay with abusive owers anyway. There are tons of cases where the state steps in and take animal from homes like that.

On topic - Talk to your player out of game and let him know what you expect. Go from there.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
brassbaboon wrote:
Druids who don't protect and buff up their animal companions, and allow them to die callously will get their druid powers revoked in my campaigns. Just like a paladin would if they didn't follow their code.

Please don't tell me you're THAT DM? You know, this one:

DM: "The orcs attack you!"
Paladin: "I fight back!"
DM: "The orcs are all slain. And, by the way, you're no longer a paladin. I'm taking away all your powers because you didn't specify nonlethal damage and an attempt to convert them, nor did you hold your actions every round to be sure they were going to continue attacking."

The problem isn't as much with the requirements as with the fact the player doesn't know in advance what's expected of him. I'm assuming you're not that guy. Still, with this animal companion issue, it's easy to be that way.

Heh, no I'm not that guy. In fact I've never punished a paladin or druid for their behavior in game. But no paladin or druid in any of my campaigns has ever told their animal companion to submerge themselves in sewage so I could climb over his back, either. And I don't think one ever would because I do work with players about their character concepts, and when one plays a class that has Pathfinder rules which clearly describe class expectations, I make sure they know what those expectations are. And in the case described by the OP, I not only would have made the druid make handle animal checks, I would have set some conditional modifiers to the DC to make it clear that the animal not only didn't want to do it, but that the animal is the druid's COMPANION, not SLAVE.

That's how I roll.


Tagion wrote:
Well whatever , no where in the book does it say I cant kick and abuse my animal companions. RAW it doesnt matter what I do I can get a new one.

RAW doesn't say you can't shoot laser beams out of your eyes, either, but it's strongly implied. If you claim that ability, you have to be able to convince the DM and the other players that it's legitimate. You can't just claim it and tell them to go to hell.


Tagion wrote:
brassbaboon wrote:
Tagion wrote:
here correct. I bow before your superiour opinions.
Well, it's about time.

Well whatever , no where in the book does it say I cant kick and abuse my animal companions. RAW it doesnt matter what I do I can get a new one. Revere nature is a term open to interpitation. I can choose any single method I like as long as I can explain it away in my "fluff". If animals are so smart then why do they choose to stay with abusive owers anyway. There are tons of cases where the state steps in and take animal from homes like that.

On topic - Talk to your player out of game and let him know what you expect. Go from there.

Oh, darn. You were being sarcastic before. Shoot. :)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Tagion wrote:
Well whatever , no where in the book does it say I cant kick and abuse my animal companions. RAW it doesnt matter what I do I can get a new one.
RAW doesn't say you can't shoot laser beams out of your eyes, either, but it's strongly implied. If you claim that ability, you have to be able to convince the DM and the other players that it's legitimate. You can't just claim it and tell them to go to hell.

Thats true , a first level fighter cant shoot laser beams because there are no rules saying they can. There is a rule though for me replacing a pet when it dies or I feel like getting rid of itor just plain having dinner.


brassbaboon wrote:
Heh, no I'm not that guy.

Yeah, I figured you weren't, but some of your posts were leaning in that direction.

brassbaboon wrote:
...Pathfinder rules which clearly describe class expectations

That's the thing -- I don't find them at all clear. Apparently neither does Tagion, although, as stated, I think he goes too far in the direction of purposely trying to flaunt them.


Tagion wrote:
Thats true , a first level fighter cant shoot laser beams because there are no rules saying they can. There is a rule though for me replacing a pet when it dies or I feel like getting rid of it.

There are no rules saying you can kick and abuse your companion, either -- only that you can send him away if you want to, and get a different one.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
brassbaboon wrote:
Heh, no I'm not that guy.

Yeah, I figured you weren't, but some of your posts were leaning in that direction.

brassbaboon wrote:
...Pathfinder rules which clearly describe class expectations
That's the thing -- I don't find them at all clear. Apparently neither does Tagion, although, as stated, I think he goes too far in the direction of purposely trying to flaunt them.

Nah not flaunting , just presenting an alternitive view of whats writen....probably in an unpopular way. Although I know , and itentionally , am prsenting an extreme view of things , im just trying to get across that there is more then one way to roleplay a class . Its not all black and white.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
brassbaboon wrote:
Heh, no I'm not that guy.

Yeah, I figured you weren't, but some of your posts were leaning in that direction.

brassbaboon wrote:
...Pathfinder rules which clearly describe class expectations
That's the thing -- I don't find them at all clear. Apparently neither does Tagion, although, as stated, I think he goes too far in the direction of purposely trying to flaunt them.

I think you go too far in trying to see two sides to this.

What Tagion is saying is clearly abuse of animal companions according to the rules in the PFRB. As I said before, I don't see how that can be debated by any objective person who has read and comprehended the druid class concept.

Yes, there are plenty of gray areas in the rules where two reasonable people could draw the line of "abuse" in a different place. But this is not one of them. Submerging your animal companion in raw, disease-ridden sewage because you are too lazy to figure any of a thousand other ways to cross that sewer is clearly across the line to anyone I would consider reasonable.

And I bet you would too.

I just don't bend over backwards to try to demonstrate how wonderfully reasonable I am in a debate like this. Yes, there are times that the situation could be a gray area. This is not one of them.

Dark Archive

Tagion wrote:
Well whatever , no where in the book does it say I cant kick and abuse my animal companions. RAW it doesnt matter what I do I can get a new one. Revere nature is a term open to interpitation. I can choose any single method I like as long as I can explain it away in my "fluff".

Revere - –verb (used with object), -vered, -ver•ing.

to regard with respect tinged with awe; venerate

I guess this all hinges on what the definition of "is" is. Or maybe regard? Or maybe venerate...or, or, or.......

You must keep your DM on a short leash to be able to explain away kicking and abusing your AC as "revere" with your "fluff". I feel some sadness for him (just some).

Quote:
If animals are so smart then why do they choose to stay with abusive owers anyway. There are tons of cases where the state steps in and take animal from homes like that.

The IQ testing portion of this thread has now officially come to an end!!!!!!1!!1!!


brassbaboon wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
brassbaboon wrote:
Heh, no I'm not that guy.

Yeah, I figured you weren't, but some of your posts were leaning in that direction.

brassbaboon wrote:
...Pathfinder rules which clearly describe class expectations
That's the thing -- I don't find them at all clear. Apparently neither does Tagion, although, as stated, I think he goes too far in the direction of purposely trying to flaunt them.

I think you go too far in trying to see two sides to this.

What Tagion is saying is clearly abuse of animal companions according to the rules in the PFRB. As I said before, I don't see how that can be debated by any objective person who has read and comprehended the druid class concept.

Yes, there are plenty of gray areas in the rules where two reasonable people could draw the line of "abuse" in a different place. But this is not one of them. Submerging your animal companion in raw, disease-ridden sewage because you are too lazy to figure any of a thousand other ways to cross that sewer is clearly across the line to anyone I would consider reasonable.

And I bet you would too.

I just don't bend over backwards to try to demonstrate how wonderfully reasonable I am in a debate like this. Yes, there are times that the situation could be a gray area. This is not one of them.

Ummm , theres no rules on abusing animal companions in the book.....

It says to revere nature , not coddle your AC. As I said you can revere nature in many ways. For all you extreme hippy druid , dont let me catch you walking on grass you might kill a ant and lose your powers.


brassbaboon wrote:

Yes, there are plenty of gray areas in the rules where two reasonable people could draw the line of "abuse" in a different place. But this is not one of them. Submerging your animal companion in raw, disease-ridden sewage because you are too lazy to figure any of a thousand other ways to cross that sewer is clearly across the line to anyone I would consider reasonable.

And I bet you would too.

I didn't, in fact. In my view, given the dinosaur probably had a better Fort save than any of the PCs (if they're so weak they're actually worried about filth fever), selecting him as the party member most likely to survive isn't abuse, it's intelligent. I never got the impression this was done just be cruel, or to drown the animal; it was done because they had no other apparent means of getting across without contracting the disease. It's no different than electing one of the PCs to ferry the others across.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
brassbaboon wrote:

Yes, there are plenty of gray areas in the rules where two reasonable people could draw the line of "abuse" in a different place. But this is not one of them. Submerging your animal companion in raw, disease-ridden sewage because you are too lazy to figure any of a thousand other ways to cross that sewer is clearly across the line to anyone I would consider reasonable.

And I bet you would too.

I didn't, in fact. In my view, given the dinosaur probably had a better Fort save than any of the PCs (if they're so weak they're actually worried about filth fever), selecting him as the party member most likely to survive isn't abuse, it's intelligent. I never got the impression this was done just be cruel, or to drown the animal; it was done because they had no other apparent means of getting across without contracting the disease.

By this logic the Barbarian should have got down in the water and let his buddies to use him as a bridge while raging. Which has amusing imagery all its own.


Tagion wrote:


Ummm , theres no rules on abusing animal companions in the book.....

If you can reconcile abusing your animal companion with this paragraph from the druid rules...

PFRB 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

Now, since Aux has demonstrated that you apparently don't understand the definition of "revere" I see where you are confused.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
brassbaboon wrote:

Yes, there are plenty of gray areas in the rules where two reasonable people could draw the line of "abuse" in a different place. But this is not one of them. Submerging your animal companion in raw, disease-ridden sewage because you are too lazy to figure any of a thousand other ways to cross that sewer is clearly across the line to anyone I would consider reasonable.

And I bet you would too.

I didn't, in fact. In my view, given the dinosaur probably had a better Fort save than any of the PCs (if they're so weak they're actually worried about filth fever), selecting him as the party member most likely to survive isn't abuse, it's intelligent. I never got the impression this was done just be cruel, or to drown the animal; it was done because they had no other apparent means of getting across without contracting the disease. It's no different than electing one of the PCs to ferry the others across.

Well, I see I gave you too much credit then. My mistake.


brassbaboon wrote:
Tagion wrote:


Ummm , theres no rules on abusing animal companions in the book.....

If you can reconcile abusing your animal companion with this paragraph from the druid rules...

PFRB 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
Now, since Aux has demonstrated that you apparently don't understand the definition of "revere" I see where you are confused.

I havent ceased to revere nature in the way I chose to revere it , for its incomparable power to destroy. Your just a close minded person who think everyone else is wrong.


Tagion wrote:
brassbaboon wrote:
Tagion wrote:


Ummm , theres no rules on abusing animal companions in the book.....

If you can reconcile abusing your animal companion with this paragraph from the druid rules...

PFRB 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
Now, since Aux has demonstrated that you apparently don't understand the definition of "revere" I see where you are confused.
I havent ceased to revere nature in the way I chose to revere it , for its incomparable power to destroy.

But not enslave, which is clearly the case you define with your animal companion.


Tagion wrote:
brassbaboon wrote:
Tagion wrote:


Ummm , theres no rules on abusing animal companions in the book.....

If you can reconcile abusing your animal companion with this paragraph from the druid rules...

PFRB 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
Now, since Aux has demonstrated that you apparently don't understand the definition of "revere" I see where you are confused.
I havent ceased to revere nature in the way I chose to revere it , for its incomparable power to destroy.

As I said.


TarkXT wrote:
Tagion wrote:
brassbaboon wrote:
Tagion wrote:


Ummm , theres no rules on abusing animal companions in the book.....

If you can reconcile abusing your animal companion with this paragraph from the druid rules...

PFRB 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
Now, since Aux has demonstrated that you apparently don't understand the definition of "revere" I see where you are confused.
I havent ceased to revere nature in the way I chose to revere it , for its incomparable power to destroy.
But not enslave, which is clearly the case you define with your animal companion.

Yes but it doesnt say I have to be kind to animals anywhere. What if I chose to play a c/n or a n/e druid. I think its out of character to run around hugging trees and cuddling with squirels. Just saying there is more then one way to play a class and every way has its place. Its no ones place to tell me you cant play your character that way because I have a tunnle vision of what I think it is , other then the GM of course. See as there is no GM for the thread and we are not playing I am expressing a way to interprit the rules.


Dolce Elizabeth Antoinette wrote:

Kirth Gersen does make a good point that I could have done a better job of foreshadowing my thoughts on the use/abuse of the AC. I was rather arbitrary/vindictive with how I handled it. If I could go back and do it over I would have described the animal's reluctance to enter the sewage, and forced the player to make some handle animal checks to push it into the task. This would have made it clear to the player the animal (and the GM) wasn't on-board with his idea.

With there being no combat going on, he could have kept making the checks until he succeeded. I have little doubt he would have, BUT the opportunity should have been given.

I think the problem arose from a difference of opinion on role-play and class ethos. Some of the posters here can see what I was thinking, but likely the player couldn't read my mind on the spot. The player probably thought it was funny to make the animal stand in 5' of refuse--like watching a cartoon. He may not have realized the medium-sized creature would be submerged. I imagined the loyal creature swallowing filth while holding its breath as the party clambered over it, only getting their boots a little moist.

Thanks to all who offered their feedback. It helps to see other viewpoints once in a while. Many calls the GM needs to make are snap judgments without the luxury of reflection. Moving forward I will be sure to make myself better understood before assigning consequences.

To be fair I think you handled it well enough. My GMing tends to wards the snarky side when I think the player is doing something that would be pants on head stupid.

"Wait so you want your four foot tall dinosaur, your friend for life, to wade in raw sewage so you and your big friends can step on him?"

"Okay so the summoned creature will run into the next room and murder everything he sees."

This saves a lot of headaches since the more keen players get the hint that I'm a nasty person who punishes stupidity swiftly and mercilessly.

In my current game I had a druid who essentially ignored his animal companion doing little more with it than using it as a mount. Heck at times he'd forget it even existed until he'd leave a city and found it waiting patiently for him at the city limits.

One time they were trekking through a jungle not far from a coastal town looking for a druid npc when a random encounter came up with the words "Tiger". Interesting at the time since the npc druid had a together animal companion. They were ambushed by the tiger who attacked the boar as a viable prey animal and caused severe injuries to it.

They brought down the tiger and while the boar lay bleeding and screaming bloody murder on the ground the druid proceeded to help the the party fighter in mutilating the corpse so he could get some awesome tiger skin. The druid just wanted to cut the belly open and find some money it may have eaten.

This went on for several minutes before the ruid, attracted by the cries of the boar and smell of the blood, came upon this scene. Needless to say she was cross. She healed the boar herself and refused to help the PC's without a favor first(she still didn't like them and spat in the druid players general direction). The boar for its part walked away.

Now up until this point the player/character saw no signifigance in his role as a druid. HE had magic powers, he had a pet, he could shapechange. Beyond that he was nothing else.

After the boar though the character started experiencing nature abandoning him. Essentially since he abandoned it, it simply wouldn't bother empowering him.

Eventually he got the hint and got a nice big payoff in finding and healing a big Ankylosaurus which became his new animal companion.

Now of course we have to remind him, and several other characters, that the party necromancer is an evil unrepentant bastard. Though in this case they jsut ahven't discovered just what he did to the party rogue...


brassbaboon wrote:
Well, I see I gave you too much credit then. My mistake.

Not everyone who interprets a VERY loosely-worded rule differently from you -- or applies it differently to a given situation -- is thereby automatically wrong or less deserving of "credit."

That point, at least, is NOT open to debate with me.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Tagion wrote:


I dont think there is a wrong way to roleplay a class , even the one with restrictions. Explain the character you want to play and the way you want to play it. No one can tell me im playing a character that I invented wrong.

"Wrong"? No, I agree with you.

"With ramifications and consequences?" Yes.

If you play a paladin and lie to the NPCs, then you've broken the paladin's code and you lose those powers, as per the rules. Are you playing the paladin wrong? No, of course not. You may want to role-play the implications of a character upon whom the powers of justice and righeousness have placed too great a burden. That's a fun character.

But then don't get bent out of shape when those ramifications hit.

Relevant to the discussion, you can play a druid PC however you please. That's your job. But the GM decides how those actions play out. He can rule that your companion critter and even nature herself find your actions unpalatable. That's the GM's job.

It's like the guy who played a character who walks up and pees on the king's shoes. He can do that. But he can't then turn around and say that the king doesn't mind.


And lets not forget its like a 'STR 10, Size Medium' version of a Stegosaurus... not like its this huge walking land bridge.

Size M, not size L+
A riding dog is size M with 15 str, his Mega-Stega has 10.

Yeah he was abusive, we can argue 'real world pathogens' all we like, but nowhere in the creatures description does it cite disease immunity, and nowhere under filth fever does it say 'no animal companions or dinosaurs'. So if we want to rules lawyer it, he was using his dinosaur as an expendable shield for him and his buddies, not as a matter of survival but of laziness and convenience and walking over something that would struggle with the burden too...

Yep looks like failing to 'revere nature' to me.

The next bit of RAW to clear up is this saves nonsense.

Stego has a fort save of 3
'Barbadruid' has a MINIMUM fort save of 4 (assuming 1/1 and NO con bonus)

So not like the Dinosaur was 'better off' than the Barbarian, its categorically worse.


Chris Mortika wrote:
Tagion wrote:


I dont think there is a wrong way to roleplay a class , even the one with restrictions. Explain the character you want to play and the way you want to play it. No one can tell me im playing a character that I invented wrong.

"Wrong"? No, I agree with you.

"With ramifications and consequences?" Yes. If you play a paladin and lie to the NPCs, then you've broken the paladin's code and you lose those powers, as per the rules.

Are you playing the paladin wrong? No, of course not. You may want to role-play the implications of a character upon whom the powers of justice and righeousness have placed too great a burden. That's a fun character.

But then don't get bent out of shape when those ramifications hit.

Relevant to the discussion, you can play a druid PC however you please. That's your job. But the GM decides how those actions play out. He can rule that your companion critter and even nature herself find your actions unpalatable. That's the GM's job.

It's like the guy who played a character who walks up and pes on the king's shoes. He can do that. But he can't then turn around and say that the king doesn't mind.

I agree with this completely. Play the way you want and dont be suprised about ramifications or consequences.

Paladin codes are well defined and set in stone so no really agrument there.

Druids are a different matter. I think wonce you have chosen your alignment , defined character back ground and set out a defined way that you are choosing to warship or revere nature then thats that. N/E druids , in my view , would use AC's as more of a tool then a buddy. N druids might even do this. Its all about what you want to do with your character and what your GM has set as your boundries.


Tagion wrote:


Druids are a different matter. I think wonce you have chosen your alignment , defined character back ground and set out a defined way that you are choosing to warship or revere nature then thats that. N/E druids , in my view , would use AC's as more of a tool then a buddy. N druids might even do this. Its all about what you want to do with your character and what your GM has set as your boundries.

As long as you aren't surprised when your "tool" turns around and eats your face. And that does have plenty of real life examples.


Animal companions are basically trained beasts. However, they're beasts you have a very strong bond with. No such animal would serve as a stepping stool, not without a VERY high roll.
However, not all druids are necessarily animal lovers. Just mentioning that. Treating the animal poorly is not ceasing to revere nature, so I don't think making him an ex-druid is the way to go.


TarkXT wrote:
Tagion wrote:


Druids are a different matter. I think wonce you have chosen your alignment , defined character back ground and set out a defined way that you are choosing to warship or revere nature then thats that. N/E druids , in my view , would use AC's as more of a tool then a buddy. N druids might even do this. Its all about what you want to do with your character and what your GM has set as your boundries.

As long as you aren't surprised when your "tool" turns around and eats your face. And that does have plenty of real life examples.

Except no where in the rules does it say " If you treat you animal companion as a tool or send it to do things you would it will attack you." All it takes , RSW , is a handle check. You guys are putting to much RL view into a game where your hurling lighting and orgres....


Tagion wrote:
Druids are a different matter. I think wonce you have chosen your alignment , defined character back ground and set out a defined way that you are choosing to warship or revere nature then thats that. N/E druids , in my view , would use AC's as more of a tool then a buddy. N druids might even do this. Its all about what you want to do with your character and what your GM has set as your boundries.

You do have something of a point here. But I still think the AC is different. Even evil people are capable of having friends or lovers - imagine the NE Druid who spends her life with her only true ally - her companion - attempting to join together several Druids to destroy a nearby town that cuts down trees from lumber or killing livestock for meat.

She reveres nature, despises city folk - but remains ever allied to her companion. Druids can kill animals for the right causes; - self-defense or for food - she lives by the laws of nature. But her companion is always allied to her as long as her master is allied to her.

EDIT: This is my interpretation, anyway.


Tagion wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Tagion wrote:


Druids are a different matter. I think wonce you have chosen your alignment , defined character back ground and set out a defined way that you are choosing to warship or revere nature then thats that. N/E druids , in my view , would use AC's as more of a tool then a buddy. N druids might even do this. Its all about what you want to do with your character and what your GM has set as your boundries.

As long as you aren't surprised when your "tool" turns around and eats your face. And that does have plenty of real life examples.
Except no where in the rules does it say " If you treat you animal companion as a tool or send it to do things you would it will attack you." All it takes , RSW , is a handle check. You guys are putting to much RL view into a game where your hurling lighting and orgres....

It's a fantasy game. This does not mean we disregard logic at random. No animal will willingly serve as a stepping stool. Except turtles. Or really big things that don't notice. Will a gorilla tolerate it, though? Or a dog? Or a komodo dragon? Big maybe, if at all. While near-drowning in sewage?

Plus, there's a bit of a hole in your reasoning. Theoretically, you could use the Nature Bond as a constant source of food.
*Druid calls bull as companion*
*Kills bull and eats it*
*24 hours later, Druid calls another bull*
Ooh! Or how about a druid taxidermist? Fun! :P

Better yet, a necromancer takes a single level of druid and gets a zombie bear every night. Admittedly, this would actually start to conflict (as would the taxidermist, of course), and it's not as efficient as random encounters. Still, it depends on how quick a study your GM is.


Tagion wrote:


Except no where in the rules does it say " If you treat you animal companion as a tool or send it to do things you would it will attack you." All it takes , RSW , is a handle check. You guys are putting to much RL view into a game where your hurling lighting and orgres....
Tagion wrote:
If animals are so smart then why do they choose to stay with abusive owers anyway. There are tons of cases where the state steps in and take animal from homes like that.

I'm just pointing out there are a ton of cases where an abusive owner gets attacked or killed. :)

Oh and by RAW that check you mention can be insurmountably high.


TheRedArmy wrote:
Tagion wrote:
Druids are a different matter. I think wonce you have chosen your alignment , defined character back ground and set out a defined way that you are choosing to warship or revere nature then thats that. N/E druids , in my view , would use AC's as more of a tool then a buddy. N druids might even do this. Its all about what you want to do with your character and what your GM has set as your boundries.

You do have something of a point here. But I still think the AC is different. Even evil people are capable of having friends or lovers - imagine the NE Druid who spends her life with her only true ally - her companion - attempting to join together several Druids to destroy a nearby town that cuts down trees from lumber or killing livestock for meat.

She reveres nature, despises city folk - but remains ever allied to her companion. Druids can kill animals for the right causes; - self-defense or for food - she lives by the laws of nature. But her companion is always allied to her as long as her master is allied to her.

EDIT: This is my interpretation, anyway.

I do understand where your coming from. I think its just a matter of how you want to role play and what your GM find acceptable with in the confines of thier game , view of the class and the back story you have provided. I tend to look at the AC of an evil druid and to a much much lessor degree a N druid as a subjegated animal , as opposed to a tamed animal. You can definatly play it anyway you like and all view are welcome and valid.


Tagion, you're making a decent point. But I don't think it fits the class very well. Animal companions weren't meant to be forcibly controlled. Of course, it's the GM's choice.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Tagion, you're making a decent point. But I don't think it fits the class very well. Animal companions weren't meant to be forcibly controlled. Of course, it's the GM's choice.

Quoted for Truth.

Remember the Druids must Handle Animal to get their companions to do things - under Handle Animal (do not have the book) it says something to the effect of "The animal never does anything suicidal or egregiously harmful to it". Or something like that.

Half-drowning in sewage probably fits in that, so no check makes it happen, and ultimately, you have to force it to do it, which involves grapple checks while YOU get in the water.

If I'm right about the Handle Animal, that's probably how I look at it and rule it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Tagion, you're making a decent point. But I don't think it fits the class very well. Animal companions weren't meant to be forcibly controlled. Of course, it's the GM's choice.

Sorry , it just irks me when people say " Nope , my opinion is right and thats that."

All my post thus far have taken an extreme left handed view of the rules to intentionally present a different view.There is no one " right" way to play a class the has open ended rules.


My take would be something like this:

You petition the stegosaurus to bridge the gap for you, but it reels at the scent of the sewage. Make a handle animal check to convince it to go in. (The DC would be based on how strongly the animal dislikes the request. Given the severity of this request as you see it, the DC would be fairly high, and the stegosaurus would most likely just refuse.)

If successful: The stegosaurus heeds your instructions and begins to wade into the sewage. However, as it's still adolescent, it appears you've misjudged the depth of the sewage. It looks at you warily as it realizes it might have to submerge itself. You can have it make a swim check to keep its upper body above water, or you can push it with handle animal to submerge itself. (The swim would probably fail unless it had a few ranks in it, and assuming this water is foul enough, the submerge request would almost certainly fail.)

At this point the Barbarian/Druid has inconsiderately requested something that is simply too far against the animal's nature. It sounds to me more like a miscalculation than a disregard for nature. Since the animal can't consciously fathom the risk of disease, I don't think it would be offended in the long term, and as long as the Druid learned from his mistakes and tended any illnesses or displeasure the creature suffered, I don't think it goes beyond the scope of putting a creature at risk in your day to day adventuring.

Incidentally, based on what the game tells us about animals and undead, I'd imagine the stegosaur hates fighting ghouls more than wading through sludge, and the ghoul's disease is probably worse than what's in the water... yet pushing your animal to battle the undead is a rather common occurrence in 3rd Ed and Pathfinder, and never routinely penalized as far as I'm aware.


Rockhopper wrote:


Incidentally, based on what the game tells us about animals and undead, I'd imagine the stegosaur hates fighting ghouls more than wading through sludge,

Yeah but your Companion needs the specific training for said activity (trained for combat, then another slot for unnatural creatures) and the animal companion doing so is fighting to defend its druid companion.

Using a size M, 10 Str Stego as a foot bridge over sewerage when its Fort save is markedly lower than yours is quite a different case. It's possibly going to drown (remember, its no taller than say 3 feet and its head is lower than its back) and it is unlikely trained to be a 'mount' or be stood upon.


I do not believe it would be out of line for a Neutral Evil druid to mistreat their animal companion or use it as a tool, so I don't think it's really fair to say that this would cause loss of animal companion as a class feature.

Ceasing to revere nature? No. The druid could easily argue that it is revering the ability of nature to not get his or her boots filled with festering crap. At least, a neutral evil druid could. Disease and death are parts of the natural cycle, too. Perhaps the druid wanted to ensure the animal companion was not weak or sickly, or that it developed proper resistance to diseases?

Grand Lodge

Wait wait wait. Animal companions are NPCs. NPCs are under the control of the DM beyond the known tricks. The player can TRY to get one to do something with a handle animal check.

The player can also kick and abuse it...but as a critter under the control of the DM, the critter may eat your face while you sleep.


Cold Napalm wrote:

Wait wait wait. Animal companions are NPCs. NPCs are under the control of the DM beyond the known tricks. The player can TRY to get one to do something with a handle animal check.

The player can also kick and abuse it...but as a critter under the control of the DM, the critter may eat your face while you sleep.

Indeed, a druid in one of my games attempting to kick and abuse their animal companion can expect it to not be there friend. You might find yourself suddenly being savaged by your pet bear mid battle once you show a sign of weakness. Anything to break that terrible hold you have over it.


As something to chew over I would like to note that in a wolf pack or an animal herd, the alpha is often tough or even cruel toward the less dominant members. But if the alpha leads poorly or shows weakness, they will often be killed in a takeover by another animal.
Moral of the story: you don't have to be nice to revere nature, but animals will not obey mindlessly. Actions have consequences, and a druid may find that his companion decides its the druid's turn to wade in sewage.


Cold Napalm wrote:

Wait wait wait. Animal companions are NPCs. NPCs are under the control of the DM beyond the known tricks. The player can TRY to get one to do something with a handle animal check.

The player can also kick and abuse it...but as a critter under the control of the DM, the critter may eat your face while you sleep.

Perhaps. I generally run it where the PCs take control of their Companions/Mounts/Cohorts or whatever else little "extra" people they may have in combat. If something seems out of line with the Cohort's alignment and goals, I may step in and say something. as long as it's reasonable, I don't have an issue with it.

In this situation, I would have taken an issue, and they would have had to force the Companion to comply.

Liberty's Edge

Druids can be NE in alignment, survival of the fittest and all that. I don't see a problem with doing this. He's not abusing the pet, he's using it.

I wouldn't have a problem with it in my game, even if I hardly think this plan would of worked...that's a different animal.

Dark Archive

Winterwalker wrote:

Druids can be NE in alignment, survival of the fittest and all that. I don't see a problem with doing this. He's not abusing the pet, he's using it.

I wouldn't have a problem with it in my game, even if I hardly think this plan would of worked...that's a different animal.

That logic just doesn't hold.

So, survival of the fittest? That means that as soon as the Druid is weak, vulnerable, or asleep his AC then turns on him/dispatches him for said weakness since it's all about "survival of the fittest". How would that be playable as a character concept or class ability? It wouldn't be.

Weak excuses to turn a class feature - which is supposed to be an NPC companion - into nothing more than a golem or automation.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ok, while I agree, Im not sure why a stegosaurus would want to lie in the sewer so the party could walk on it, did anyone bother to look at the creatures back and tail? Did they miss the tail spikes? What about the plated fins on its back? Who would want to walk on the back of a Stegasaurus? A crocodile I suppose I could understand, but I would be worried about loosing a foot.

Yeah I have to admit, I don’t blame the animal for leaving. What does get in adventures heads these days? Walking on the back of a stegosaurus to avoid stepping in some sewage sludge imagine
that.

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Druid Abuse of Animal Companion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.