|
Situation: Player with low-intelligence barbarian dips into druid for animal companion. Party finds themselves in a sewer, wants to cross to ledge on other side without danger of getting filth fever. Druid orders size medium companion into 5' of sewage to act as a bridge for the party.
Action: Took animal companion away. Essentially broke the Nature's Bond with the creature and had it leave the druid. Druid follows and tries to apologize, fails three wild empathy checks. Opinions? Too harsh? Didn't go far enough?
Action: Took animal companion away. Essentially broke the Nature's Bond with the creature and had it leave the druid. Druid follows and tries to apologize, fails three wild empathy checks. Opinions? Too harsh? Didn't go far enough?
Billy clearly doesn't play well with others.
Personally yeah umm, dunno what gets into some players heads frankly.
Then again, they dipped a level of Druid to get a companion that will be one shotted pretty easily (as it will be at best a 2hd creature if he doesn't stick more levels in Druid...) and will be continuously spending 24hours in the wild replacing it - with whatever creature is in the local wilds, so he wont have much in the way of an exotic.
Situation: Player with low-intelligence barbarian dips into druid for animal companion.
I don't see what the Barbarian's Intelligence modifier has to do with your story, but go on.
Party finds themselves in a sewer, wants to cross to ledge on other side without danger of getting filth fever. Druid orders size medium companion into 5' of sewage to act as a bridge for the party.
Action: Took animal companion away. Essentially broke the Nature's Bond with the creature and had it leave the druid. Druid follows and tries to apologize, fails three wild empathy checks. Opinions? Too harsh? Didn't go far enough?
You simply don't tell me enough about the animal companion itself for me to make that judgment. I am under the impression that this is a Crocodile (I could be wrong). If it is, there are TONS of folklore (and even one or two documented cases) of Crocs living in sewers. In this situation, I don't think the Croc would have minded the sewage.
Using the animal as a living bridge, however, could be unsettling. Again, you need to tell us what type of companion it is. However, an animal companion typically has an Intelligence of 1 or 2 unless you use their ability boost to buff it up. A creature with an Intelligence that low is going to do one of two things when stressed like this: attack or flee. Either it attempts to remove the source of its aggravation(by shaking it off, snipping at them, etc) or it shakes them off into the sludge and runs away. Its not going to causally stroll away.
Ultimately, however, this isn't a huge deal as there is a 24 hour ritual to replace an animal companion.
24 hours is right, but you forgot the extra 'Douche tax'.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would allow him to sing this to the companion to get it back.
When you're weary
Feeling small
When tears are in your eyes
I will dry them all
I'm on your side
When times get rough
And friends just can't be found
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay you down
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay you down
When you're down and out
When you're on the street
When evening falls so hard
I will comfort you
I'll take your part
When darkness comes
And pain is all around
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay you down
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay you down
Sail on Silver Girl,
Sail on by
Your time has come to shine
All your dreams are on their way
See how they shine
If you need a friend
I'm sailing right behind
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will ease your mind
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will ease your mind
|
|
The animal was a stegosaurus, not native to the environment.
Ultimately how would you deal with a druid who routinely sacrificed his animal companion because he knew he could just get another one in 24 hours? Is this grounds for removing the Nature's Bond ability, or even declaring the PC an ex-druid for not revering Nature? Obviously this is a matter of opinion and there's nothing explicit in the rules besides the "Ex-Druid" text.
|
The animal was a stegosaurus, not native to the environment.
Ultimately how would you deal with a druid who routinely sacrificed his animal companion because he knew he could just get another one in 24 hours? Is this grounds for removing the Nature's Bond ability, or even declaring the PC an ex-druid for not revering Nature? Obviously this is a matter of opinion and there's nothing explicit in the rules besides the "Ex-Druid" text.
"A druid who ceases to revere nature..."
Sounds like the PFRPG rulebook has it covered.
Ex-Druid till atonement.
Honestly though - if a player is going to repeatedly use his AC as refuse or garbage then I wouldn't even let an atonement fly.
Maybe have him get a better understanding of the actual class (and restrictions) and see if that is something he would really want to pursue or give him another class choice option if he can't abide by restrictions.
All of this after he is temporarily stricken blind or lame for his infractions against nature (where he made a choice to serve as a divine steward and was given powers to do so).
I wouldn't even let an atonement fly.
Nah, this is where you start multiplying the cost by 2 or 4 every time he has to cast atonement. He'll learn pretty quickly it's not worth the gold to get atonement and learn better.
Either way he should get an ex-druid stamp if he tries it again. I think you handled the situation just fine.
|
|
HAHAHAA. Minsk says, 'Into the Poo, Boo!' Boo says, 'Eff You!' From a story telling point, I think you were right on. I played a Dwarf Druid with a Wolverine. We alternated with each other as spring boards to charge/tackle opponents. They key word is 'Companion' not slave. I never ask my pets/followers to do anything I wouldnt do. Keeps the Dm from having backstab me later.
I never play my druids as "commanding" their animal companions to do anything. They will ask them to, but druids treat their animal companions as loyal allies and friends, not as servants. At least that's how I see it.
My druid lost two animal companions in a short time due to some rather nasty boss fights. She is now atoning for her lack of guidance and protection of her friends by imposing a period of grief and mourning before she will summon another companion. She is pretty much overwhelmed with grief about the losses.
Personally, I think using a dinsoaur as a bridge is a fairly creative solution. It's not like they drowned the poor thing, and its Fort save is probably the highest in the party, if they're at such low levels that filth fever is a substantial danger to them. To me, the example given does not scream "abuse" at all. Maybe there are other examples that would better explain the strong reactions from other posters?
In terms of more egregious abuse, I prefer to handle it proactively by having the animal companion balk, rather than reactively by sitting back and allowing the abuse and then turning around and punishing the player afterwards. But that's just me; if a more passive-aggressive approach appeals to you, and if your players don't mind it, then rock on. I'd suspect that no one ever plays a paladin in your game, though.
This is SHOCKING druid abuse. I suggest you strip the stegosaurus of its animal companion status until it seeks atonement.
Wait, isn't that what this thread's about?
The animal was a stegosaurus, not native to the environment.
Ultimately how would you deal with a druid who routinely sacrificed his animal companion because he knew he could just get another one in 24 hours? Is this grounds for removing the Nature's Bond ability, or even declaring the PC an ex-druid for not revering Nature? Obviously this is a matter of opinion and there's nothing explicit in the rules besides the "Ex-Druid" text.
Ok.... First of all... BEST COMPANION EVER!!!!!
Ok... That's out of the way :)
What are the rules for animals and disease? I know most animals are immune to human illness' and vice versa. With such knowledge, I would probably have done the same thing.
Stegasaurus would make a WONDERFUL bridge. Doesn't mean I don't love my giant spikey death machine... He was just the only party member suitable for the task... If it had been jumpable then the rogue would have stepped up... as it is, they needed a bridge.
NOW....
If he was using it as a slave and mistreating it... or sending it into the sludge with knowledge it may die... then I could see taking it away. However many dinos are associated with swamp settings... so a little dip in the sludge shouldn't upset it too much.
|
|
I think this sort of thing depends most on what class the player is using, and thus what sort of follower it is.
Supposing you have a character with Leadership, you need to both pay the followers and treat them well. So no sewage. In the best case, you'll actually form a worthwhile relationship with followers.
Druids/Rangers aren't much expected to get to the 'self actualizing' stage of meeting their Animal Companion's needs, but they should do everything within reason to keep it happy. So no sewage, unless it likes that sort of thing.
Summoners in my mind get a break here because the Eidolon is entirely dependent upon them for 'existence'. You probably shouldn't push it, but sacrificing the Eidolon to save the party is a good trade all around. It should be a sewer bridge if the sewage is nasty enough to actually harm the party.
If you are biding outsiders, all bets are off: "Imp! carry me over that sewage or I'll cast Dimensional Anchor and beat you to death! And where's my mocha!?"
|
|
Maybe there are other examples that would better explain the strong reactions from other posters?
In terms of more egregious abuse, I prefer to handle it proactively by having the animal companion balk, rather than reactively by sitting back and allowing the abuse and then turning around and punishing the player afterwards. But that's just me; if a more passive-aggressive approach appeals to you, and if your players don't mind it, then rock on. I'd suspect that no one ever plays a paladin in your game, though.
Ultimately how would you deal with a druid who routinely sacrificed his animal companion because he knew he could just get another one in 24 hours?
Lol, passive-aggressive? If he's talking about animal companion and a chronic case of death, then that equals consequence. That isn't passive-aggressive, that is cause = effect.
And apparently it has happened more than once (as framed by the ops question). I think if he gives the player fair warning, and of course has him read the core book entry on druids there should be no real issues here.
If the player wants to ask the DM, "hey, would you consider this abusive of my AC?" or "is this crossing the line" every once in awhile (just as a pally or cleric player may ask) then that is ok. If the groundwork is laid out, there's an understanding and you still have repeat issues then it's time to strip the PC of the class abilities, probably for good.
That or if the player just can't handle the restrictions of the class then give him an out early on - different class levels in a class which doesn't care: rogue, etc.
OK, I'll weigh in on whether a druid should ask a stegasaurus animal companion to wade into disease infested sewage to keep the party from having to step in it. Several points:
1. Sewage does not just carry human pathogens. If there are human diseases in the sewage, there are likely animal diseases too.
2. STEGASAURUS ANIMAL COMPANION WITH ONE LEVEL DIP OF DRUID?!?!? Did I read that right? WTH?
3. "Barbarian dips into druid to take an animal companion." Does this scream out metagaming munchkin to anyone else? What is the CHARACTER's rationale for dipping into druid? He wants a PET? One that he can use as a bridge over raw SEWAGE?
4. Has this barbarian/druid demonstrated, in game, in character, even the slightest hint of a dedication to the concept of maintaining nature's balance? Before the player decided he wanted a portable bridge over sewage, did he demonstrate the slightest interest, again IN GAME, in protecting the delicate balance of nature?
Just my $.02, and I'm sure there is another side to tell here, but the way this is presented does not sound to me like a character with an interest in nature, it sounds like a player with an interest in exploiting a game advantage.
For that reason, more than the raw sewage thing, if I am reading this right, this barbarian would be an ex-druid in my campaigns.
Ultimately how would you deal with a druid who routinely sacrificed his animal companion because he knew he could just get another one in 24 hours?Lol, passive-aggressive? If he's talking about animal companion and a chronic case of death, then that equals consequence. That isn't passive-aggressive, that is cause = effect.
That was phrased as a totally separate question from the specific example of the bridge, and as a generic one, rather than as something that necessarily applied to the example given.
It was for the bridge stunt, according to the OP, that the character was stripped of his animal companion.
The impression I get is that the OP is hot on the lookout for animal companion abuse -- having possibly seen it previously (likely from a totally different player) -- and in light of that seized upon the bridge example as an excuse to overly-punish the barbarian with the stegosaur, to "teach him a lesson" as it were.
Another example: if someone says, "My kid threw up on the floor. Was I wrong to kill him? And is it OK for the state to execute mass murderers?" This does not imply that the kid is a mass murderer (necessarily). Even a person who supports capital punishment may not feel it should apply to the kid. EDIT: Although Kyle apparently does!
I think initially I would have just required a handle animal check to "convince" the Stegosaurus into the sewage. I probably would have added to the DC given the request.
Is it that much different than convincing another PC to do the same?
It sounds like OOC is the issue since it's the player's problem with using the AC as a piece of garbage.
My kid threw up on the floor. Was I wrong to kill him?
Nope.
OK, I'll weigh in on whether a druid should ask a stegasaurus animal companion to wade into disease infested sewage to keep the party from having to step in it. Several points:
1. Sewage does not just carry human pathogens. If there are human diseases in the sewage, there are likely animal diseases too.
2. STEGASAURUS ANIMAL COMPANION WITH ONE LEVEL DIP OF DRUID?!?!? Did I read that right? WTH?
3. "Barbarian dips into druid to take an animal companion." Does this scream out metagaming munchkin to anyone else? What is the CHARACTER's rationale for dipping into druid? He wants a PET? One that he can use as a bridge over raw SEWAGE?
4. Has this barbarian/druid demonstrated, in game, in character, even the slightest hint of a dedication to the concept of maintaining nature's balance? Before the player decided he wanted a portable bridge over sewage, did he demonstrate the slightest interest, again IN GAME, in protecting the delicate balance of nature?
I think you're making some unfair assumptions here.
1. I agree. Just didn't want to start with 2.
2. Read the Bestiary a little. There are tons of animal companions there. The days of having to get a new companion every four levels are over.
3. It screams "I want an animal companion" to me. I'd guess he's a wilderness-themed barbarian, and thought an animal companion would fit the image. You can't really Munchkin and multiclass without a specific loophole in mind.
4. This is an odd question. You're building up to the belief that the guy took the level to optimize, and is incapable of real fluff content. That's not really the point of this thread.
My personal opinion? While this is a bit off, it's not a gross violation. Stegosauruses are fairly big, and would make good things to climb over. All the same, it's over the top. Take the guy's companion, but give him a chance to get a new one. Make it clear that this animal companion is no longer an option. After the sewer thing, plus three failed checks, it's gone for good.
That being said, taking the companion option completely is totally unfair. He took the class for this single ability. You're basically forcing him to near waste a level.
You know, it occurs to me that combat is dangerous. People who expect their animal companions to fight risk killing them, which is extremely abusive -- more so than getting them wet and maybe catching the sniffles.
But we don't take away animal companions from druids who use them in combat, do we? Or do we?
Now, a PC who uses animal companions just to set off traps is abusing them, pure and simple. I'd have the companion in question refuse, warn the player of my feelings on the matter -- and if he still forced the critter into the role of trap-kill, then I'd take it away. But a PC who treats his companion as a team player, even when there's risk involved? That's not really abuse, in my opinion.
|
|
I think initially I would have just required a handle animal check to "convince" the Stegosaurus into the sewage. I probably would have added to the DC given the request.
This is how I would handle it. DC 20+ handle animal check can be rough for a low level druid.
What if the Barbarian went into the sewage to help the party across? Would you 'punish' him?
Just my view.
The stegasaurus animal companion is a medium animal at level 1. I don't see an exact ruling on how tall that would mean, but since a horse is a large animal, it must be smaller than a horse. So a first level stegasaurus animal companion is not likely to keep the party from getting their feet in the sewage if the sewer really is 5' deep. Since the OP said that the stegasaurus was used as a bridge, I assumed a larger stegasaurus.
I said I was making assumptions and there were two sides to the story. I also said this is how the OP's post read to me. I suspect that this particular barbarian was no tree-hugging nature-boy before his sudden desire for a portable party bridge. But you are right, I am making assumptions. I said I was.
The point of the thread is whether this barbarian is mistreating his animal companion. The overall actions of the character towards nature are completely relevant to this thread and the decision whether or not he has been acting like a druid.
I know I am making assumptions. But I'm pretty good at that, frankly, and I bet I'm reading this pretty close to accurately.
I know I am making assumptions. But I'm pretty good at that, frankly, and I bet I'm reading this pretty close to accurately.
I personally prefer to go with "beyond a reasonable doubt," when it comes to stripping levels and/or major class features, rather than simply "I suspect."
I know I am making assumptions. But I'm pretty good at that, frankly, and I bet I'm reading this pretty close to accurately.I personally prefer to go with "beyond a reasonable doubt," when it comes to stripping levels and/or major class features, rather than simply "I suspect."
Yeah, me too. I'm not the GM here am I? If I were the GM I wouldn't be making assumptions, I'd KNOW the situation, and I'd take appropriate action. Frankly if my suspicions are correct (and I think they are) then I would probably have sat down with the barbarian player and explained to them that taking a level of druid was really not an option for a character who had up until that time shown no interest whatsoever in nature, especially if the only reason the situation came up is because the player wanted a portable party bridge for his personal use.
What I would have done is asked him what character concept he was trying to fulfill, asked him to explain how it fit into the character's backstory and motivations, and then I'd have worked with him on a compromise that might have actually worked out even better for him than taking a class of druid just for the animal companion. I'm pretty flexible. I can usually make things work.
Maybe an Eidelon? I dunno... There are options.
|
|
That was phrased as a totally separate question from the specific example of the bridge, and as a generic one, rather than as something that necessarily applied to the example given.
It was for the bridge stunt, according to the OP, that the character was stripped of his animal companion.
The impression I get is that the OP is hot on the lookout for animal companion abuse -- having possibly seen it previously (likely from a totally different player) -- and in light of that seized upon the bridge example as an excuse to overly-punish the barbarian with the stegosaur, to "teach him a lesson" as it were.
He asked the question phrased as "Ultimately how would you deal with a druid who routinely sacrificed his animal companion because he knew he could just get another one in 24 hours?"
Sounds like it is tied to/part of the same issue.
And I do not agree with you that it's a "punishment" or to "teach him a lesson" to the barb player situation.
There are rules that outline restrictions and player entitlement/"i wanna" doesn't supersede that. Sorry, we just disagree on the issue - the player in question shouldn't be playing classes with restrictions since it seems like he can't abide by those restrictions. It isn't fair to the other Druid or Ranger PCs (current or past) and it isn't close to following the rules.
Since the op is of the mindset that this is abusive I would think that he does not want to change the rules to accommodate the way the player is using his AC.
Also it goes to an issue of in-game non-mechanical abuse. Hitting the animal (so as to just do subdual damage), dipping it in %$^&/cesspools to use as a footpath - while not deadly, is still abusive imo. Shared problem, shared solution. Sending the animal (in your combat example) to certain death: abusive.
I know, I know, it goes against the 3.5 mindset but in older editions Gods actually punished PCs for abuse of familiars, sent servants, and the such.
Another example: if someone says, "My kid threw up on the floor. Was I wrong to kill him? And is it OK for the state to execute mass murderers?" This does not imply that the kid is a mass murderer (necessarily). Even a person who supports capital punishment may not feel it should apply to the kid.
Ugh, horrid examples.
As I stated earlier if this is an case of a player being in over his head I would give him an out vs. abusing a class power. Give him a chance to switch classes.
Why do we have to analyze why the guy's asking the question? It's a simple question, which we are being asked to answer.
Why do we have to analyze why the guy's asking the question? It's a simple question, which we are being asked to answer.
bcuz its teh intrwebz, dude!
I dont see a problem. He dipped to get a pet to use for verious tasks and thats what hes doing. Why is it ok to use it in combat where its getting stabbed , shot and fireballed but its not ok use have it give you a boost over some muck?
the natures bond ability also says that if it dies or I release it from my service I can get a new one. That word service says it all. As far as Ex-Druid goes , there are alot of ways to revere nature with out having to cater to beasts of burden. Revere can meen alot of things. I choose to revere its ability to cause raw destruction and chaos.
Edit - On topic , You should ask him how he reveres nature. My point of view is that animal companions are tools to further my or my dieties over all goals. I dont know.... I just think taking away the one thing that he dipped to get is a little douchey. Have you talked to him out of game?
I dont see a problem. He dipped to get a pet to use for verious tasks and thats what hes doing. Why is it ok to use it in combat where its getting stabbed , shot and fireballed but its not ok use have it give you a boost over some muck?
the natures bond ability also says that if it dies or I release it from my service I can get a new one. That word service says it all. As far as Ex-Druid goes , there are alot of ways to revere nature with out having to cater to beasts of burden. Revere can meen alot of things. I choose to revere its ability to cause raw destruction and chaos.
There is a critical difference between taking an animal companion into combat and using it as your bridge over sewage: in combat, presumably, the companion isn't taking any risks that the druid isn't talking. Both parties are in danger of taking damage in combat. In the other instance, he was ordering his companion to do something he wouldn't do. That was the whole point. Ordering the AC into sewage was done so that he could avoid danger. That shows a callous disregard of the well-being of his companion.
I dont see a problem. He dipped to get a pet to use for verious tasks
See... that's why you don't get it.
I dont see a problem. He dipped to get a pet to use for verious tasksSee... that's why you don't get it.
I'm not understanding your point. Perhaps you should elaborate.
I'm not understanding your point. Perhaps you should elaborate.I dont see a problem. He dipped to get a pet to use for verious tasksSee... that's why you don't get it.
If I have to elaborate on something this basic to the understanding of druids and animal companions, then I'm not sure you will understand the elaboration.
But hey, I'm game to try!
Here is the elaboration.
Animal companions aren't pets.
Druids don't use animal companions.
Get it now?
Clearly says its in my service until I dismiss it or it dies. Therefore I will use it. Beside we are talking like what , int 1 or 2. Its not going to complain.
Clearly says its in my service until I dismiss it or it dies. Therefore I will use it. Beside we are talking like what , int 1 or 2. Its not going to complain.
... as I predicted.
Ordering the AC into sewage was done so that he could avoid danger. That shows a callous disregard of the well-being of his companion.
So is ordering it into combat while you cast spells, but that's what druids do. If sending your animal companion into melee, and casting spells yourself, were prohibited by the druids' PETA affiliation, I'd assume the rules should make some mention of it. Otherwise, if an animal companion can only fight in melee if you yourself are in melee, then I would never under any circumstances want one, because full casters have much more pressing needs in other areas -- like controlling the battlefield.
Clearly says its in my service until I dismiss it or it dies. Therefore I will use it. Beside we are talking like what , int 1 or 2. Its not going to complain.... as I predicted.
It all depends on how you choose to view your class. It doesnt say I have to be nice to animals and hug every tree I pass to let it know I care and its special. It says to revere nature. I choose to revere it for its destructive and life changing power.
Animal companions aren't pets.
Druids don't use animal companions.
By the same token, though:
Animal companions aren't princesses.Druids don't pamper and coddle animal companions.
There's hopefully some room in between where we all can play. I find that Tagion is a bit too far on the abuse side for my taste, but you and the OP are maybe erring too far on the coddle side.
Ordering the AC into sewage was done so that he could avoid danger. That shows a callous disregard of the well-being of his companion.So is ordering it into combat while you cast spells, but that's what druids do. If sending your animal companion into melee, and casting spells yourself, were prohibited by the druids' PETA affiliation, I'd assume the rules should make some mention of it. Otherwise, if an animal companion can only fight in melee if you yourself are in melee, then I would never under any circumstances want one, because full casters have much more pressing needs in other areas -- like controlling the battlefield.
If you are casting spells, you are in combat. If you are not watching and protecting your animal companion, and buffing it up to make it a better and more capable fighter, you are a poor druid. This is part of the bond that druids and animal companions have. The animal companion's role is melee, the druid's role is magic. That's part of the deal.
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.
Animal companions aren't pets.
Druids don't use animal companions.By the same token, though:
Animal companions aren't princesses.
Druids don't pamper and coddle animal companions.There's hopefully some room in between where we all can play.
Yes, it's the area where animal companions aren't pets and druids don't use them. That's the area.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It all depends on how you choose to view your class. It doesnt say I have to be nice to animals and hug every tree I pass to let it know I care and its special. It says to revere nature. I choose to revere it for its destructive and life changing power.Clearly says its in my service until I dismiss it or it dies. Therefore I will use it. Beside we are talking like what , int 1 or 2. Its not going to complain.... as I predicted.
... as you continue to demonstrate my prediction was accurate...
Yeah, I would speak up as the DM and say something to him, probably at some point where we could talk alone before or after the game.
Essentially, the classes with restrictions - Paladins, Druids, and Clerics in particular - are more than words in a book. Druids must revere nature. Paladins must uphold goodness and justice. Clerics must maintain faith within their diety's liking. The powers of all of these classes come from their different kinds of faith.
The playing of these classes goes beyond the rules in the book. There is one person in my group who is playing a Bard and asked me when I said I was going to play a Paladin "Are you going to be a cool Paladin who like says "Don't do evil stuff" or an (expletive) who actually tries to stop me when I do evil stuff?"
I was honestly insulted. The "Code of Honor" is more than rules - it's an ideal, of how one should play a Paladin, the mindset one should have when entering the game and looking at situations from his characters' eyes. The class - and Druid as well - offers unique powers and abilities, and gives wonderful role-playing opportunity. If someone isn't ready or willing to meet the challenges of upholding justice or revering nature, they probably shouldn't play the class.
Tagion, even if it is in service, it knows when a master in cruel. If you mistreat a cat, it will escape if it has the chance - it's what, Intelligence 2? Why should it care? But it still does - and that's real life. Let's talk about Druids, who have empathic links with their companion, and treat it as a trusted friend and ally. If I have an empathic link with someone, and when they look at me, I sense they feel "contempt", or at least not much loyalty or love for me, I probably won't stick around for long. Even animals feel love, no matter how dumb they are - otherwise, how would a mother care for it's young?
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.
... as you continue to demonstrate my prediction was accurate...It all depends on how you choose to view your class. It doesnt say I have to be nice to animals and hug every tree I pass to let it know I care and its special. It says to revere nature. I choose to revere it for its destructive and life changing power.Clearly says its in my service until I dismiss it or it dies. Therefore I will use it. Beside we are talking like what , int 1 or 2. Its not going to complain.... as I predicted.
Sorry I forgot only your views on the class and or roleplaying where correct. I bow before your superiour opinions.
*looks at Dolce's avatar*
I always imagined her a little more... attractive.
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.
I agree with this completely. It's always a good idea to let your players know how you view a class and its abilities. I agree that the animal companion could and should have been reluctant to enter the sewage.
And it is always a good idea to let the player "see" the seen. The player should see the stegosaurus being confused as the druid orders him to "stay" while standing in filth. Have the player see the stegosaurus being submerged and struggling to hold its breath. If the player persisted in his course with that sort of foreshadowing, then it wouldn't be vindictive at all. It would be what the story demanded.
Anyway, reflection and second opinion always helps.
Yes, it's the area where animal companions aren't pets and druids don't use them. That's the area.Animal companions aren't pets.
Druids don't use animal companions.By the same token, though:
Animal companions aren't princesses.
Druids don't pamper and coddle animal companions.There's hopefully some room in between where we all can play.
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.