I think more details of this story is needed, specifically: What were the ranger and druid characters (not the players) doing exactly?
What did the ranger do exactly to warrant his actions (or inactions) to be considered cruel?
The druid isn't required by his fire-spec write-up to care about another player's animal companion so I don't see why he has to atone for anything.
|
A Neutral Evil druid may well get a companion he would treat badly, and argue that he's only helping natural selection.
From what you are describing, it could be that in game, the animal was attacked, and the cleric desperately tried to hold him alive while the party dealt with the enemy. What were they supposed to do, put flowers in their hairs, smoke weed and die for the jaguar to flee ?
I don't know more about what happened than what you are describing, but I currently see no reason to see how their behaviour (healing a companion tanking for them) counts as evil or out-of-character, else a lot of groups would have turn evil when their pet barbarian or fighter tank kept fighting/being healed each round.
Yeah i dont know... where the druid and ranger trying to kill the hell hounds chewing on the animal comp?? or where they just cracking jokes? and if they are having a good time thinking that it will happen again just say a deer shows up for the animal companion instead of whatever the player thought was going to happen and for him to attone he would have to keep the deer alive and not get it killed.
|
|
On both accounts they laughed about it AS their characters, I even asked is this you out of character or in character.
They even said well no use knocking the mob off it, it would just attack us.
[...]
They even joked yep 24hrs in the woods you get a new one and we can do it again.
So from my standpoint yes they were out of line.
...
Well it puts a whole new perspective to the situation.
Acting out of character with a childish-cruelty way, then metagaming the situation like a joke when the DM points to you that this is inappropriate deserves a rulebook critical hit on the occipital.
So from my GM aspect an animal companion is a special gift, not a slave or pet. They are awarded by their affinity to nature etc, the same thing that grants them the ability to cast spells.
Even if the companion was "only" a pet, such in-game comportment would be a clinically psychopath's one.
Appropriate punishment so, but I doubt such players would learn from it, and they may even attempt to die just to get a new, not nerfed character.EDIT : On another matter, please also note that a ranger or druid would probably not want his companion to die on a fight against petty fiends, and that fudging the rolls so the companion has a chance to live would be an appropriate way to deal with the situation.
|
I see nothing wrong with allowing the leopard to take all the hits while the rest of the party tries to kill the hell hounds. They were even healing the leopard, but couldn't keep up with 5 hell hounds. I mean if you replace the leopard with a PC barbarian, we see this activity all the time. The small foes concentrate on the barbarian, trying to bring him down. The barbarian tanks while the rest of the party tries to take the foe out. That doesn't make the rest of the party evil. The barbarian (or leopard) just have a different role to fill. Of course, if the rest of the party then laughed about how the barbarian was getting his a$$ kicked afterwards, he would be justified in keeping his rage on a few more rounds...
|
I think Mergy put it best.
As the DM, YOU control the monsters. If you think it's cheap for the party to use their pets as tanks... don't attack the pets. I mean, really, their damage SHOULD be pretty minimal next to the party members (especially if the Ranger had a small cat pet... heck, it should have been treated as a 1st level pet).
I'd probably laugh about it to, if a group of 5 hellhounds gang-banged the weakest member of the party for basically no reason (unless they hate cats). Even IF that's the case, there would have been nothing the party could do, because you were determined that they would keep attacking the cat.
|
Actually, I have a bigger problem than with the fact that you had all the mobs focus on an animal companion, and then were upset when the players were happy to not be attacked.
I have a huge problem with the fudged crits. Three crits that you seem to have admitted were fudged specifically to kill the animal companion? Ridiculous, petty, and shameful.
|
|
Actually, I have a bigger problem than with the fact that you had all the mobs focus on an animal companion, and then were upset when the players were happy to not be attacked.
I have a huge problem with the fudged crits. Three crits that you seem to have admitted were fudged specifically to kill the animal companion? Ridiculous, petty, and shameful.
Although I see your point, Mergy, I disagree with you. As a GM I have ignored dice rolls, focused eniemies on one character, fudged crits, fudged fumbles and generally made life not fun for my characters, AS THE SITUATION CALLS FOR.
I have pet peeves. Splitting the party, wandering off by yourself, attacking/killing other characters in the group. I have had things happen to prove a point and to progress a story line.
We weren't there. Based on the above story, it sounds to me like the Ranger was using the leopard as a mine detector, having it go up front and trigger traps and ambushes. Not something a CG Ranger would do.
Of course the hell hounds attacked the leopard first, he was out front being used as bait. In my game, not only would you lose your powers but all natural animals would have a general dislike for you.
I don't see anywhere where they started off using him as bait. This is the first part we're told.
"5 Hellhounds jump the party to attack the Ranger's Animal a Leopard."
I don't know why 5 hellhounds randomly decided they didn't like the leopard. Whatever, maybe there was a good reason. But then because the party is doing TOO GOOD A JOB keeping the leopard alive, to outright kill him by rolling falsely behind a screen is something I would flip the table over.
A little more insight to what has happened.
The party comes across a cart, rogue opens the chest, reads the runes on the bottom of small devices. Spells name out to party. Ranger says Hi Ted. device disolves and becomes mist. Ranger pass will save, rogue fails. That night 2 Fire elementals come in and teleport rogue off to mage. (Who party was looking for). Rogue is out of picture now, detained not with party. they get to this tower, search the tower, they find stuff take it put it back etc. come to top 4 statues facing 1 way, 2 tombs facing 1 way, all which is up. Portal that changes colors in the middle. They didnt investigate the statues or tombs at all. (which was the way out). wanted to hack and slash, no RP. finally rogue freed, boss comes, and then tells them to give items back. items go back party on their own. party been placed in a "different" plane. Cleric, ranger and druid want to hack and slash. Get attacked by ankhegs ranger uses cat as tank. Ankhegs killed. Ranger and druid said make cat tank now. 5 Hell hounds jump the party, 1st thing ranger does is ask for buff on cat then has it attack hell hound, they then split the party to keep healing cat. Ranger and druid hitting hounds but splitting their hits up amoung the 5. Cleric is surging healing pet and healing hounds due to only 2 can be not healed. Rogue was trying to get 1 off healer while everyone else was worried about the other 3 on the cat.
Uhm... this sounds REALLY reasonable, moreover they seemed to do a good job. how bad was the dm rolling that he couldn't kill the cat with (max) 24 hp. each hell hound doing 1d8+1d6+1 is average 8 damage. if there was a turn where they all hit for average damage the cat is at 0 unconscious and prone so when the cleric healed it would need to take 3 AOOs to stand up probably killing it.
What should they have done, the only reasonable thing could have been for the ranger to move to the front. but i've gotta say, props go to that little cat, no matter how buffed a level 2 holding off 3 4HD creatures is impressive (or lucky)
I second the lack of communication in the DM and players. First off I don't know your players but but I do have to question your DMing. Having a character maxed out for damage does not = "Screw RP". Unless your definition of RolePlay is meaning "each class should fit in their tiny box, clerics heal, rogues are trapmonkeys, fighters should be pure defence or something. Now perhaps your players are screw roleplay types that will just mindlessly fight whatever you throw at them, that is a separate issue that is not tied in with power-gaming.
Now to the issue of this battle, Nothing there sounds out of character or out of place for a nature aligned group at all. Party buffed and healed the pet to the best of their ability, the nature focused ones focused on attacking the ones that were hurting the animal. What more could they honestly have done? Ambush designed specifically to attack animal companion, hurts animal companion... how is that a surprise to you? The rogue focused on the one on the cleric, which makes perfect sense to me (rogue has no motive or reason to value the life of the pet at all, but a hell of a reason to worry about the cleric). Now if they threw the animal into combat and then ran away leaving the pet to stall, that would be an atonement issue.
|
|
While fudging the rolls to crit on the companion wasn't the wisest behaviour, I am sincerely more shocked by the amount of people saying the DM is wrong in this story.
You have a druid and a ranger, both Good-aligned.
Their animal companion is being teared appart by creatures, and instead of acting at least like they were trying to save the jaguar, both the druid and the ranger laugh in-character about how their animal being mauled to death is funny ; about how they should stay here and let it die so they don't get attacked either ; how they should now do it more often ; and then allow themselves a metagamey remark about this, saying that they pretty much don't give a s@&& if their pet is tortured to death since they could just call another in 24 hours.
You don't get out ot this without a punishment if you are a Good druid/ranger.
I play the rogue in this party. The DM gave directions to the entire party that there are always consequences to actions. Some are bad and some are good. I accept that and so did the other players. The DM in this instance asked them REALLY? so many times it was nuts. When I started taking damage from the 2 hounds trying to remove from the cleric it was to late. The cleric was out of heals, 1 surge left. Druid had 1 small heal and ranger used his heals on his cat. They were using the cat maliciously and foolishly. Their take on it was oh well, I can get another one. These 3 refuse to take potions for any need. Their comment is that is what the healer is there to do. Healer somewhat agrees with them, but this healer wants to be a battle tank, 10 strength and about 30 HP and he at least trys to better his character on items that he may need for his character. The other 2 well the druid buys something that he may use 1 time. The ranger does nothing with his gold, kind of a hoarder. Has every weapon that has dropped, just about every magic item and still complains he cant do damage. The DM here rolled MANY crits and it got to the point where he wasnt even adding all the damage he was doing because it was stupid. They ran out of heal spells cat couldnt recover, dogs took off with 3 pieces of the cat in different directions. These 3 (druid, ranger and Cleric) tormented and teased the mage and his pet after I RP to let the mage let us go. He did but as a last ditch effort b4 leaving the tower as it moved away they attacked his pet.
Maybe you should introduce them to 4th ed., all combat, minimal rolepay. sounds right up their ally
|
|
@DM: It isn't your job to punish the players for not playing your way. It's your job to make sure the players have fun. Sure, it's good to set limitations sometimes, and make reasonable boundaries, but when you set up an encounter with the SOLE PURPOSE of finishing off an animal companion, you can't complain about it when it happens, especially when you fudge its death anyways.
Whether or not you like their style of play is irrelevant. I've played with PLENTY of people, both heavy RP and no RP, as a DM and a player, and I don't think this kind of punishment would fly with any of them.
Bottom Line: As many people have said above, communicate with your players. If YOU don't feel comfortable DM'ing a hack 'n slash game, tell them that, and try to work around it. But your duty, as the DM, is to assist in the players having fun, and spoiling it because you don't like the way they're playing is uncool.
*Edit: Also, @Rapthorn: D&D has as much roleplay as your group does, no matter the edition :P. Check out the latest PAX Celebrity games on youtube. 2.5 hours of play, one combat encounter.
|
|
While fudging the rolls to crit on the companion wasn't the wisest behaviour, I am sincerely more shocked by the amount of people saying the DM is wrong in this story.
You have a druid and a ranger, both Good-aligned.
Their animal companion is being teared appart by creatures, and instead of acting at least like they were trying to save the jaguar, both the druid and the ranger laugh in-character about how their animal being mauled to death is funny ; about how they should stay here and let it die so they don't get attacked either ; how they should now do it more often ; and then allow themselves a metagamey remark about this, saying that they pretty much don't give a s*!! if their pet is tortured to death since they could just call another in 24 hours.
You don't get out ot this without a punishment if you are a Good druid/ranger.
I say he's in the wrong because I fully believe he's in the wrong. His players seem to be enjoying themselves, he sent all his mobs to attack one creature and then is upset when they manage to keep it healed longer than he'd like. Now he wants to take away the abilities of both players because he's annoyed at the way they have fun.
You guys are playing different games and need to recognize that, but I still think you were wrong for A) dogpiling and animal companion, B) confirming crits to spite the players, and C) for trying to punish the players after your cheated crits killed the animal.
|
|
I say he's in the wrong because I fully believe he's in the wrong. His players seem to be enjoying themselves, he sent all his mobs to attack one creature and then is upset when they manage to keep it healed longer than he'd like. Now he wants to take away the abilities of both players because he's annoyed at the way they have fun.
You guys are playing different games and need to recognize that, but I still think you were wrong for A) dogpiling and animal companion, B) confirming crits to spite the players, and C) for trying to punish the players after your cheated crits killed the animal.
Again, from what we have been told several times, it wasn't his players enjoying themselves, it was their Good-aligned characters enjoying their pet's suffering.
I already enjoyed things my character would have shunned, but even if I, as a player, enjoyed this even only a second in some way, my character was deeply shocked.The DM did something wrong from the beginning, but the players wheren't better when reacting to this. If their characters were Neutral, it could be eventually seen as enjoying how the situation doesn't put them into direct danger at the current time, but if they wanted to go Chaotic Evil from the beginning, they should have acted accordingly and be ready for the day they'd meet a paladin.
|
|
Druid is neutral. it was enjoying the suffering of a creature, but there needs to be a trend for a shift in alignment, single acts don't do it.
It doesn't excuse the ranger's behaviour, nor the "enjoy the suffering of a creature" thing if the druid is neutral. And while the DM's punishment may be a bit harsh, not suffering any punishment wouldn't be better.
any paladin who is a detect smite paladin is stupid, even more stupid if a dm uses it to punish players he wish had handled a situation differently
Yeah, because this is totally what I suggested, instead of being an example of how you must prepare yourself to someday face a foe hitting straight your character's weaknesses.
I can't remember how much players I saw who acted like stupid evil half the time but didn't want to be written as so, just because a paladin could potentially smite them to the moon at any time.|
|
So...
DM creates encounter designed to kill animal companion.
Party heals & defends animal companion (DM even admits that party was killing the hellhounds, not just standing around)
IC, Ranger and Druid are humored by irony of hellhounds gang-banging the weakest member of the party, but continue to kill hellhounds.
Hellhounds kill animal companion, despite the party's efforts to slay attackers and defend themselves, all while burning a TON of party resources to keep the animal alive, for no reason other than "The DM wanted it dead."
As a result, the two nature-aligned characters are punished for... having a dark sense of humor/irony. Those dastardly evil-doers.
So...
DM creates encounter designed to kill animal companion.
Party heals & defends animal companion (DM even admits that party was killing the hellhounds, not just standing around)
IC, Ranger and Druid are humored by irony of hellhounds gang-banging the weakest member of the party, but continue to kill hellhounds.
Hellhounds kill animal companion, despite the party's efforts to slay attackers and defend themselves, all while burning a TON of party resources to keep the animal alive, for no reason other than "The DM wanted it dead."
As a result, the two nature-aligned characters are punished for... having a dark sense of humor/irony. Those dastardly evil-doers.
yeah..... this seems to be about it.
|
|
So...
DM creates encounter designed to kill animal companion.
Party heals & defends animal companion (DM even admits that party was killing the hellhounds, not just standing around)
IC, Ranger and Druid are humored by irony of hellhounds gang-banging the weakest member of the party, but continue to kill hellhounds.
Hellhounds kill animal companion, despite the party's efforts to slay attackers and defend themselves, all while burning a TON of party resources to keep the animal alive, for no reason other than "The DM wanted it dead."
As a result, the two nature-aligned characters are punished for... having a dark sense of humor/irony. Those dastardly evil-doers.
Good characters aren't allowed to have a dark sense of humour man. That's in the core rulebook and everything!
yeah..... this seems to be about it.
Don't forget the part where in order to ensure that the animal companion died, the GM fudged critical rolls. To me, that's the biggest issue here. There's a gray area around how you interpret alignment shifts based on single actions, attitudes, comments... But the GM sent a pack of hellhounds after a single animal companion (Dogs hate cats? Is that what we're getting at? Really?), and then to "stop the mayhem" he ensured that the leopard would die by making false critical hits. This is truly a case of "GM vs. Players".
|
|
Don't forget the part where in order to ensure that the animal companion died, the GM fudged critical rolls. To me, that's the biggest issue here. There's a gray area around how you interpret alignment shifts based on single actions, attitudes, comments... But the GM sent a pack of hellhounds after a single animal companion (Dogs hate cats? Is that what we're getting at? Really?), and then to "stop the mayhem" he ensured that the leopard would die by making false critical hits. This is truly a case of "GM vs. Players".yeah..... this seems to be about it.
Cheating to stop the mayhem is perfectly valid too. Check the GM guide under "Fudging because you don't like the players".
Ok some my lvl 4 Ranger and his lvl 3 Druid buddy try and test the limits of my patience at times but here is their latest fiasco:
5 Hellhounds jump the party to attack the Ranger's Animal a Leopard.
The Hellhounds attack players that are in the path to the leopard until they can get to the leopard. Once the characters relaized this all but the Rog stopped attacking the Hellhounds until they were on the Leopard then had the cleric healing the leopaqrd as they tried to kill the hellhounds.
Needless to say the leopard would get to 1 pt from perm death when they would pop a heal and it would still be sub 0 and getting chewed on.
The Druid and Ranger even commented how cool it was to use the Leopard as a tank as they weren't getting hit. Meanwhile Mr. Pussy Cat is being tortured killed then healed etc.
All along these two rocket scietists keep saying "I didn't do that its not what my Character would do..." and I explained over and over and even made them read what their classes were about...
Your so wrong it hurts. I feel for your players. A Druid/Ranger Companion is not a lover or a close personal friend. Its an animal companion. A tool of nature in the case of a Druid, and a tool through training for a Ranger. The players are using it exactly as intended. Its a HP soak and a simi tank. In some cases it can be used as DPS. Its not there to look pretty. Its there for a purpose. If they joke out of game thats out of game. In game they did everything they could to save the animal.
So here is where I am at:Ranger for using his animal companion in a cruel way is no longer capable of pulling an animal companion until he is atoned. This requires a casting of Atonement (and proper tithes for it) as well as a quest to redeem himself.
The druid who claims he isn't for Nature but the aspect of fire is getting hit the same way.
They also have lost all supernatural empowered abilities until they get the atonement done. ie no spells or abilities.
Also the Ranger will no longer be able to take on an animal companion of the same type (no more big cats).
So you dont like the way the players act out of game so you destroy their ability to play their classes effectively. If I where either Id tell you where you could stick it and leave the game. You have grossly over reacted and to make matters worse... you cheated. You fudged rolls to intentionally kill their animal.
Please tell me... what should they have done? Let the animal die? Not heal it? You specificly sent an encounter at the leapord that would kill it and then punish them for trying to save it. Thats crazy. Thats dumb.
Your not a DM to tell your party how their character should be played. You are there to facilitate a good time.
DM vs Player = poor DMing. You need a reality check. Your wrong. Period.
If I were one of your players I would find a new DM.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think some of the posters are getting out of line here. This GM has a genuine problem and you all are focusing on the wrong thing. Your ire and crappy attitude towards this GM is coming from the wrong place.
From the perspective of pure RAW, no, there is really nothing that says these guys have to love their animal companions, and there is nothing that says they can't be evil and use those companions as bait, or as battle fodder, or whatever.
But from what I'm reading, and I'm also reading between the lines here, the problem stems from a clash between the immaturity of the players, and the personal ideals of the GM.
No matter what you cynics say, this GM is not wrong to have these ideals. And this being only a game, you people have no right to judge him personally for his decisions as a GM, based on those ideals. So knock it off. The worst part of nerddom is showing in your craptastic replies. Grow up. Adopt a pet from a shelter.
Now, Decker, I've been doing this for a long time. I've seen a lot of immaturity and I've heard a lot of excuses. To me, it doesn't sound like these guys were getting off playing their characters. To me, this sounds an awful lot like two guys getting their own, real life jollies off of the old cliche of vicarious bloodletting and violence. As a veteran, I'm sure you've seen it before. It has haunted the game since the beginning. Kids were very susceptible to this when you and I were just starting, and some guys never grow out of it. They like to get away with things in the game that they could never get away with in real life. The imagined cruelty turns them on. I've seen it countless times. It never loses its creepiness.
My advice is to not play with these guys again. They are apt to keep doing this. No matter what the hardcore here say, you have a right to be comfortable with, and share an enjoyable, common playing style with your players. If these guys are not compatible, that's just a fact of life.
The rest of you turkeys chill. It's a freaking game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think some of the posters are getting out of line here....
I like the part where you tell us we have no right to judge him and then immediately proceed to judge us and his players.
|
The cleric was out of heals, 1 surge left. Druid had 1 small heal and ranger used his heals on his cat.
Ah... A little clarification here, is this a 4e game? "Surge" is something used in 4e healing as in "healing surges".
In any case, if this is Pathfinder, BIG cats are NOT on the ranger list of approved animal companions. They only have access to SMALL cats.
So the DM is right to kill it off. Cos the Ranger is breaking the game RULES. :P
|
|
I think some of the posters are getting out of line here. This GM has a genuine problem and you all are focusing on the wrong thing. Your ire and crappy attitude towards this GM is coming from the wrong place.
See, I fundamentally disagree with this statement. The OP has told us the scenario, and clarified the situation a few times, and the (basically overwhelming) conclusion is that the situation was not handled well by the OP. Now, many people have stated that there is a communication problem between the DM and players (myself included amongst them), but that doesn't change our opinions on how the situation was handled.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm usually one to leap to the defense of a poster who is being "attacked" by the community. However, this isn't an attack. These aren't personal insults. The fact is, if many of us had had that situation play out as the DM described, we'd leave the group, because it's just plain not fair to the players.
Also, there is no evidence to suggest the players were
"getting their own, real life jollies off of the old cliche of vicarious bloodletting and violence."
Nor is there anyone who believes that a person shouldn't play with people they like. However, part of your duty as a DM is to run the game in a way that players find fun. Odds are that you'll NEVER find a group of people that ALL want to play the way the DM would like, but it doesn't matter, because that's not what a DM needs to worry about.
Side Note*: What does adopting an animal have to do with this situation?
As far as actual advice.....
I would roleplay the opertunity for the players to sell their souls to a devil/demon for an amazing amount of wealth/power/whatever(maybe more powerful demonic companions) as you clearly think the players are evil baced on the action they have done.
Then have the players be double crossed/meet an untimely demise and loose souls to said evil outsider.
This is very confrontational but imo no more so than you are playing your game atm so i asume you should be cool with this.
Hopefully the players will learn to play more to your idea of "in character" or "good roleplaying" as a reult of this and you can have a more fun game with the next set of guys they roll up.
I would probably ban companions or familiars from now on though as NOBODY at your table seems able to play them without serious issues.
Also i would probably houserule the alignment system to not exist, that way you wont have to worry about them having CG or LN written on a sheet making you think they are playing your game wrong.
Personally I see this as an absolute failure on the part of the GM.
You chose to attack nothing but the cat.
The party didn't put the cat out front -- didn't make the cat choose to be the target you as the GM did that.
They heal the cat and try to kill it's attackers but they are the bad guys?
WHAT?