|
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?
The OP did state (please read above) that the Hellhounds, under orders from a wizard are targeting the Cat as payback for the party killing the wizard's pet.
The problem the OP seems to have is that the 2 players, ranger and druid are out of character/or just being evil in their behavior/treatment towards the cat. OP stated that they seem unconcern and even joyous at the pain and ultimately demise, that the cat have to undergo.
That's how I am reading the OP's description of the situation.
|
And dice cheating by the DM is b@@#%#!+. Really. This is a GAME. If you can't be trusted to play a fantasy game straight... then you are either inherently a cheater or have let the DM hat go to your head.
I'm sure you will remember this the next time a character you love and have played since a long time is killed by some puny mooks because the DM critted, and didn't decide it was best if you were just put inconscious instead of cold-dead.
Fudging with dice is a whole part of the DM's role - but it should be done without the player's knowledge, and only when it would mean more fun for the players around the table. Not to be a dick and railroad the story.
|
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 it was said he has a leopard small cat. Its a pathfinder game heres how i know.
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.
The cleric has selective channeling
Do not fudge rolls and be honest with the players about what you expect of them based on their alignment. Ask them what they think their alignment means and if they are abiding by it. Have a discussion with your players.
I would go forward with the atonement quest, but don't make it painfully long - just long enough for them to not want to have to repeat it. The animal companion is a companion and should be treated as any other party member. If I were the party tank, like the leopard in that battle, and they made the same comments, my character would refuse to ever protect those two again. And if I, as the DM, had control of the leopard, I would have the leopard abandon its owner. It may be a companion, but it is still a neutral animal - it must have some regard for its own well-being.
If they continue to abuse animal companions (showing no regard for them because "they can just get another one"), warn them that they will lose animal companion privileges. But don't jump straight into revoking privileges.
Also, don't expect much in terms of roleplay from your ranger and druid. It's obvious that combat is the reason they play D&D.
|
When in the tower, it sounds like you were upset they did not look at the statues and "role play" that you created, they "just wanted to hack and slash"
I think right there is the root of your problem. You have 2 players that want to play a certain way that you don't want to. You want more role play and they want more roll play.
That doesn't make them bad, just different.
For your next adventure, you'll know to not create a bunch of role play elements they won't bother to investigate. Figure out what they want and do that, you'll all have more fun.
Secondly, it is really hard to figure out whether your anger at their laughing is meta game or out-of-character, or in-character. You wrote they were laughing "as" their characters, but later they say they wouldn't have.
Actions speak louder than words, and their actions were right, no matter what their words. They made some crude jokes, but if you have a problem with their joking that is only your problem, it is not the players or their character's problem.
Try to just have fun with your friends, or get your friends to have a good time. Don't try to tell some great story or want the players to care about things you care about. That will never happen, that is just life.
Remember two more things:
1. you can control the animal companion, not the player. Let the ranger get another animal companion, but don't let that companion take crap for the party. Cats are stalking animals that use surprise, and they run away when threatened. They don't get in 4 on 1 fights. (Though there are films of large groups of lions and hyenas fighting, it is rare)
2. you control the enemies. There is no logical reason for 5 hellhounds to attack a cat. Hellhounds are intelligent, not beasts. Why did you do that? I know the in-game reason of the wizard, but the out-of-game reason? It seems like you were trying to accomplish something, namely making the characters react in a way they didn't. See above, not a good idea.
Also punishing companions is an overused gimmick, and is not really a good choice unless you have people really into role-playing. Because the players won't care about their imaginary companion.
|
|
I personally prefer a style of DM'ing in which is not as immersive. I like to be able to make jokes out of character without the DM literally interpreting things I say as what my character says. I am a lot quieter and withdrawn when at a table where the DM immediately has NPCs respond to a joke as if it were in character.
"Oh look, these guys are in fireball formation, hahaha"
"The verbal threat changes their unfriendly attitude to hostile. Roll initiative."
Decker, I don't understand why there's an issue here. What did the players do wrong, aside from doing things you wouldn't have done in their place?
It seems like you're inventing rules of conduct and punishing the players for not following them. There is no penalty for acting against your alignment, nor any formal system for changing alignments. Good people do bad things.
Druids and rangers have absolutely no need to be kind to animals, or indeed anything. You have a very narrow idea of what druids and rangers are all about. They don't have to give a damn any more than fighters do. Sure, they USUALLY care, but that doesn't mean they should.
All that aside the dogs should have responded reasonably by defending themselves once their quarry was disabled to ensure they could finish the job. That they didn't just coup de gras it is pretty weird too.
You created the bizarre cat torture scenario in the first place by making them act irrationally, so the fact that you used GM fiat to make the plan fail and then took away class features for it is Kafka-esque crazyness.
You've gone beyond the bounds of impartial GMing to enforce your own personal preferences.
I wonder if you're even considering the difference between a player character being a hypocritical ass and the player themselves being a problem. Party tension and in-character arguments aren't a bad thing, after all.
Now all that's said, if you made it clear from the start that in your setting druids and rangers were animal lovers who kill only in self defence or the name of the circle of life, and neither player had indicated that their character had abandoned those beliefs, you could justifiably criticise their roleplaying.
If you had also told them you had a house rule that enforced a paladin-style code of conduct, then you'd be justified in taking away character options too.
As it is the only fiasco is your handling of this storm in a teacup.
A better approach might have been to start a conversation about the role of rangers and druids in your game, reach an agreement with the players about how and why they have their abilities (don't just tell them if they've already made the characters), and then have good aligned fey or emissaries of their deity show them the eventual consequences of walking down the path of cruelty. Then if they do it anyway, present fun challenges and hard choices, not penalties.
Thread was necro'd from 2011. Not sure how much of an answer you'll get from the OP.
I think the big problem was a big disconnect between the way the players and GM saw their own characters, but I don't think that adds much now that its a 2 year old convo about someone who may not be here.
Haha! Oh wow. Thaaaaanks Deadmoon. God, what a waste of good bile.
