I just started my Jade Regent game and i have a player playing a Green Faith Druid, the concern by me and some of the other players is that he is not being very druid like. especially give how the Green Faith reads in the Factions Guide and the Faiths of Balance books. While he did attack a crocodile to save a party member, as soon as it was dead he cut it open looking for loot. It was only when asked why he would be doing such a thing, that he said that he was planning on using the whole corpse for food and such. At the game tonight he attacked a giant frog that had wondered close to the party's camp site.
So I ask rules wise ...when does a druid stop being a druid?
Rules Wise:
Ex-Druids
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 until she atones (see the atonement spell description).
I don't know the player so I don't know if he lied about cutting the croc open looking for loot, but common sense would say that croc stomachs don't carry treasure. If the player does not know better then I would explain it to him. As for the giant frog I would ask why he chose to attack it instead of using wild empathy to try to get it to leave. I would think that a druid would not kill an animal as a first resort.
The Green Faith is just a philosophy, and while it is not one he is adhering to well it can not take his powers, however his actions don't seem druid-like to me.I would tell him what I expect of him as druid.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Druids are not all vegan pacifists.
Many druids believe in things like "the strong survive" or "the circle of life" and thus have no problem killing animals in the slightest. The clutch of it comes in when they stop revering nature and determining when exactly that happens.
I think the OP's issue is killing the animal(frog as a first course of action) "just because".
I think the player is assuming all creatures are hostile, but that is just a guess.
|
Druids are not all vegan pacifists.
This exactly. People think druids are all supposed to be hippies, but they forget that nature worship can take a lot of different forms. Nature is the realm of predator and prey, and it would certainly be in form for a druid to kill an animal and eat its meat.
Though what it sounds like to me is that this druid's player is thinking of Pathfinder as a video game, and doesn't really get the idea that your class imposes a behavioral restriction. I wouldn't revoke his druid license over this until he crossed the line quite a bit further, but it might be worth a gentle reminder that is a role-playing game, and that means "getting into character".
Druids are able to be evil and chaotic. There is nothing saying they all have to be tree hugging pacifists.
In fact, taking this 1 step further is the Blight Druid.
The devoted servants of nature corrupted, ruined, and destroyed, blight druids are the caretakers of lands ravaged by natural disaster. While some are devoted to reforming and reclaiming lands despoiled by the ravages of civilization, others seek out the more rapacious violence inherent in nature and feed the creeping rot and decay that brings an end to all things.
Not that this means this particular player isn't playing it "badwrong".
Druids can not be chaotic. It is a prohibited alignment.
Druids can not be chaotic. It is a prohibited alignment.
How did my eyes read neutral, and my brain say lawful? Carry on folks.
|
As Jarl said.
If the character was NE and someone had wandered near his camp at night you would find it questionable for him to kill that person?
If he had a guard animal and that animal had noticed a potential predator approaching the camp you would have found strange for teh guad animal to react and attack the predator?
Sure, both behaviours would be wrong for my NG druid of Mielliki (an old FR campaign). No problem at all for a N, NE or CN druid of Gozreh.
I don't know if giant frogs would attack humans. If they would then I think the druid should be left alone, but if not then it might be an issue.
The druid may not understand the nature of RP based decisions. I know when I first started playing I just wanted to kill everything. I avoided paladins simply because I knew it put a restriction on my license to kill, that I thought existed.
In that case kill the frog. :)
My issue is that he is a Green Faith Druid, as per the factions guide the faith reads as fallows.
The Green Faith prizes balance above all. From its
genesis in the union of disparate druidical factions,
each of which bound itself to only one aspect of nature,
into a collective whole that encompasses all of nature, the
Green Faith has always sought to represent all that nature
is. Beyond its physical extremes, nature is beauty and
horror, bounty and desolation, wildness and harmony,
purity and pestilence, gentleness and fury. Members of this
faction are expected to tread lightly and walk faithfully in
all of nature’s ways and to encourage respect and reverence
for nature at all times. The group is organized into circles,
with members of higher circles giving orders to those of
lower rank.
Goal: A World in Balance
The Green Faith guides the world along a delicate path. It
works to keep all forces in balance, but a dynamic balance
like the ebbing tide, the turning moon, and the changing
seasons. A static balance is death and fossilization; it is life,
growth, death, decay, and rebirth that the Green Faith seeks.
It embraces storm, fire, and f lood, working to restore the
tender shoot and newborn litter in the aftermath of such
natural disasters, and so too does it nurture the human
communities, cultures, and empires that inhabit this world.
It tends them, watches over them, and culls them should
they grow too dangerous to the balance of all.
Alignment: N
The Green Faith prizes neutrality, as it sees nature itself
as the field upon which all other conf licts play out. Good
and evil, law and chaos, all struggle back and forth across
the face of the world, but the world contains and sustains
them all. While one dominant power might seek to
remake the world in its image, maintaining a balance of
powers ensures none can turn their minds to fundamental
changes that would destroy the world. Members of the
Green Faith are respected as neutral and impartial judges
and are often asked (or may offer) to serve as ambassadors
or mediators between those in conf lict, whether village
farmers or mighty kings.
So how does his actions reflect his belief.
It tends them, watches over them, and culls them should
they grow too dangerous to the balance of all.
'All' is your party. 'Too Dangerous' is things that may attack your party.
So what you are saying is that he would scorch the earth to save 6 people?!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like the player is not following the Green Faith path as diligently as he should. As a GM I would ask him if he intends to play the druid as a Green Faith druid or not, because if he is, then when he violates their tenets, he should be held accountable.
Many players routinely rip open the stomachs of anything they kill hoping to find recently devoured corpses full of loot.
I don't think his actions so far are unforgivable, perhaps the rash actions of a young Green Faith druid learning his way. Maybe a local higher level Green Faith druid has a short talk with him.
He chose a Green Faith trait for the character, and when i asked him if that was how he was going to play his druid he said "yup".
but thank you Adamantine Dragon, I just want to make sure i was not the only one thinking he was walking very close to the edge of not fallowing the faith.
on a funnier note his also has no ranks in knowledge nature or knowledge geography.
Maybe a local higher level Green Faith druid has a short talk with him.
That would be a nice way to go about it.
If a druid has to kill an animal, i´d say that using it for food is quite alright, also skinning for leather, using sinews, bone and teeth, as to show respect, by not letting anything go to waste.About the frog, this he could and propably should have dealt with by using a spell or wild empathy.
So what you are saying is that he would scorch the earth to save 6 people?!
I really dislike this sort of arguement. 'The sky is blue' 'So what you are saying, is that all colors besides blue should be banished forever?'
No, that's not what I said.
I'm not saying he's doing a fantastic job of playing a green faith druid. I'm stating that for the most part, large dangerous creatures are routinely killed by adventurers. There is nothing in the druid tenets that prevents them from doing this. Survival of the fittest, and the predator and prey relationship are perfectly in keeping with this.
To use a metaphor, you're throwing the goblin babies scenario at the paladin. He can't win. Either he let the crocodile kill his teammate, or you plan to punish him for killing it.
Cool thank you RedPorcupine, I think the rest of the party & me as the DM would not have a problem with him if that was how he handled things...but he seems way to aggressive for a druid of the green faith.
He plays as if his faith should be more a kin to an "only the strong survive" kind of thing.
I play a druid and have for a long time. She is no vegan hippie, she's a warrior druid. She's killed plenty of animals in her time. But she's never done so without need, and she's never desecrated the corpse. Except once. She did, in fact, cut open the stomach of a crocodile, but that was to retrieve the dead body of her animal companion which the croc had attacked and swallowed whole while the druid was saving the life of the party sorcerer.
It is completely OK to play a druid as a raw fang and claw survival-of-the-fittest type. But even they should revere nature. Reverence towards nature is the core concept of the druid. If they do have a need to kill an animal, that doesn't mean that they have to utilize any part of the animal for food, sinew, bone or whatever. All they have to do is respect the animal. Nature will take care of the animal's body, it will be food for insects, worms, microbes, etc. It will provide nutrients for local plants. It's all about the cycle of life and balance of nature.
Or that's how I play mine anyway.
on a funnier note his also has no ranks in knowledge nature or knowledge geography.
I am at a loss for words. It boggles the mind. On second thought i´m not even amused. Not even 1 little point in knowledge nature ? He does know this skill exists and how class skills work ? It´s not like Druid has too many of them. And who does those skill checks, if the Druid doesn´t ?
@ RedPorcupine
Right now the ranger, magus & sorcerer of the group handle those skill checks. he beats the ranger in survival so he handles that one.
It was only when asked why he would be doing such a thing, that he said that he was planning on using the whole corpse for food and such.
Thats a pretty good in character way to rationalize an out of player concern of getting as much loot as possible.
Many druids feel that becomming part of the food chain is the best way to experience it, and as such will hunt, will eat meat etc. If he's eating the stuff he kills and turning it into leather he is living up to his precepts, if not the ones stereotypically associated with druids.
LN: Nature is a wonder of natural order: May worship ants, wolves, or some other creature with a defined hierarchical structure
CN: Nature is freee! No rules, no restrictions, just whatever you want to do.
NE: Nature red in tooth and claw, wild, unfettered desire to kill what you want when you want as soon as its the slightest threat to you.. because you can
NG: Look around, we're living with the lost and found.
Just when you feel you've almost drowned
You find yourself on solid ground.
And you believe there's good in everybody's heart.
Keep it safe and sou - nd.
With hope you can do your part
To turn - a life - around.
TN: theres a few ways to do this, one is the old 2 e druid actively going for balance, another is someone that looks out for his family and his friends, they just happen to be animals, plants and trees.
I have to say, if you are talking about the beginning of a campaign, it is hard to judge a neutral character based on a few actions. Neutrality isn't really an alignment of its own, it is the balancing of the other 4 alignments. It is hard to even come up with any specific action which is neutral in and of itself. Now, if over time, this character's actions trend toward evil, or even good, chaotic or lawful, you should adjust his alignment accordingly, but keep in mind, he would need to trend away from neutral along both the good/evil and lawful/chaos axis, as it is quite valid to have a neutral-evil druid.
As far as following the precepts of his faction, he may very well be violating his vows, and should be held accountable by his faction if information regarding his behaviour reaches faction leaders. On the other hand, it may be just as valid to say that he was tending to the well-being of millions of fungi, insects, bacteria and other scavengers by slaughtering those mega-fauna and casting their entrails to the wind. Should he sacrifice the well-being of millions to be compassionate to two just because of superior size?
on a funnier note his also has no ranks in knowledge nature or knowledge geography.I am at a loss for words. It boggles the mind. On second thought i´m not even amused. Not even 1 little point in knowledge nature ? He does know this skill exists and how class skills work ? It´s not like Druid has too many of them. And who does those skill checks, if the Druid doesn´t ?
Does he have survival? Heal? Handle animal? How about profession/sailor, craft/tanner, etc. Just as not all druids are vegan hippies, not all druids are loremasters. The "field work" aspects of druidry are just as legitimate as the academic.
Mind you -- all MY druids have knowledge/nature, and most pick up at least a few ranks in knowledge/geography. But I think there is a case to be made for a druid without them, as a perfectly viable and reasonable druid.
I have a question from our session last night.
The situation:
The player in question is playing a Storm Druid of Gozreh, the actions are reminisent of a Barbarain (rush in kill everything no matter what it is, she been down to neg HP 3 times and died once because of this being recerected by Gozreh, she is already on her/his blacklist).
The party landed on an island, made a ton of noise whilst gathering supplies on the beach drawing the attention of the inhabitants of the island, a tribe of Vegepygmies. The Druids first recation seeing 40 vegepygmies in the treeline with spears above the beach was to cast stonecall, in no way were they vegepygmies portrayed as hostile if anything they were defensive thinking their island was being invaded. They made no move to approach and stayed in the treeline until this point.
As Vegepygmies are plants, they are N and they were non-hostile does this action consitute a voilation of the Druid code? I think it does as she could have used any number of ways instead of voilence to difuse the situation (sense motive, knowle nature, speak to plant spell, diplomacy, bluff, heck i might even have allowed wild empathy)
it does sound like green faith isnt a good pc choice
adventurers do stuff, they kill stuff, and alter stuff, and change stuff, and make stuff, and take stuff and break stuff
im not sure any pc could fulfill the 'balance in all things'
I have a question from our session last night.
The situation:
The player in question is playing a Storm Druid of Gozreh, the actions are reminisent of a Barbarain (rush in kill everything no matter what it is, she been down to neg HP 3 times and died once because of this being recerected by Gozreh, she is already on her/his blacklist).The party landed on an island, made a ton of noise whilst gathering supplies on the beach drawing the attention of the inhabitants of the island, a tribe of Vegepygmies. The Druids first recation seeing 40 vegepygmies in the treeline with spears above the beach was to cast stonecall, in no way were they vegepygmies portrayed as hostile if anything they were defensive thinking their island was being invaded. They made no move to approach and stayed in the treeline until this point.
As Vegepygmies are plants, they are N and they were non-hostile does this action consitute a voilation of the Druid code? I think it does as she could have used any number of ways instead of voilence to difuse the situation (sense motive, knowle nature, speak to plant spell, diplomacy, bluff, heck i might even have allowed wild empathy)
A plain old druid does not have to be a pacifist. They dont even have to be nice. You can be a Neutral Evil Druid and do evil for evils sake. This isnt particularly nice to just throw down with hte vegepygmies. But it isnt a violation of some druid code. The OP had a very specific kind of druid as the faction the druid is allied with. That doesnt count for all druids in the least.
If you really think he's not behaving like the faction stuff instructs him to behave, then there is a very viable and fully supported in-game mechanic to correct this, that requires no discussion out-of-game at all. Yank his spells for a day.
Rule:
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 until she atones (see the atonement spell description).
Atonement might be a little harsh. Give him a day probation.
A plain old druid does not have to be a pacifist. They dont even have to be nice. You can be a Neutral Evil Druid and do evil for evils sake. This isnt particularly nice to just throw down with hte vegepygmies. But it isnt a violation of some druid code. The OP had a very specific kind of druid as the faction the druid is allied with. That doesnt count for all druids in the least.
No, a druid does not have to be a hippie. But they do have to "revere nature". Killing animals and plants indiscriminately may or may not be "evil" but it is certainly not "revering nature."
I know there are plenty of players who simply ignore this aspect of the druid, but it is, nevertheless, RAW.
If you really think he's not behaving like the faction stuff instructs him to behave, then there is a very viable and fully supported in-game mechanic to correct this, that requires no discussion out-of-game at all. Yank his spells for a day.
Rule:
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 until she atones (see the atonement spell description).
Atonement might be a little harsh. Give him a day probation.
Does killing a crocodile and later attacking a giant frog mean one no longer reveres nature? There is a survival of the fittest argument to be made here. Not all druids are tree-hugging vegetarian (and, as a tree-hugging vegetarian myself, I have only ever played more primal druids. My wolf shaman would have had no problem killing a giant frog who strayed too near his 'pack'[the adventuring party]).
I think this really depends more on whether these actions fit in with the player's character. Of course, I am unsure if someone who cuts open a crocodile looking for loot has much of a developed concept in mind...
Design Manager
|
A plain old druid does not have to be a pacifist. They dont even have to be nice. You can be a Neutral Evil Druid and do evil for evils sake. This isnt particularly nice to just throw down with hte vegepygmies. But it isnt a violation of some druid code. The OP had a very specific kind of druid as the faction the druid is allied with. That doesnt count for all druids in the least.
No, a druid does not have to be a hippie. But they do have to "revere nature". Killing animals and plants indiscriminately may or may not be "evil" but it is certainly not "revering nature."
I know there are plenty of players who simply ignore this aspect of the druid, but it is, nevertheless, RAW.
Lol, this made me brace for a "GM made my paladin fall" thread starring a druid instead of a paladin.
Lol, this made me brace for a "GM made my paladin fall" thread starring a druid instead of a paladin.
No, a druid does not have to be a hippie. But they do have to "revere nature". Killing animals and plants indiscriminately may or may not be "evil" but it is certainly not "revering nature."I know there are plenty of players who simply ignore this aspect of the druid, but it is, nevertheless, RAW.
If druids can't fall for not revering nature, then the rule that says they should fall for not revering nature needs to be revoked.
Why have a rule that can never be enforced?
|
Design Manager
|
Lol, this made me brace for a "GM made my paladin fall" thread starring a druid instead of a paladin.
No, a druid does not have to be a hippie. But they do have to "revere nature". Killing animals and plants indiscriminately may or may not be "evil" but it is certainly not "revering nature."I know there are plenty of players who simply ignore this aspect of the druid, but it is, nevertheless, RAW.
If druids can't fall for not revering nature, then the rule that says they should fall for not revering nature needs to be revoked.
Why have a rule that can never be enforced?
Oh I agree with you AD, I've just seen the threads that come about when a player gets told he's violated his code and lost his powers.
@ Norse Wolf: Thumbs up for the Dr.Horrible reference. ^^
|
1) Revering nature does not prevent a druid from killing an animal that threatens their friends, or from harvesting that animal's body for useful materials including meat, hide, or undigested treasure. I don't think it'd even break the true neutral alignment.
2) If you're concerned that the player is in general not taking the druidic requirement of revering nature seriously enough, I recommend talking with him about what he thinks it means and possibly coming up with specific personal taboos or rituals surrounding killing animals (such as not killing an animal without first attempting to scare it off, always putting the body of a slain animal to good use, or saying a short prayer after killing an animal).
3) The only useful thing I gathered from the Green Faith faction description is that a member must be true neutral. The rest of it is extremely vague and could fit just about any true neutral druid.
If you really think he's not behaving like the faction stuff instructs him to behave, then there is a very viable and fully supported in-game mechanic to correct this, that requires no discussion out-of-game at all. Yank his spells for a day.
Rule:
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 until she atones (see the atonement spell description).
Atonement might be a little harsh. Give him a day probation.
Does killing a crocodile and later attacking a giant frog mean one no longer reveres nature? There is a survival of the fittest argument to be made here. Not all druids are tree-hugging vegetarian (and, as a tree-hugging vegetarian myself, I have only ever played more primal druids. My wolf shaman would have had no problem killing a giant frog who strayed too near his 'pack'[the adventuring party]).
I think this really depends more on whether these actions fit in with the player's character. Of course, I am unsure if someone who cuts open a crocodile looking for loot has much of a developed concept in mind...
Just like the Paladin threads, it depends on his intent and his approach. Did he attempt to use wild empathy first in either case? That's a telling sign, IMO. The wild empathy skill was added almost specifically for these cases. If he didn't have speak with animals memmed, and he tried and failed at animal empathy or he was hungry, then fine, kill the frog. If he had speak with animals memmed and didn't use it, or he didn't even try to do the whole Crocodile Hunter thing with the frog and killed it just for fun or loot, then that's not survival of the fittest at all. That's just being a dick. Druids have a hundred ways to get a giant frog to go away without killing it. That's part of the whole point of being a Druid. If he doesn't understand the whole point of being a Druid, then yeah, yank his spells for a day.
I played a NE Druid from level 3 to 17 and never murdered a frog who wandered into my camp without at least asking him to leave first. Humans, sure. Not animals. When you're a Druid, you only kill animals for food or in self defense when other options don't work.