That druids CAN lose their powers by not living up to their commitments and continuing to revere nature.
Excelt where is it defined as to what this actually means?
We have the clear cut points of 'wear metal armour - lose powers', which is tight and prescriptive. Which is good.
Oh I think the Druid was all levels of Jerky, what I don't agree with is the revere=respect=not allowed to kill or eat anything.
I love the notion posited abouve that you can completely respect a Goblin then proceed to kill it in a blazing inferno... you respect it, just not its right to live. I see...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the notion posited abouve that you can completely respect a Goblin then proceed to kill it in a blazing inferno... you respect it, just not its right to live. I see...
I see Shifty never considered the concept of the honored enemy. :)
"I used to love her, but I had to kill her"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The player shows complete disregard for a class feature, then it can be taken away. Any nature god would do that. Either take it away, or take away all his powers until he atones.
A druid should use his pet wisely, not smoke it in the dumbest possible way. If the player really didn't know blasting a hell cat with fire while his wolf is tangling with it is a dumb move, I wonder how he got to this level alive.
I would absolutely make him lose his powers and atone. Them's the rules. If the OP doesn't want to go that far, he can just deny him a companion until he thinks long and hard about it.
This is an excellent opportunity to get wood-for-brains to act like a character, rather than a stat pile. It's good for the whole table.
"I used to love her, but I had to kill her"?
Something like that. You can entirely respect or even revere something as you become its destroyer. Even an exterminator can expound upon the cleverness and instincts of the rat. Two generals from opposing sides will learn everything they can about the other guy even keeping their picture on his desk and come to respect and even like the guy but won't hesitate to put a bullet in the others head.
Depends on which Nature God though doesn't it?
Stalin clearly revered and respected Russia, indisputable fact, yet apparently thought nothing of killing 30,000,000 of its inhabitants. An NE Druid following a very 'dark' Nature deity might think nothing of a little collateral damage in pursuit of the bigger picture - and the opportunity to kill a RARE and unnatuaral Hell Cat via the sacrfice of a common-as-dirt wolf might not even cause the batting of an eye.
Nature can be vicious, vindictive, and capricious - the Great White Shark is a prime example.
Nature isn't all Carebears and Rainbows.
Perhaps he should not receive another animal companion. His god, or nature, or whatever has decided that he doesn't treat his companions with the respect they deserve, and he's denied any more until he atones. If he does that again, he goes into ex-druid territory.
This player appears to be about as dumb as wood, BTW.
^This^
The act isn't so bad the druid should lose his powers, I think, although he certainly isn't acting the way a Neutral Good druid should act, that may just be stupidity. I think TarkXT has the right of it - he is treating class and alignment as just words and stats when the DM is expecting a little more attempt at immersion.
I see nothing wrong or illogical about the animals locally starting to give him a wide berth; in just the same way, the Leadership feat has negative modifiers for letting your followers get killed. Let him reap what he sows until he figures out how to give a damn.
+2
I look back at the days where Druids were TN only. Even then nature was 'respected', while civilisations were looked down on. That animal companion was worth more than any of the humans or other civilized 'allies' you had in your party, always cutting down nature to make way for their own will.
Two generals from opposing sides will learn everything they can about the other guy even keeping their picture on his desk and come to respect and even like the guy but won't hesitate to put a bullet in the others head.
Indeed.
So flame striking your AC seems quite reasonable in that context :)
The player shows complete disregard for a class feature, then it can be taken away.
Any nature god would do that. Either take it away, or take away all his powers until he atones.
disrespect for class feature? isn't that a bit... metagaming?
do you enforce this on fighters who don't properly roleplay their devotion to their greataxe/etc?A druid should use his pet wisely, not smoke it in the dumbest possible way. If the player really didn't know blasting a hell cat with fire while his wolf is tangling with it is a dumb move, I wonder how he got to this level alive.
and obviously, this move didn't actually help the character at all.
unless the OP says otherwise, i will assume that the druid didn't (succesfully) make the knowledge checks to know about extraplanar monsters' resistances.nuking your own allies would certainly make it more likely that your own ass gets handed to you.
but isn't allowing those natural consequences to play out more in tune with the 'natural world'? ;-)
This is an excellent opportunity to get wood-for-brains to act like a character, rather than a stat pile.
maybe. or maybe the druid in question really is a dumb-ass sociopath. maybe both.
but wastfully applying your class abilities is something that SMART socipaths would probably avoid.so if the problem is just that the player is dumb, gm fiat punishments aren't going to fix that.
I do not really see an issue with the druid putting the AC in the line of fire, he presumably expected, or at least hoped, the AC to make the save.
Being a bit of a bully isn't exactly undruid-like in my opinion. Is the druid tied to a specific deity in your setting , or is it a servant of nature ? If so it might be against the philopsophy of the nature deity, it might as well affect his alignment.
I suspect what the player is guilty of is poor rp though, a neutral good druid is not supposed to act like that towards his animal companion.
and the GM should fulfill their role as described by the rules,
namely to track characters' alignment so that it matches their actual actions.
encounters with NPCs who can detect and respond appropriately to his true alignment may be just what is needed to show the player that his actions have repurcussions, even in fantasy make-believe world. loading on mechanical penalties is not going to make anybody a better role-player.
Indeed.
I'd suggest the GM needed to track that alignment closely, but also do their job and articulate the Deity's expectation. You can't just handwave the process and call it 'Random nature deity' then get upset when there's a difference in understanding of what that means exactly.
I also find it curious that most of the 'default deity' descriptions would put it into firmly NG territory - perhaps players (inc GMs) are quick to overlay their own beliefs rather than assume an N default.
The player shows complete disregard for a class feature, then it can be taken away.
Any nature god would do that. Either take it away, or take away all his powers until he atones.disrespect for class feature? isn't that a bit... metagaming?
do you enforce this on fighters who don't properly roleplay their devotion to their greataxe/etc?A druid should use his pet wisely, not smoke it in the dumbest possible way. If the player really didn't know blasting a hell cat with fire while his wolf is tangling with it is a dumb move, I wonder how he got to this level alive.and obviously, this move didn't actually help the character at all.
unless the OP says otherwise, i will assume that the druid didn't (succesfully) make the knowledge checks to know about extraplanar monsters' resistances.
nuking your own allies would certainly make it more likely that your own ass gets handed to you.
but isn't allowing those natural consequences to play out more in tune with the 'natural world'? ;-)maybe. or maybe the druid in question really is a dumb-ass sociopath. maybe both.
This is an excellent opportunity to get wood-for-brains to act like a character, rather than a stat pile.
I thought that if I said "class feature," I'd get that.
Who's metagaming, here? Wood-brain not giving a $&#^ about his AC, or the GM who's seen how the player treats what is essentially a sacred bond for any druid of any alignment?
I'd bust him for it. Did the player even try to make a knowledge check? Probably not, since planes isn't on the druid's list. A giant flaming cat skeleton should give him some clue, though.
From what's explained here, or at least what I get from it, that level of disregard should be penalized. He's angered the gods, either by being cruel or stupid.
The player can seek atonement and get "reinstated." It's not "game over." Hey, we all make mistakes. Maybe he'll learn to appreciate what he has.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd have to agree with some of the posters that this sounds more like ground for an alignment shift than removal of class features. A druid can have a "Survival of the Fittest" mentality towards his animal companion and be just fine. A Neutral Good character viewing his animal companion that way, on the other hand, is a problem.
Depends on which Nature God though doesn't it?
Stalin clearly revered and respected Russia, indisputable fact, yet apparently thought nothing of killing 30,000,000 of its inhabitants. An NE Druid following a very 'dark' Nature deity might think nothing of a little collateral damage in pursuit of the bigger picture - and the opportunity to kill a RARE and unnatuaral Hell Cat via the sacrfice of a common-as-dirt wolf might not even cause the batting of an eye.
Nature can be vicious, vindictive, and capricious - the Great White Shark is a prime example.
Nature isn't all Carebears and Rainbows.
You know what, I reverse my previous position. F that wolf. Things die. Welcome to True Neutral Alignment.
From what's explained here, or at least what I get from it, that level of disregard should be penalized. He's angered the gods, either by being cruel or stupid.
Per above, WHICH god did he anger?
The God of PETA? The God of Natures Fury? Some other nasty nature entity?
An NG one maybe, but the nasty side of Natural Divinity that gave us the Scythe Tree and other malevolent joys of the natural landscape might not have cared.
So the moral is:
Just don't send your Carebear Rainbow Companion on suicide missions.
A My Little Pony would cry if you did that.
You know what, I reverse my previous position. F that wolf. Things die. Welcome to True Neutral Alignment.
Come on in, the weather is fine :)
So the moral is:
Just don't send your Carebear Rainbow Companion on suicide missions.
A My Little Pony would cry if you did that.
"NO BELLAMY! ITS A TRAP!"
So lesson: Just play 'Bright Eyes' every time you get an AC gets wasted and all is forgiven.
I think I agree with the minority here...
Even tho he's "BBQ'ing" his animal companions like they were nothing, you should really have a chat with him out of game. If you want him to conform to the cleric's ideals on companions/ cohorts... or simply just care at all... you should talk to him first BEFORE lowering the hammer on him.
After you chat with him about him being non-chalant (sp) about his companions deaths' , then bust out the penalties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
disrespect for class feature? isn't that a bit... metagaming?
do you enforce this on fighters who don't properly roleplay their devotion to their greataxe/etc?
The greataxe example is a terrible argument. There's a real penalty associated with a broken greataxe. i.e. they have to buy or repair their greataxe. Apparently no one likes the idea of associating penalties to lost animal companions even though similar classes do have penalties associated with broken or destroyed class features.
Summoning a constant stream of wolfies to die unceremoniously is a pretty blatant abuse of the feature and done almost always because the character in question can simply gain another. It's basically caring only about the mechanics while ignoring what fluff the mechanics actually support. Mainly the points where you have an empathic link with the creature. You feel its pain, its sorrow, its terror. You are connected to it in ever yway imaginable body and soul. And you just burned that bit alive.
You see, I'm a bastard. I think mechanical penalties are cute. That poor druid would wish I had stripped him of his companion when the wolves he starts summoning seem absolutely terrified of him. When he wakes up in cold sweats feeling his flesh burn from his bones and being overwhelmed with a deep sense of betrayal. Ghost wolves would haunt him. Packs of wolves who he would normally commune with would avoid his presence.
So the moral is:
Just don't send your Carebear Rainbow Companion on suicide missions.
A My Little Pony would cry if you did that.
Snark aside, the player was stupid about and/or abusive of a sacred bond. It doesn't matter what "gods" he ticked off. That would tick any of them off.
Deities can deny characters their powers. It's in the rules. This fits. If you don't think so, fine. I think it's a good example of a stupidly-played druid getting what he deserves, and the player getting a solid reminder that actions have consequences.
That would tick any of them off
It might or might not, this needs defining in advance.
That NE is a viable option for a Nature Deity is worth considering, and that E indicator isn't there because of the caring view of the world.
Look at real world religions.
Wow, there really are different ways to play the game.
Whodathunkit?
Wow, there really are different ways to play the game.
What thats outrageous!! Next you'll tell me theres more than one way to interpet Flurry of Blows.
Wow, there really are different ways to play the game.
Snark aside, you're right. TBH, I doubt such a player would last long in my game.
I thought it took a week before you could replace a companion. Then it took a full 24 hours of meditation in the creatures natural habitat.
i knew a guy who used to fight dogs to the death, even he cried when his favorite dog died in the ring. not proud if that, but even a sadistic person who breaks the law killing dogs for money shows remorse...
i knew a guy who used to fight dogs to the death, even he cried when his favorite dog died in the ring. not proud if that, but even a sadistic person who breaks the law killing dogs for money shows remorse...
Doesn't make him evil by alignment standards. Sure probably neutral with some evil tendencies but not evil.
I thought it took a week before you could replace a companion. Then it took a full 24 hours of meditation in the creatures natural habitat.
If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer in the environment where the new companion typically lives. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished.
Compare that to:
A cavalier’s bond with his mount is strong, with the pair learning to anticipate each other’s moods and moves. Should a cavalier’s mount die, the cavalier may find another mount to serve him after 1 week of mourning. This new mount does not gain the link, evasion, devotion, or improved evasion special abilities until the next time the cavalier gains a level.
Now THAT is an ENORMOUS difference.
I would argue it should be the other way around, but there you have it.
The Samurai as a tree huggin' crybaby having an emo? really?
The greataxe example is a terrible argument. There's a real penalty associated with a broken greataxe. i.e. they have to buy or repair their greataxe. Apparently no one likes the idea of associating penalties to lost animal companions even though similar classes do have penalties associated with broken or destroyed class features.
And yet there is no rule mechanically penalizing new AC's, as there is for Leadership.
FYI, I pointed out that Animal Companions ARE still 100% liable to normal variance in attitudes as per any other animal/NPC, and that they are not mindless suicide bots. Whether new Animal Companions come in with a less than stellar attitude is somewhat up to GM fiat, but this could be the case due to abuse of previous Animal Companions OR other character actions... I'm less inclined to rule that Animal Companions are particularly more 'loyal' to the brotherhood of animal companions per se, but I DON'T see it as far-fetched that the new(replacement) AC might not have the BEST attitude category re: the Druid, and that fact could certainly factor on how they respond to commands in combat...
Mainly the points where you have an empathic link with the creature. You feel its pain, its sorrow, its terror. You are connected to it in ever yway imaginable body and soul. And you just burned that bit alive.
yup, sounds pretty evil.
animal domain paladins would run into problems with that. evil druids, not so much.i think it's more fun for stupid/evil-acting PCs to die by their own faults.
i don't think this guy needs a helping hand in that.
Doesn't make him evil by alignment standards. Sure probably neutral with some evil tendencies but not evil.
when did i say anything about evil, i said he showed remorse for his dog dying even though he does it for a living...
i will spell out my post for you, the player isnt showing remorse which is metagaming, as he sees it as a stat block. but his character SHOULD be crying his eyes out that his pal died.
now unless the player is playing a sociopath he should be role playing the death to some degree. now should he be forced to role play? if he doesnt want to he shouldnt have to.
but the gm expects it and the gm should reward or penalise the player according to the standard of the game. im in the same boat as the gm, i expect roleplaying and limited metagaming.
so i would "throw 'em in da meat grinda"
The greataxe example is a terrible argument. There's a real penalty associated with a broken greataxe. i.e. they have to buy or repair their greataxe. Apparently no one likes the idea of associating penalties to lost animal companions even though similar classes do have penalties associated with broken or destroyed class features.And yet there is no rule mechanically penalizing new AC's, as there is for Leadership.
FYI, I pointed out that Animal Companions ARE still 100% liable to normal variance in attitudes as per any other animal/NPC, and that they are not mindless suicide bots. Whether new Animal Companions come in with a less than stellar attitude is somewhat up to GM fiat, but this could be the case due to abuse of previous Animal Companions OR other character actions... I'm less inclined to rule that Animal Companions are particularly more 'loyal' to the brotherhood of animal companions per se, but I DON'T see it as far-fetched that the new(replacement) AC might not have the BEST attitude category re: the Druid, and that fact could certainly factor on how they respond to commands in combat...
Don't care. Packs of wraith wolves are still haunting you.
Again, some GM fiat mechanical penalties are not going to make a good role-player out of somebody.
Having engaging, interesting NPC interactions that let other good role-players show off their stuff,
and reveal the flatness of said players' role-playing, IS the sort of thing that may inspire somebody to step up to the next level.
If haunted wraith wolves are a good tool in your game, to either have the player embrace or reject their evil ways, then go for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah that could be epic!
Haunted wraith wolves come and guide you (forcefully) to your new Black Grove and your Ceremony embracing Natures brutality - welcome to black druidry dawg
Again, some GM fiat mechanical penalties are not going to make a good role-player out of somebody.
They might play a little less stupidly, though.
Having engaging, interesting NPC interactions that let other good role-players show off their stuff,
and reveal the flatness of said players' role-playing, IS the sort of thing that may inspire somebody to step up to the next level.
If haunted wraith wolves are a good tool in your game, to either have the player embrace or reject their evil ways, then go for it.
Or, you could cite the rules about druids, act on them, and make the player start thinking about playing a character with divine ties to and gifts from nature.
Or, you could cite the rules about druids, act on them, and make the player start thinking about playing a character with divine ties to and gifts from nature.
Curiously, you insist on showing them the 'Rules', yet seem to be completely averse to showing them the context.
Unless you detail out the Deity, the rules alone have little meaning.\
Why don't you want to detail what could be an NE Deity? Does it offend YOUR interpretation of what Druids should be about?
Several points have been made about this, and you have even been called out on it... yet you keep ducking the inconvenient questions.
And they call ME 'Shifty'.
How do evil druids revere nature? How would they express this in action?
How do evil druids revere nature? How would they express this in action?
Through apathy and violence. But mostly apathy.
How do evil druids revere nature? How would they express this in action?
It has already been covered in the thread above.
For further reading, may I direct you to the 2nd Ed Complete Druids Handbook where you would find a wealth of information on this very topic - you might even find some interesting campaign hooks and options for well developed Druidic BBEG's while you are there - I did.
How do evil druids revere nature? How would they express this in action?
"It's not nice to fool around with Mother Nature!" *crackle* *fry*
Probably lots of them see themselves as "Nature's Wrath" against [YOUR NAME HERE], playing up the destructive side of nature - in evil ways. Sending swarms against hapless peasants that displease them. . .er, nature, extorting people planning to build something in the guise of protecting nature ("you must pay me. . .er, the natural world a cost if you want to build your road here"), and so on.
The typical thing when something is twisted to evil ends.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sending swarms against hapless peasants that displease them. . .
Waste of a good peasant.
Roll out your wicker-men.
While other Roman writers of the time, such as Cicero, Suetonius, Lucan, Tacitus and Pliny the Elder, described human sacrifice among the Celts, only Caesar and the geographer Strabo mention the wicker man as one of many ways the Druids of Gaul performed sacrifices. Caesar reports that some of the Gauls built the effigies out of sticks and placed living men inside, then set them on fire to pay tribute to the gods. Caesar writes that though the Druids generally used thieves and criminals, as they pleased the gods more, they sometimes used innocent men when no delinquents could be found.
Sending swarms against hapless peasants that displease them. . .Waste of a good peasant.
Now, I myself do believe "waste not, want not," but a Druid who sees nothing wrong in wasting his own perfectly good Animal Companions by the bushel probably doesn't worry too much about how wasteful he is with hapless peons.
Was there something in these sources that showed Druids abusing their animal companions for short term personal gain?
I get the whole evil druid thing. I really do. Most of them bring down nature's wrath on civilized humanoid cultures. Or they believe in survival of the fittest, natural selection, strong live and weak die, savage barbarianism and all that jive. I get that.
But what I don't recall anything showing druids as sadistically throwing their animal companion at a burning foe and then purposefully flame striking them both when one could have been easily avoided. There wasn't even a short term gain involved as it didn't down the foe and did kill his companion.
Personally, I would think that an evil druid might not revere his humanoid companions but that he has a much stronger relationship with his animal companion. He would be likely to throw one of his humanoid companions under the bus long before he would throw the one companion he could trust.
Shifty: Although the question wasn't directed at you specifically it sure is nice to imply that I hadn't read the thread rather than answering it. Deflection is always better than directly confronting a question, right?
As far as BBEG druids the first one that came to mind was the Ghostlord from Red Hand of Doom. The problem was that he IS an ex-druid Blighter. I think what most people who are defending this druid's actions are thinking of what a Blighter would do. But a Blighter is not a druid. They are a perversion of everything that a Druid once held dear. They abuse nature. They take the kinds of actions that this druid did.
An evil Druid is not a Blighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
P.S. to OP: If you really want to punish your player for doing this, direct him to this thread (or print it out for him), and have him read it, where even many if not most of the people who have defended his behavior as within the ruurs for Druids to be like this with their Animal Companions (and I was/am one of those, sort of, with caviates - see my first post in the thread), have called him foolish, an idiot, stupid, and so on for nuking his AC and generally being indifferent/uncaringly wasteful.
For many people, being considered a moron is a greater motivation to reform their behavior and play-style than being told "you're not doing it right, you lose your abilities."
Shifty: Although the question wasn't directed at you specifically it sure is nice to imply that I hadn't read the thread rather than answering it. Deflection is always better than directly confronting a question, right?
Except what you have asked has been answered several times over in the preceeding posts, so the presumption was that the only way you could still be seeking an answer to the question was if you'd missed them by not actually reading them.
I think the Stalin example kind of covers it for you. you are looking at the small picture, Stalin loved his country yet killed over twenty million and you want to quibble over a single wolf?
Do you consider it defelection when people don't feel inclined to personally copy, paste, and edit down for your persual a range of posts that have already answered your question, or is simply asking that you go back and examine the source yourself enough?
I even provided you further reading material on the subject if you wanted to take it further.
Stalin was not a druid. That is not an example.
I consider it deflection when I point out that they are deflecting that they do it again rather than answering the question.