I think the answer he wants is a specific example of a druid treating his animal companion like dirt and still managing to retain his powers one way or another. Basically seeing if there's an NPC or piece of info new or old that refers to this subject.
Easy enough.
What we need to do though is firstly break the conflation of 'AC = Nature'.
Nature is a broad concept, Global.
The Druid can certainly take the view that 'Nature' is an environmental concept, and seek to preserve the balance of the natural order. Whilst teh Neutral aspect considers that each species has a right to its space and survival, the Druid is concerned with ensuring that no one species takes more than their share or imbalances the natural habitat by needelessly destroying the habitat of other species - thereby threatening them. Clearly Nature saw fit to evolve/create these life forms, and so therefore the Druid (as natures agent) is there to help guide them as a species.
Note how this is all about 'Environment' and 'species'? At no point has it got down to the micro level of group hugs and rainbows.
Regeneration and cleaning is often manifested through flame and fire; fire is a natural tool of re-birth (note the myriad of plants that actually rely on bushfires to germinate, and in these fires thousands of animals might well be killed - WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW? :p ) and thus the flame might be needed to contain and clean the denizens from areas where they have over extended their welcome and pushed the ecology to imbalance. (Here is where the Druid torches small children as they burn down the village that has been logging in abundance and sending a message to the OTHER villagers).
Whilst the Druid reveres Mankind, he feels nothing for the individual members, his mind completely fixated on the natural order, and he its devoted agent. Like Pappa Joe Stalin, loving Russia and its people, even as he has them killed in the millions.
From here we could begin getting REALLY NASTY NE if you'd like?
My advice to the OP:
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.
I would have some distraught wolves interrupt him a few dozen times looking for their relatives.
There ya go, Shifty! I knew you could actually give a coherent answer devoid of personal attacks.
And that is honestly a position I could see an evil druid taking up. Well, some of it, anyway. I think your example goes WAY overboard. I think you meant it to, though, and thats ok. But where it goes overboard it starts to stomp on the whole "revere nature" bit.
Perhaps incinerating a logging village would be within the realm of understanding for an evil druid. And I definitely can understand him not giving a crap for the people in that village. But your not putting it in perspective here. This example isn't one that is analogous to the one posted. To make it analogous you would have to have the evil druid send his animal companion into the village, hold down the Mayor while he flame strikes the whole thing with the animal companion in there.
Needless wonton destruction in the name of preserving the balance of nature and inspiring regrowth is all groovy for an evil druid. I'm there with you on that. However, at the point he sends his Animal Companion into a suicide deathtrap wherein it doesn't even serve to further that goal I draw the line. If the only option for the village's destruction involved the death of his Animal Companion, then sure, I can see him sending it in.
The problem is that the land is damaged and needs to be purged of it's infestation ... but the Animal Companion (which is part of nature) does not. The vegetation will all regrow and will likely actually even be helped by the fire ... but the Animal Companion will not. The Mayor would have been right there in the middle of the Flame Strike regardless of where the Animal Companion is and wont even be hurt much by the flames thanks to his ring of fire resistance that has a big glowing label on it... the Animal Companion?... no such ring to ensure it's safety. And sending the Animal Companion in didn't even help! It isn't like he had to hold the Mayor in place to be hit by the Flame Strike or anything.
It was needless. The only reason I can figure that he would have for sending in the Animal Companion is wanting to see it burn. And that is sadistic. And what type of animal would want to follow a Druid who treats his companions like that? No, I can definitely see the ex-druid rules as being used here.
Especially because the Druid in question was not evil. He was good.
There ya go, Shifty! I knew you could actually give a coherent answer devoid of personal attacks.
IKR! You'll get there too one day :)
Especially because the Druid in question was not evil. He was good.
Which is why the conversation simply became one of Alignment, and rightly so.
I pointed out why an evil druid would also not willingly Flame Strike his companion in an analogous situation.
In another situation, that similarly assumes an awful lot.
Fire Resistant Mayors and a whole lot of insider knowledge on behalf of the Druid.
If the Druid DIDN'T know about the amazingly flame resistant properties of the Mayor, he might well have happily sent the Wolf in - hoping that the Mayors last moments on Earth were spent in terror, throat gripped in the ripping jaws of a giant wolf, just moments before him and his family were engulfed in a fiery inferno. That's some particularly cold blooded stuff right there.
knowing the Mayor might get communed with from beyond the grave, or even resurrected, the Druid knows that by coldly executing one, he educates thousands (thank you Chairman Mao - a man who respected and revered China, whilst murdering and killing millions of Chinese in the Peoples glorious revolution)
The point is that for each case you make about why the Druid WOULDN'T nuke his companion, there is equally a case where he would. Including in the OP example.
Fire Resistant Mayors with a ring that is glowing with a big bright label. Not insider knowledge.
That would be equivalent to a flaming cat. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or someone with Knowledge: Planes) to think that maybe the flaming cat might be resistant to fire.
The "education" of the Mayor has nothing to do with the Animal Companion. Well, I take that back. I think that word of the death of that Animal Companion might spread like the wildfire he created. I don't think any animal who heard about the exploits of this Mao Stalin like jerkface is going to want to come serve him.
Also, in the OP's example I do not see what reason the Druid had to nuke his companion. I do not see what purpose it served. The animal companion didn't have to hold his foe in place for the druid to nuke him. And even if he did, he could have easily aimed the Flame Strike so that it didn't hit the Animal Companion. So what was the reason he had for wanting the Animal Companion to even be in the blast radius other than to watch it burn?
So barring THAT ONE DETAIL your whole story changes dramatically.
The OP post you try and draw upon had no such McGuffin the player was aware of (No, really, you can't aplpy META knowledge without your check, whcih the player may not have had the appropriate skill in, or just not have thought to make a check).
You had to add such a detail which materially alters the entire story. if things are different, then they become...different... no brainer there.Its like saying, in totally different circumstances, I can make a case why he WOULDN'T nuke his pet.
YOU not seeing the purpose it served is hardly relevant. Perhaps the Druid decided that a Grappled HellCat was a stationary one, and he could hit the thing at range and take it out. Maybe he had the initiative and figured it was best to get the matter resolved right here and now and that the AC was an acceptable loss. There's any bnumber of reasons he might have had, your agreement with his second rate tactics doesn't mean that him making them is Sadistic - that is a view you have that you insist is the only reason.
He is Neutral Good and describes seeing the Animal Companion as a pet. Not quite a party member, but more than just a weapon.
He has brought up that there should be some sort of penalty.
It should not be losing all druid abilities, since this is the first time we've dealt with it.
We're also discussing the possibility of raising the companion. But I think that a full Raise Dead is a bit expensive. I'm leaning more toward a Reincarnate (but it still comes back as a wolf). Its a monetary penalty, but also sets a precedent so he can Reincarnate again if (when) it dies.
Out of curiosity, how did the other 4-5 wolves/animals die? Does the player use them for target practice or otherwise get them killed? You've said that he thinks of them as pets and more than weapons, but from the one incident that we've heard of, it doesn't seem that is the case. Good, Neutral or Evil, expending your companion over and over again and not getting any gain from it doesn't seem the most intelligent idea.
On a side note, the flamestrike likely would not have killed the animal companion. The flamestrike did 33 damage, 16 to the hellcat, 8 damage since it was fire immune. The animal companion is immune to the divine damage of the spell though being an ally, so at most was about to receive half damage, and none on a succesful save since it had evasion, by RAW it also could be placed so that the AC was out off the AoE.
I don't think that is important to the conversation since both GM and player missed that part though.
So barring THAT ONE DETAIL your whole story changes dramatically.
<...then some other stuff that relates to it.>
It doesn't require adding a detail to the OP's story or changing it at all. It is also not applying meta knowledge for a character to come to the conclusion that a flaming cat might have some form of fire resistance.
And you don't even need to come up for a reason why he should nuke his pet. You just have to come up with a reason why it was beneficial for him to do so. Whether I can see a purpose it serves as being relevant or not is not relevant. The DM didn't see one and it doesn't look like the player could provide one. Neither can you, apparently.
Even the couple of guesses that you had didn't make much sense, really. I don't mean to sound like a dick when I say that, but they really didn't. If he had initiative then he could have went before his AC, Flame Striked, and then if that didn't kill the kitty he could have sent his AC in. The fact that he chose to send the AC in BEFORE he Flame Striked and didn't position the spell to exclude the AC is sadistic if there is no other reason for it to be there.
I would suggest as a roleplaying "punishment" have the druid make a will save every time he tries to cast a spell with the fire desciptor or suffer flash backs of his companion dying in agony from his power. Or possibly increase the concentration checks of those spells by 10 reducing the penalty over time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would suggest as a roleplaying "punishment" have the druid make a will save every time he tries to cast a spell with the fire desciptor or suffer flash backs of his companion dying in agony from his power. Or possibly increase the concentration checks of those spells by 10 reducing the penalty over time.
Why?
And how is a mechanical measure a 'roleplaying punishment'?
Bereavement over the loss of an AC is a Cav/Samurai/Paladin issue, Druids and Rangers have no such limitation.
Like I mean I posted it above, but lets consider the RAW impact of a dead AC:
Should the paladin's mount die, the paladin may not summon another mount for 30 days or until she gains a paladin level, whichever comes first. During this 30-day period, the paladin takes a –1 penalty on attack and weapon damage rolls.
Wow, 30 days!? AND you take the -1 TH/Dam!? Nasty, he must be REAL upset.
At least his cousin the Cavalier/Samurai is a bit more tempered in their greif, but are still almost as inconsolable:
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.
Only a week, but the impact can remain a LONG TIME after.
So imagine how bad the Nature revering animal lover is going to take the loss!??!?!
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.
Apparently the answer there is 'Whatever'.
I would suggest as a roleplaying "punishment" have the druid make a will save every time he tries to cast a spell with the fire desciptor or suffer flash backs of his companion dying in agony from his power. Or possibly increase the concentration checks of those spells by 10 reducing the penalty over time.Why?
And how is a mechanical measure a 'roleplaying punishment'?
Fair point roleplaying was a wrong use of the term i suppose i meant a punishment that fits the characters crime if you see it as a crime that is. As to why a punishment 1/ the player actually asked so he presumably is open to the idea from a roleplay perspective and b/ (:P) a good aligned character should suffer something if it kills a friend.
In this circumstance flamestrike might be used to try and save the AC by burning the hellcat and killing it before it kills your pet (and due to a tactical misunderstanding he aims it poorly and hits his pet too but new players make mistakes like this punishing them for making a mistake to try and save their companion is a bit cruel for the GM)
Ah, but since the druid in question seems to go through companions faster than other people change their underwear, I don't really think that the thought of 'save my AC' went through the druid's mind...
Michael Foster 989: While your point about which attacked which is valid it is irrelevant, as I pointed out earlier, due to the fact that grappled things do not take up the same square. The druid could have easily discluded his AC from the effect of the Flame Strike. He did not. He knowingly purposefully included it in the effect.
It is possible that the player didn't know this as it seems more than one poster on this board has also been unaware of this. But the GM did say that the player and character felt no remorse. If it was due to a simple tactical mistake then the lack of remorse is rather telling.
Also, as Midnight_Angel pointed out, it doesn't seem likely that the thought had passed through his mind due to his record with previous ACs.
disrespect for class feature? isn't that a bit... metagaming?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.
Almost as metagaming as using your animal companion as an expendable resource.
do you enforce this on fighters who don't properly roleplay their devotion to their greataxe/etc?
Yes, they get their axe broken, they have to buy a new one.
Makes perfect sense to me.
"NO BELLAMY! ITS A TRAP!"
You are showing your age, Oh Ancient Goodies Fan...
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.
If you think about it, evil gods take being badgered for new goodies because you smoked the last one even less kindly than good ones. Not that is matters in this case because the druid is meant to be Neutral Good.
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...
Nah, it was the loss of earnings and the cost of buying and training a new dog he was shedding tears over.
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.
Take Roman accounts with a pinch of salt: they are the guys who said bad stuff about anyone the Romans wanted to defensively conquer and righteously slaughter. You should read what they said about the early Christians...
My advice to the OP:
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.I would have some distraught wolves interrupt him a few dozen times looking for their relatives.
I like this one.
Especially because the Druid in question was not evil. He was good.Which is why the conversation simply became one of Alignment, and rightly so.
It's a related issue certainly. So, if a cleric of a lawful good deity turns chaotic evil, what happens to all their cleric powers?
They lose them. ALL of them.
In this respect, I suppose those of us advocating he have some trouble finding a new AC are being very lenient...unless it's a true neutral nature deity, but then that might be irate at so many AC's dead...
unless it's a true neutral nature deity, but then that might be irate at so many AC's dead...
Indeed, which is what sparked us into a conversation about the nature of the deity.
There could be an N deity, or even more curiously an NE.
Seems we need to have the Deity mapped out and then overlay the Druids actions. In this case the presumption was a 'Good' deity, with N being an aferthought (generally).
The player hasn't really 'grasped' NG though regardless.
unless it's a true neutral nature deity, but then that might be irate at so many AC's dead...Indeed, which is what sparked us into a conversation about the nature of the deity.
There could be an N deity, or even more curiously an NE.
Seems we need to have the Deity mapped out and then overlay the Druids actions. In this case the presumption was a 'Good' deity, with N being an aferthought (generally).
The player hasn't really 'grasped' NG though regardless.
Have to agree on the alignment issue. The whole "disrespecting nature" issue aside, treating animal companions as an expendable resource and killing them off via friendly fire is not consistent with Neutral Good alignment.
Chengar Qordath: Out of curiosity what is your opinion of it from a purely "disrespecting nature" standpoint?
unless it's a true neutral nature deity, but then that might be irate at so many AC's dead...Indeed, which is what sparked us into a conversation about the nature of the deity.
Indeed, but actually we don't need to know that much, we can deduce a lot.
There could be an N deity, or even more curiously an NE.
Unless this is Eberron or a homebrew campaign, alignment will be within one step of NG. For a nature deity, that means NG or TN.
Seems we need to have the Deity mapped out and then overlay the Druids actions. In this case the presumption was a 'Good' deity, with N being an aferthought (generally).
Mine was a Good or Neutral deity. In fact even an evil deity would get irate at having to provide this many minions. Either way, losing the AC for a while is appropriate.
The player hasn't really 'grasped' NG though regardless.
Oh yes, I think we are agreed on this one!
I'd take a stab that neither the GM or the Player hashed out deity atthe start, and NG was written on the sheet as a bit of a habit/afterthought with little conceptual detail provided.
Pure speculation of course.
Yep, getting some clear mutual understanding of the Deity, and by extension the conduct expected, would be an excellent starting point.
Chengar Qordath: Out of curiosity what is your opinion of it from a purely "disrespecting nature" standpoint?
I'd say it depends on the deity alignment to some extent. I could easily see a NE Druid justifying their actions by citing survival of the fittest and claiming the animal companion died because it was weak. However, burning through that many ACs that quickly should have consequences of some sort; even a Neutral Evil deity would start to get annoyed at the waste of resources.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's natural selection that he reveres. the strong survive, and the weak are merely food for the strong. it's more lawful neutral than neutral good. think of charles darwin. not some modern vegan hippie. still a valid druid.
Natural selection isn't "the strong survive and the weak are food."
A better way to phrase it is: the more adaptive and opportunistic survive. Taken in this way, the "vegan hippie" is just one more form of adaption. If circumstances alter to where meat within an area becomes poisoned, the hippie would have an advantage. In this manner, diversity is to any species' advantage because circumstances and environment will always change.
For example, sickle cell anemia is not an advantage in most senses of the word. It is, however, a useful adaptation within some areas due to circumstance, and therefore it thrives within those areas. It does not make a person "strong," however. A person with sickle cell is often struck with fatigue and pain.
That Charles Darwin wrote "the meek shall be food for the strong" is not true, but it is a common misconception, and a tempting one, at that.
I'd take a stab that neither the GM or the Player hashed out deity atthe start, and NG was written on the sheet as a bit of a habit/afterthought with little conceptual detail provided.
Pure speculation of course.
Just a wild stab in the dark from somebody dressed as a ninja...but yes, I suspect this is the case as well. Druids do not necessarily have to have deities after all.