Easy enough.
What we need to do though is firstly break the conflation of 'AC = Nature'.
Nature is a broad concept, Global.
"Definition of nature (n)
bing.com · Bing Dictionaryna·ture [ náychər ] 1.physical world: the physical world including all natural phenomena and living things"
funny because dis definition says the wolf IS nature, or part of it.
stop talking...
also reverence does not mean respect, it mean to honor or honoring. he is not honoring his pet, hes treating it like a tool. so that means yes he loses the pet by raw.
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.
Or to put it another way, those best adapted to survive in a given situation are most likely to survive and pass on their traits to the next generation. It has nothing to do with being the healthiest (as you rightly point out with sickle cell syndrome) or the strongest or the fastest, it has to do with whatever characteristics best suit the circumstances.
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.
Hardly, unless you are out to character-assassinate Darwin or justify brutality against others - something Darwin would be appalled at.
Altruism and cooperation are extremely powerful survival tools, that's why they have evolved in us humans and a number of other animals. The only survival traits that seem to be universal are cooperation, diversity and adaptability.
Wow... After reading this for the last few days, I have a few questions: 1. Isn't the point of the game's mechanics to help make the characters and the world around them seem more alive? In other words, to boost role-play? If so, then taking away some of the positive mechanics (AC, Spells, Druid powers, etc.) seems like the best approach to take when punishing a player for using these mechanics in a way that the GM finds not in keeping with the role-playing milieu. This doesn't seem like meta-gaming to me.
2. The Druid is NG, right? If so, isn't what his outlook on nature as important, or more important than his diety's outlook? If he is NG, it would be hard for me as a GM to give any credence to the idea that he is embracing a more evil view of nature. Instead, I would just slap him with penalties for not revering nature the way his alignment should dictate (unless the player could give me really good reasons why this action wasn't contrary to both his alignment and his alignment's general view of nature).
3. I know that the paladin and the cavalier both have better spelled out mechanics in regards to doing things contrary to their world views, but isn't the fact that the Druid write-up show that there is an intent within the game to make the Druid's powers contingient upon proper reverence of nature? Isn't it the GM's duty to enforce this code for the purposes of role-playing?
It just seems we are getting to the age of gaming where if there isn't a specific mechanical rule, it shouldn't be dealt with. To me, that seems to mean that there is a whole lot less role-playing and a whole lot more roll-playing. That may be okay in some people's games, but not in mine.
By the way, natural selection is not what some posters are talking about. I believe that when they are saying "natural selection", they are meaning social Darwinism. That is a human construct and not a natural one.
I was pondering today:
Does the God actually grant the pet through the 24-hour ritual, or is the Druid using a power granted to him by the God to summon a new animal and it takes 24 hours to pull it out of the woods and befriend it?
I don't believe that is spelled out in anyplace, and it could impact the situation depending on circumstances.
Also, someone above stated that the AC's dying are a waste of resources. We don't know how a deity values the resources, because wolves are probably fairly common on Golarion and replacing them is not much of a challenge.
My above point (paragraph 1) is that if the druid uses the ritual to summon the wolf himself and it is not done each and everytime by the God him/her/it-self, than the druid summoning a new wolf is simply the player summoning a very common beast to help out.
Really though, I think we all agree that the player should be giving more thought to what he does and his tactics, but I don't personally believe it means he has betrayed his credo - though of course this all comes down to his alignment and the God of nature he follows.
Easy enough.
What we need to do though is firstly break the conflation of 'AC = Nature'.
Nature is a broad concept, Global.
"Definition of nature (n)
bing.com · Bing Dictionary
na·ture [ náychər ] 1.physical world: the physical world including all natural phenomena and living things"funny because dis definition says the wolf IS nature, or part of it.
stop talking...
also reverence does not mean respect, it mean to honor or honoring. he is not honoring his pet, hes treating it like a tool. so that means yes he loses the pet by raw.
The problem with that interpretation of your first quote, is that adventuring would be impossible since the druid would constantly be killing living creatures. Clearly things are not that strait forward or the class would not function.
By the way, you automagically lose because you use Bing.
By the way, natural selection is not what some posters are talking about. I believe that when they are saying "natural selection", they are meaning social Darwinism. That is a human construct and not a natural one.
Oh yes, Darwin himself would have hated the idea, and it's pretty defunct in the light of studies on societies anyway (not that this will stop believers from quoting it). Like many great ideas, people see what they want in it, twist it to suit their ends and declare that they are right and justified.
Honestly, the saddest lesson of history is the complete failure of people to learn from the other lessons of history.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with that interpretation of your first quote, is that adventuring would be impossible since the druid would constantly be killing living creatures. Clearly things are not that strait forward or the class would not function.
Native Americans revered nature, didn't stop them from hunting. They just treated the animals they hunted with, well, reverence.
In other words, revering nature, including living things (like Animal Companions), does not mean you can't kill them.
The way I read Orc's post was that he perceived it that way, but on rereading it I see your point.
The druid could use his pet up as a sacrifice worthy of spending it's life (whether or not we agree, it was his perception) but he should show respect for the death.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I would have an out of game talk with the player to find out if this is the way he intentionaly wanted to play his character, or if he just having a bad session or 4.
Then we'd discuss in game ways taht he would enjoy RP wise to correct his character's behavior, or suggest he play something else.
Yes, but for the Native American you talk about, hunting was done with reverence. Sort of like cutting down a tree that was dying and couldn't be saved and using the wood. This player did something along the lines of cutting down a tree cause it was in the way. There was no real point.
The problem with that interpretation of your first quote, is that adventuring would be impossible since the druid would constantly be killing living creatures. Clearly things are not that strait forward or the class would not function.
Native Americans revered nature, didn't stop them from hunting. They just treated the animals they hunted with, well, reverence.
In other words, revering nature, including living things (like Animal Companions), does not mean you can't kill them.
No, it means you can't kill them stupidly with no compelling reason, and it means that if you are forced to do so, you do so with regret.
My druid's AC was killed in a fight because she had to choose between the AC and an elf sorcerer, each of whom was being dragged underwater into a death spin by a giant crocodile. Even though she didn't kill the AC herself, she blamed herself and took penance for being a poor shepherd for her lost AC. And she was lawful neutral, not neutral GOOD.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM if a druid, ranger or other character shows prolonged and repeated indifference to the suffering of their animal companion or familiar, they will discover upon seeking a new AC that their reputation precedes them.
This player did something along the lines of cutting down a tree cause it was in the way. There was no real point.
We don't know the circumstances surrounding the fight, but we can safely assume it was a fight to the death. That itself validates the point of him nuking the hellhound. Tactically he could have kept the AC out of the way if he was better, but he apparently was not. This appears to be a case of a dumb player - not a malicious or evil one.
As a GM if a druid, ranger or other character shows prolonged and repeated indifference to the suffering of their animal companion or familiar, they will discover upon seeking a new AC that their reputation precedes them.
AC's are of animal intelligence, and are not omniscient. The new animal does not know what and how your last animal died. They are unrelated and do not talk.
You could claim that your God (if you have one) warned them (if it cared), but than why would you need to make rolls for your AC to work with you - if your God fills it in on what is going on it should follow you willingly in all ways. Even the "goodest of the good" druids have to roll Handle Animal, even with pure intentions.
"Definition of nature (n)
bing.com · Bing Dictionary
na·ture [ náychər ] 1.physical world: the physical world including all natural phenomena and living things"funny because dis definition says the wolf IS nature, or part of it.
stop talking...
So is a Goblin, so are humans, so are kobolds... so are apples, so is fire, so is a cabbage.
Druid can apparently no longer do any of these harm, according to you.
Stop talking indeed.
Did I ever tell you about when my NG elf cleric flame striked the entire party to death in an Age of Worms game, and it was deemed a good act by the DM?
Did I ever tell you about when my NG elf cleric flame striked the entire party to death in an Age of Worms game, and it was deemed a good act by the DM?
Only about a hundred times.
Find a new story!
Did I ever tell you about when my NG elf cleric flame striked the entire party to death in an Age of Worms game, and it was deemed a good act by the DM?
Ive seen similar efforts with fireballs, no one calls you evil for nuking the party, they call you a lot of OTHER names, yet if its an AC everyone freaks.
"Definition of nature (n)
bing.com · Bing Dictionary
na·ture [ náychər ] 1.physical world: the physical world including all natural phenomena and living things"funny because dis definition says the wolf IS nature, or part of it.
stop talking...
also reverence does not mean respect, it mean to honor or honoring. he is not honoring his pet, hes treating it like a tool. so that means yes he loses the pet by raw
So is a Goblin, so are humans, so are kobolds... so are apples, so is fire, so is a cabbage.
Druid can apparently no longer do any of these harm, according to you.
Stop talking indeed.
cuttin my quote off half way to change my words? well i fixed it for ya!
keep it in da context of the talka, stop tryin ta change things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Drop druids alignment to Chaotic Evil.
Druid looses all powers.
Go for pizza.
It the natural order things die. Move on. We are born... We live... We die... Some people do not greave right away or at all. For greater good natural balance the pet need to be sacrificed. IE to kill the Hell Hound which probably caused more damage in the nature word to be out of balanced than this act. I mean it not from this plane so every thing it eat while here upset the nature order of things. So losing one cat to stop that well worth it in the eyes of a druid. Look big picture not little picture.
|
Did I ever tell you about when my NG elf cleric flame striked the entire party to death in an Age of Worms game, and it was deemed a good act by the DM?Ive seen similar efforts with fireballs, no one calls you evil for nuking the party, they call you a lot of OTHER names, yet if its an AC everyone freaks.
No one? I'd call him evil if it was the PC's intent to blow the party to kingdom come and he did so with malicious intent or with complete disregard and lack of remorse for what he had done. And I'd also call him evil for killing his animal companion without any sense of remorse or compassion.
|
IIRC, There was a cartoon in one of the last print issues of Dragon. It was a young bear cub going back to his cave telling his mom and dad bear that he got a job being a companion for a druid and how proud he was. The parents and cub argue back and forth. The parents think he will not be safe. But the cub says he knows the druid always has best interests of animals first.
So the next day the cub shows up to be the animal companion. The druid looks at him and says "your name from now on is meat sheild #6".
Mt. Zogon, from the guy who did Zogonia. Love it!
|
|
It the natural order things die. Move on. We are born... We live... We die... Some people do not greave right away or at all. For greater good natural balance the pet need to be sacrificed. IE to kill the Hell Hound which probably caused more damage in the nature word to be out of balanced than this act. I mean it not from this plane so every thing it eat while here upset the nature order of things. So losing one cat to stop that well worth it in the eyes of a druid. Look big picture not little picture.
That would be great if that was how he was role-playing his character, i.e. as an emotionally-stunted True Neutral druid. But that certainly does not strike me as the attitude of a Neutral Good character who views his Animal Companion as a pet. Instead, he comes off as a sociopath, not a Neutral Good person who just cooked his best friend to death.
keep it in da context of the talka, stop tryin ta change things.
The point is you could have changed the words of the bit of text ommitted to be any of those things:
"Definition of nature (n)
bing.com · Bing Dictionary
na·ture [ náychər ] 1.physical world: the physical world including all natural phenomena and living things"
funny because dis definition says an APPLE IS nature, or part of it.
stop talking...
also reverence does not mean respect, it mean to honor or honoring. he is not honoring his apple, hes treating it like a tool by eating it to stay nourished. so that means yes he loses the pet by raw.
funny because dis definition says an Fire IS nature, or part of it.
stop talking...
also reverence does not mean respect, it mean to honor or honoring. he is not honoring Fire, hes treating it like a tool by destroying perfectly good sticks that were part of nature to BUILD a new fire and stay warm. so that means yes he loses the pet by raw.
funny because dis definition says an APPLE IS nature, or part of it.
stop talking...
also reverence does not mean respect, it mean to honor or honoring. he is not honoring thos Kobolds, hes treating them badly by killing them because they were wrecking a forest trying to build a place to live. so that means yes he loses the pet by raw.
I assume we are done here?
No one? I'd call him evil if it was the PC's intent to blow the party to kingdom come and he did so with malicious intent or with complete disregard and lack of remorse for what he had done. And I'd also call him evil for killing his animal companion without any sense of remorse or compassion.
Yeah it usually manifests with those playing Chaotic Jerky.
Is reckless indifference Evil, or is it just...indifferent?
No one? I'd call him evil if it was the PC's intent to blow the party to kingdom come and he did so with malicious intent or with complete disregard and lack of remorse for what he had done.Did I ever tell you about when my NG elf cleric flame striked the entire party to death in an Age of Worms game, and it was deemed a good act by the DM?Ive seen similar efforts with fireballs, no one calls you evil for nuking the party, they call you a lot of OTHER names, yet if its an AC everyone freaks.
You've clearly never played in Age of Worms.
We're also discussing the possibility of raising the companion. But I think that a full Raise Dead is a bit expensive.
Which has the same material component cost as reincarnate.
Great spell for Cav/Pal/Sam.
Not particularly usefull for Dru/Rng though...
24hrs and they get a new one.
"The AC is not 'Nature', and to be pedantic and claim it is just opens up a whole new level of the ridiculous. "You can't eat fruit or vegetables anymore, becuase thats killing nature" "You can't kill orcs and goblins anymore, because they are naturally born" "You can't stop that house burning down, because fire is nature".
Really guys..."
this is the idiotic statement that you made. AC= animal companion
you tried to argue that an AC isnt "nature", i proved you wrong. your counter to your being wrong is to try and state that eating an apple, which sates hunger and thus has peoples respect in that its food, is the same as sociopathicaly killing an animal companion.
to sum up my posts so far...
the definition in my post was to prove that you were an idiot in stating that a wolf is "not nature" and the LAST part, that you cut off, proved that he was in a position to lose his class feature by not respecting nature by killing it without remorse or a second thought, which he did what 5 times according to the OP?
so NOW we are done here ninja man.
|
|
You've clearly never played in Age of Worms.
No one? I'd call him evil if it was the PC's intent to blow the party to kingdom come and he did so with malicious intent or with complete disregard and lack of remorse for what he had done.
I would say that in that case, your character had perfectly good reasons for doing what he had done: Saving the world from an even greater immediate evil. And I would say that your character was
Thus, while it may have been a brutal decision, it was probably a necessary one if it had to be made in order to stave of the apocalypse.
Is reckless indifference Evil, or is it just...indifferent?
Well, I really do not want to derail this thread by turning it into another gigantic discussion about alignment, as much as I enjoy those. I'd say mere "indifference" does not qualify as evil, but typically neutral. Otherwise many Chaotic Neutrals would quickly be classified as evil.
However, wanton indifference with regard to your own actions could quickly lead down the path to being reclassified as evil. For example, I would classify a character shooting a fireball at an enemy in a crowded village market with innocent men, women and children present as an evil act, even if that character did not intend to hit anyone except the enemy. And saying "Hey, I didn't mean to cook the the pregnant mother along with her three children! They shouldn't have been standing behind the Bandit Leader viewing the Punch and Judy show in the first place!" won't save you from alignment reclassification.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the definition in my post was to prove that you were an idiot
If this is your reason for posting, it's far better just to leave the keyboard and go do something better with your time.
You proved noting of the sort.
The AC is not 'Nature', it is a creature of the natural world...or is it? It is bigger and stronger, possibly smarter, more skilled and capable of supernatural ability. Out of whack with the natural order.
That being said, you now have the problem with the Druid eating apples, as according to your post he is not revering nature. Sating his hunger is putting HIS needs ahead of the apple. He killed the apple for his own ends. Poor apple. That stick was nature too until he destroyed it with fire. What about the poor kobolds?
What I did get wrong is that by following your logic he is stripped of his AC, whereas by RAW when he stops all this reverence he actually loses ALL his powers.
Trying to be a pedant wont really help, especially when the extremist view is equally applied to all other equal phenomenon and clearly looks ridiculous.
Yeah we are done here Orc Boy.
However, wanton indifference with regard to your own actions could quickly lead down the path to being reclassified as evil. For example, I would classify a character shooting a fireball at an enemy in a crowded village market with innocent men, women and children present as an evil act. And saying "Hey, I didn't mean to cook the the pregnant mother along with her three children! They shouldn't have been standing behind the Bandit Leader viewing the Punch and Judy show in the first place!" won't save you from alignment reclassification.
We'd happen to agree, but I have come across many who insist its completely legit. Seeing CN is my first worry indicator.
Kicking them from the party is action number 2.|
|
However, wanton indifference with regard to your own actions could quickly lead down the path to being reclassified as evil. For example, I would classify a character shooting a fireball at an enemy in a crowded village market with innocent men, women and children present as an evil act. And saying "Hey, I didn't mean to cook the the pregnant mother along with her three children! They shouldn't have been standing behind the Bandit Leader viewing the Punch and Judy show in the first place!" won't save you from alignment reclassification.We'd happen to agree, but I have come across many who insist its completely legit. Seeing CN is my first worry indicator.
Kicking them from the party is action number 2.
I really do hate how Chaotic Neutral is used as the alignment jerk players use to act like complete jerks in the game. I especially hate it because there are so many interesting ways one can play a Chaotic Neutral character, besides acting Chaotic Stupid, contrary, and being a general all-round pain in the neck.
And I do support kicking them from the party when they act like that.
"Revere's nature" doesn't mean "can't kill anything" it means you have to treat nature as something you value greatly and treat with respect and love.
There might be some bizarre (and probably contrived) cases where a druid killing his AC makes sense in the "revere nature" sense, but...
This isn't one of those cases.
This is blatant disregard for the AC, lack of remorse for doing it and apparently (according to the OP) a pattern of lack of empathy, respect and "reverence" for nature.
So don't waste time supporting THIS INSTANCE with the contrived "well, it COULD HAPPEN" arguments...
This isn't one of those cases. This is a clear-cut case and in my games the druid would pay a penalty.
The problem with that interpretation of your first quote, is that adventuring would be impossible since the druid would constantly be killing living creatures. Clearly things are not that strait forward or the class would not function.
Native Americans revered nature, didn't stop them from hunting. They just treated the animals they hunted with, well, reverence.
In other words, revering nature, including living things (like Animal Companions), does not mean you can't kill them.
No, it means you can't kill them stupidly with no compelling reason, and it means that if you are forced to do so, you do so with regret.
Nature has no regrets.
The Wolf does not bemoan the rabbit. Fire does not bemoan the forest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nature has no regrets.
The Wolf does not bemoan the rabbit. Fire does not bemoan the forest.
This.
Also...
Nature starts the fires so the forest may regrow, doesn't spare the thousand of animals that die in the flames.
The Wolf AC had the enemy pinned down, the Flamestrike was sent to kill the unnatural creature. The unnatural creature is vanquished and the natural order is restored.
Stalin loved, respected and revered Russia, yet killed millions of Russians.
The AC is not 'Nature'. 'Nature' is a global term.
|
|
Haven't read the thread, just wanted to chime in.
How did the most optimal thing the druid could do be casting a fire spell on a fire creature to deal a whopping 16 damage? There are so many other spells/abilities that outdo that that I would absolutely punish him for mistreating his animal companion.
The Wolf does not bemoan the rabbit. Fire does not bemoan the forest.
No, but the wolf bemoans the loss of a fellow wolf. Which is the more appropriate nature comparison.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I would do instead of punishment, have one of the parents of the wolves that died show up as the next companion...
Then roleplay the wolf asking what happened to its offspring...
The more the wolf interacts with the players character, the more invested they become in it. Especially if it is helpful and memorable. The penalty comes from the enforced roleplay interactions ;)
One of my clerics took a companion, and instead of an obedient slave, he received an argumentative auditor writing down all his actions. Same game mechanics, but everyone in the party knows who she is.
Another has a thrush for a familiar, and while it does what he asks it to do, its been known to wander off on its own, and its terms of reference have cracked up the party on occasion. It gives you a chance to look at the world from a different perspective, such as "all those two legs look the same to me" when not a party member and things like that.
Other party members can bribe or get themselves on good standing with another players companion or familiar.
Hope this helps.
Haven't read the thread, just wanted to chime in.
How did the most optimal thing the druid could do be casting a fire spell on a fire creature to deal a whopping 16 damage? There are so many other spells/abilities that outdo that that I would absolutely punish him for mistreating his animal companion.
Sure, but we've already covere that the Druid wasn't acting optimally, and that he was a bit of a n00b. He wasn't doing it out of malice, just inexperience/incompetence.
The problem with us gamers is that we see something and assume its some kind of Machiavellian Mastermind Puzzle to solve, rather than just accepting it was actually just the action of a chimp. We overthink.
No, but the wolf bemoans the loss of a fellow wolf. Which is the more appropriate nature comparison.
The Wolf does not bemoan the rabbit. Fire does not bemoan the forest.
Not all Druids are wolves. Some are Jackals. Others are Hurricanes.
Oh how far we stray...
The man is a Druid for crying out loud. They're supposed to sticking up for nature.
How can you allow them to burn alive the creature they've developed a bond with, their companion. They should become, or be warned that they're close to becoming an ex-druid for not revering nature. A druid should be treating a being of nature as they would any sentient being, with reverence and respect.
Why else would they outline the path to being an ex-druid as such? Without following the guidelines, you boil the class down to just words without meaning. The game is so much more than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All 4 pages of arguing aside, I think revoking all class features is always an awful idea and a great way to piss off the player, unless you're trying to get him to say "f~+$ it" and rewrite, or are offering him a chance to rebuild his character into something else instead of making him essentially a peasant with higher HP and saves.
I'd go with the previously mentioned idea of having no animal come to his call until he at least grew a little as a character, either until he concluded that he should treat his companion with respect or until he decided that he fully believed in the savagery of nature (and then I'd let him take a domain instead).
Oh how far we stray...
The man is a Druid for crying out loud. They're supposed to sticking up for nature.
Except what has been argued is that the method and mores of doing so are a set of Deity and Alignment considerations that also exist outside of the confines of NG.
Similarly, that Nature can easily be taken as nature 'globally' as opposed to every single part of it. You can love your body, but still stick rings and tattoos in it - some would say that those actions are mutilation and lack of respect for the body. I may or may not disagree.
What IS important is defining the Nature Deity, understanding that Deities view, and then overlaying an Alignment element: through those prisms we can view the actions and see how they measure.
There's no way we can say the behaviour is definitely in or definitely out until we have a clear and fixed points from which to navigate with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the flame burns a forest to encourage rebirth. but it does not morn the millions of animals that die in it's radius.
the hurricame sinks many ships, it does not mourn the dead sailors.
a lion does not mourn the gazelle it killed to eat
thus a druid shouldn't feel compelled to mourn a wolf he sacrificed to take out a seemingly unnatural abomination.