Niagara falls does not care another animal companion falls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But advancing under fire has been a military tactic used since WW1. Literally shelling so close to your position, but just ahead, that you can mow through the broken or frightened troops easier. This has cost to it though, you kill your own side.
You are referring to the rolling barrage, where the shells were placed ahead of the advancing troops. Note the word 'ahead', it means 'in front of' and the troops then advanced behind the falling shells, timing their advance to arrive just after the barrage passed. Sure, you could hit your own troops if they advanced too fast, but that's why the barrage 'rolled' forwards so that they could see where it was before they started their advance.
At no time did ANY side wait UNTIL their troops had engaged the enemy, and then intentionally shelled both at the same time (it did happen unintentionally a few times, such as at Ypres, but that was, well, unintentional given that artillery fire was often indirect and in the days before radio field telephone lines were unreliable and orders were often carried around by dispatch riders). This would be counter-productive as the idea is not just to kill the enemy, but to occupy his positions with your own (living) soldiers.
General Hague made some mistakes, but even he didn't make a mistake that big.
The nearest thing to your tactic I can think of without employing some serious search-engine-fu is at Waterloo where Napoleon ordered his artillery to fire on the advancing British and Prussians through his own retreating soldiers in order to cover his retreat. He didn't order them to shoot through the soldiers that stood and fought, though, which is most analogous to this situation.
Derpy the druid deserves punishment. I don't think nature grants powers so they can used on the animals, thats just dumb regardless of alignment. May I sugeest a visit from 4 or 5 familiar looking wolf revenants? Preferably while he sleeps. Why? Becuase restless spirits don't care about your aligment or world views.Why are the wolves restless? They died serving and protecting nature. Sometimes your superiors kill you, that is a problem in joining a war.There's a difference between shouting "Follow me!" in battle, and ording an attack then calling in your own artillery on your own troops once it is underway. One gets you medals, the other a court marshal.
I don't follow your analogy.
Are you saying that this only applies to Lawful Neutral Driuds? i.e.follows military law
All of this depends on a lot of factors.
A) How does magic work, the physics of it, in your world.
B) Is divine magic "given" by a deity, even nature magic, or is it "tapped" like a resource.
C) Is there some force that binds nature together and would allow future animal companions to "know" what happened?
The punishment should fit your world. If druids simply "tap" nature magic and that nature has no "will", then no punishment necessary. If the magic is instead "given" by something with a "will", then the druid may get stripped and have to atone.
Think less about the rules and more about what would actually happen if your world was a real, logically consistent world.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The punishment should fit your world. If druids simply "tap" nature magic and that nature has no "will", then no punishment necessary. If the magic is instead "given" by something with a "will", then the druid may get stripped and have to atone.
I cannot imagine that a force like nature, that has dropped fire and lighting on an uncountable number of wolves with far less reason, would give a crap when another wolf dies.
I cannot imagine that a force like nature, that has dropped fire and lighting on an uncountable number of wolves with far less reason, would give a crap when another wolf dies.
The punishment should fit your world. If druids simply "tap" nature magic and that nature has no "will", then no punishment necessary. If the magic is instead "given" by something with a "will", then the druid may get stripped and have to atone.
Depends if that force of nature is the active creator of every bolt of lightning in the history of the world, or does it create a world where the conditions lead to lightning storms.
It's the difference between a god creating a tornado directly or a god who creates a world where tornadoes happen.
If the god created the tornado directly, then he/she/it is directly responsible for any damage it does. If they created a world which, by necessity, creates tornadoes autonomously, then the god is not DIRECTLY responsible for the damage it does.
So yeah, if the "force of nature" is directly striking stuff with lightning, then it would probably have the position that "in nature, things die, that's how it works."
On the other hand, if the force of nature is more passive and simply "allows" lightning to happen, then it may take offensive to the WILLFUL harm of an animal.
It's all about motivation and, again, how the world itself works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nature isn't a Deity. It's a force in the world.
If a Tornado is naturally occurring, then it's part of nature, if it's an unnatural tornado, then that's different. It can't be 'just a tornado' it's either natural or it isn't.
Nature doesn't "allow" lightning to happen the way a Deity might, nor does it create lightning, it 'is' the lightning.
If you think Nature is something else, that's fine. Whatever force is the lightning and the forest fire and the earthquake (all part of Nature, however you define it) is perfectly acceptable for a Druid to worship.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I showed the player this thread. He plans to Raise Animal Companion, and pledged to never flame strike him again.
I don't plan on any penalty.
We haven't focused on roleplaying much, which is a disservice to the two new players in the group. There has been interaction roleplay, but not much in the realm of character development. I plan on emphasizing roleplay opportunities more, to see if they are interested. If not, we'll just continue with the current style. But since they are new, they should have a chance to experience different styles of play.
Nature isn't a Deity. It's a force in the world.
If a Tornado is naturally occurring, then it's part of nature, if it's an unnatural tornado, then that's different. It can't be 'just a tornado' it's either natural or it isn't.
Nature doesn't "allow" lightning to happen the way a Deity might, nor does it create lightning, it 'is' the lightning.
If you think Nature is something else, that's fine. Whatever force is the lightning and the forest fire and the earthquake (all part of Nature, however you define it) is perfectly acceptable for a Druid to worship.
Again, in depends entirely on the campaign world and setting.
Some worlds could very well have nature as having sentient, deity like qualities.
Others may not.
Sometimes "mother earth" is a concept, other times it is a sentient being with wants and needs.
Divine magic changes dramatically from setting to setting.
So again, it entirely depends on the nature of divine magic in the OP's world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I showed the player this thread. He plans to Raise Animal Companion, and pledged to never flame strike him again.
This made me laugh.
This thread is like a Vegetarian Pally thread. Even with half the calories, it's still pretty scary.
"Wow, look at them go on like that. I promise never to do it again."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot imagine that a force like nature, that has dropped fire and lighting on an uncountable number of wolves with far less reason, would give a crap when another wolf dies.
The punishment should fit your world. If druids simply "tap" nature magic and that nature has no "will", then no punishment necessary. If the magic is instead "given" by something with a "will", then the druid may get stripped and have to atone.
What I love is when people think what they can imagine themselves is sufficient argument for any situation.
Derpy the druid deserves punishment. I don't think nature grants powers so they can used on the animals, thats just dumb regardless of alignment. May I sugeest a visit from 4 or 5 familiar looking wolf revenants? Preferably while he sleeps. Why? Becuase restless spirits don't care about your aligment or world views.Why are the wolves restless? They died serving and protecting nature. Sometimes your superiors kill you, that is a problem in joining a war.There's a difference between shouting "Follow me!" in battle, and ording an attack then calling in your own artillery on your own troops once it is underway. One gets you medals, the other a court marshal.
I don't follow your analogy.
Are you saying that this only applies to Lawful Neutral Driuds? i.e.follows military law
Lawful neutral has nothing to do with it, it's the common sense principal that you don't BBQ your friends and allies if you can help it. It's like the party fighter grappling the foe and then shoving both off a cliff instead of doing something to help him win.
Friends and allies are not expendable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Friends and allies are not expendable.
I'd say that completely depends on if the ends justify the means.
If Samwise had kicked Frodo into the fires of Mount Doom while he had the ring on, Samwise still did a good act.
If killing a handful of your friends saves the lives of thousands, it's not an evil act.
It really depends on your ideas on "the greater good".
Sometimes extreme good can appear very similar to extreme evil.
Look at the Tau in Warhammer 40k, for instance. They're good. They have very pure and good motivation. And that pure and good motivation leads to the slaughter of billions.
But in a universe where countless trillions upon trillions of people exist, billions of people dying has an entirely different weight to it.
What was the saying, "the death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic"?
|
I'd say that completely depends on if the ends justify the means.
If Samwise had kicked Frodo into the fires of Mount Doom while he had the ring on, Samwise still did a good act.
If killing a handful of your friends saves the lives of thousands, it's not an evil act.
It really depends on your ideas on "the greater good".
Actually, both those acts would be neutral acts.
I disagree. If I saved thousands by killing a few, the net gain is good, so I would consider it a good act.
I look at motivation and net gain when determining the morality of an act.
Of course, I personally have a very atypical view on the nature of life and death.
Any act for the greater good that may harm others I would consider NG. It's putting the ideal of good above all, even life itself.
But again, it's the motivation.
If you didn't care, but your act happened to commit good, it's N.
If your motivation was good, and you honestly believed your actions would increase the net good of the world, I would consider it a good act.
This allows a good character to accidentally cause harm without instantly finding themselves in the middle of a crisis of alignment.
I think a character's alignment should be entirely tied to their motivation for acting, not the result. The why, not the how or what.
|
I once had a player(ranger) do the complete opposite of this; He would buff up, put protection, etc. on his animal comp. then never have it go into battle. If on some off chance the animal comp. got hit or took any type of damage, he would run over to it & heal immediately, leaving his party members to fight the battle/monster on their own. He would also never heal or buff, etc his party members.
That's because alignment is an incredibly subjective system to begin with.
It's open to a lot of interpretation by design.
Sure, if you run your campaign as having objective moral standards, alignment is a lot more cut and dry, but if you want any sort of realism in the morality system it automatically becomes much more grey.
An intelligent LG god isn't going to strip one of their Paladins of his abilities if the Paladin made a pure-hearted decision that happened to go badly and ended in the death of innocence. The god can see the Paladin's mind and motivations. He knows the Paladin isn't evil. It would be very "gamey" to strip his abilities due to a mistake.
Heck, there's an entire section in the "Book of Vile Darkness" on how to play "Good guys with evil alignments."
It's all very grey.
That's because alignment is an incredibly subjective system to begin with.
You are the one making definitive statements about it.
If Sam had no option to save the world but shove Frodo in the fire, his action is justified. If gave Frodo the ring and said "Hey, just stand on that rock by the precipice a moment with your back to me" and then shoved him in, it's a different story.
That's because alignment is an incredibly subjective system to begin with.You are the one making definitive statements about it.
If Sam had no option to save the world but shove Frodo in the fire, his action is justified. If gave Frodo the ring and said "Hey, just stand on that rock by the precipice a moment with your back to me" and then shoved him in, it's a different story.
Exactly as I said, it relies entirely on motivation + result.
Not one or the other, but both combined.
And my statements refer only to my own ideals on what I see as good or evil as filtered by my western upbringing.
While I know that morality is entirely subjective, I am still able to filter morality through the "lens" of my culture and make an estimation as to what the majority would consider moral or immoral.
So if I say "that is good", it should be expanded to "I believe that is what most people in my given culture would consider an act of good."
I generally consider myself fairly amoral, I don't really think of the moral implications of stuff very much in reality.
That's because alignment is an incredibly subjective system to begin with.You are the one making definitive statements about it.
If Sam had no option to save the world but shove Frodo in the fire, his action is justified. If gave Frodo the ring and said "Hey, just stand on that rock by the precipice a moment with your back to me" and then shoved him in, it's a different story.
If Frodo was Evil and just using Sam as a means to an end... Well let's say Gollum wanted to destroy the ring. He wouldn't have thought twice about pushing Frodo into the fire when Frodo decided to claim the Ring for himself.
If you suppose that Pathfinder is a role-playing game that is not supposed to have winners and losers and is about having fun telling great stories, then I think that stripping the Druid of some or all abilities or otherwise punishing him could have the effect of creating a very cool storyline that the Druid's player could really get into. What better storyline can you find than one of failure and redemption.
I do think that making the Druid's player read this thread waste ably punishment enough, however. ;)
Was probably punishment enough... I hate autocorrect.
Frodo, I'm going to bull-rush you into mount doom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I showed the player this thread. He plans to Raise Animal Companion, and pledged to never flame strike him again.
Oh sweet a Community Service has been done!
Most gamers have an anti-authority issue.
Hence the number of 'Paladins Fall' threads.
I dont agree that this always turns the party into villains; we have several athiest players who always play the good guy, and similarly antiestablishment/authority players can be fine too.
What it boils down to is not so much the views themselves, but rather how much a jerk a person wants to be about them.
Full loss of class abilities, then kicked out of any game I ran for life.Wouldn't the second part kind of make the first part a tad redundant?
Purposely redundant. Stuff like this & all of the justifications being thrown around is why I never allow any Evil, or CN, alignments in any games I run. I let it known up front. Have told a couple of players this rule is ironclad. I had to add CN to the list when I kept getting players that used CN as an excuse to be Chaotic Stupid. I believe the purpose of the game is to be the hero. I, as the GM, NEVER equate those alignments with heroes.
If you were perma-kicking the guy from the table I'm lost on the point of stripping powers before they leave was all :)
If you were perma-kicking the guy from the table I'm lost on the point of stripping powers before they leave was all :)
It's the principle of the thing. That way if the player goes to a new game he has to consciously ignore the previous GM's ruling (which is generally seen as a sort of cheating). So if they play the character without the GM's penalty, there might perhaps be some sort of karmic repercussions...
I guess. I wouldn't do it myself, but I could see that sort of argument...
Because people can't often grasp the concept of "You need to treat your companion as if it's alive and a friend", I try to dissuade people from using them.
Seriously. I know it sounds bad, but what happened to you has happened to me too many times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its just that if the guy is being asked to immediately pack up his stuff, leave, and never return...calling 'oh and by the way the Druid you arent playing here ever again lost his powers' - it just seems some kind of comedy line really.
I have seen players "kicked" from games, but I've never seen them actually asked to get up and leave immediately. In every case I've seen it's been a decision that is made after the game session is over and they have been asked not to return.
That's probably just because people tend to want to avoid conflict, but it's also been the case that the GM just didn't want to make a snap decision but wanted to think it over calmly before making a final decision.
So in that sense it might be a couple hours of game play left for the druid to be punished before the game is over.
I dunno, if I've made the decision that Billy can't play anymore then Billy usually knows here and now. I can't see any situation where I'd bother stripping a power, letting him finish the session and THEN barring his head.
OR
If it was confrontation you were seeking to avoid, then simply leave it be and then at the end of the session don't bother calling Billy back for the next one.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
An intelligent LG god isn't going to strip one of their Paladins of his abilities if the Paladin made a pure-hearted decision that happened to go badly and ended in the death of innocence. The god can see the Paladin's mind and motivations. He knows the Paladin isn't evil. It would be very "gamey" to strip his abilities due to a mistake.
Alignment is about ACTION.
If the aforementioned paladin caused the destruction of an orphanage by causing an avalanche that destroyed the invading army, the Paladin doesn't shrug his shoulders and say "Well, I tried to do good. My god will understand." That's chaotic behavior. He helps rebuild the orphanage, seeks guidance on how to compensate for his mistake, and asks for atonement. He does these things because a LG character doesn't shrug his shoulders at the death of innocents by his hand. He makes it right.Similarly, the NG druid doesn't flame strike his wolf, shrug and say "I'll just get another one." That's chaotic neutral (borderline evil) behavior. Again, its not the event that is the issue, it is the druids RESPONSE that is telling. And treating living things like disposable tools is not a behavior befitting a druid of *any* alignment, much less a NG one!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I've never seen anything stating that intent determines alignment.
I know it's yet another alignment issue but I don't see how alignment can't be connected to intent. If my LE psychic warrior starts an orphanage and saves the city, those are arguably Good acts. If he does it because it forwards his agenda of a) being able to get away with stuff as his hero status, and b) sees it as means to an end, why would it make him become good?
Likewise, if Sam bull rushes Frodo into the volcano because it was expedient, that's evil (betrayal of a friend, etc) if he does it because Gollumn couldn't make a grapple check to save his life, and there was no other option, it's not.
Does anyone think Gollum suddenly became good because he destroyed the ring?
I've never seen anything stating that intent determines alignment.I know it's yet another alignment issue but I don't see how alignment can't be connected to intent. If my LE psychic warrior starts an orphanage and saves the city, those are arguably Good acts. If he does it because it forwards his agenda of a) being able to get away with stuff as his hero status, and b) sees it as means to an end, why would it make him become good?
Likewise, if Sam bull rushes Frodo into the volcano because it was expedient, that's evil (betrayal of a friend, etc) if he does it because Gollumn couldn't make a grapple check to save his life, and there was no other option, it's not.
Does anyone think Gollum suddenly became good because he destroyed the ring?
[grumble]It worked for Darth Vader...[/grumble]
[grumble]It worked for Darth Vader...[/grumble]
Huh? Darth Vader destroyed the ring? *ducks for cover*
An intelligent LG god isn't going to strip one of their Paladins of his abilities if the Paladin made a pure-hearted decision that happened to go badly and ended in the death of innocence. The god can see the Paladin's mind and motivations. He knows the Paladin isn't evil. It would be very "gamey" to strip his abilities due to a mistake.Alignment is about ACTION.
If the aforementioned paladin caused the destruction of an orphanage by causing an avalanche that destroyed the invading army, the Paladin doesn't shrug his shoulders and say "Well, I tried to do good. My god will understand." That's chaotic behavior. He helps rebuild the orphanage, seeks guidance on how to compensate for his mistake, and asks for atonement. He does these things because a LG character doesn't shrug his shoulders at the death of innocents by his hand. He makes it right.Similarly, the NG druid doesn't flame strike his wolf, shrug and say "I'll just get another one." That's chaotic neutral (borderline evil) behavior. Again, its not the event that is the issue, it is the druids RESPONSE that is telling. And treating living things like disposable tools is not a behavior befitting a druid of *any* alignment, much less a NG one!
I never said anything about the Paladin "shurgging" off killing an innocent. He would be broken, full of self-hatred, and probably would feel the need to atone for reasons far beyond getting his abilities back.
If the paladin did just shrug and not care, of course his god would law some smack down, but if the paladin was practically suicidal, then I think the god is intelligent enough to understand the nature of a mistake.
And I don't run my games with alignment being about action. Life is not black and white enough to define any given action as inherently good or bad and I prefer my fantasy world's morality to emulate the real world so one can create deeper, more interesting characters.
I like the idea of having an alignment system that is flexible enough to have a CE hero.
In a more concrete alignment system, CE just turns into "Chaotic Stupid".
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[grumble]It worked for Darth Vader...[/grumble]
Amusing Star Wars realization this morning.
[list]
Star Wars Prequels. The more you think about them, the more painful they are.
[grumble]It worked for Darth Vader...[/grumble]
Except he didn't do it for convenience, he did it to save his son's life. Good act.
[grumble]It worked for Darth Vader...[/grumble]Except he didn't do it for convenience, he did it to save his son's life. Good act.
How is killing your boss to save your child morally any better than killing your child to save your boss? Emotionally expedient, I'll grant you, but that's convenience! :P
How is killing your boss to save your child morally any better than killing your child to save your boss? Emotionally expedient, I'll grant you, but that's convenience! :P[grumble]It worked for Darth Vader...[/grumble]Except he didn't do it for convenience, he did it to save his son's life. Good act.
Yep, and this shows the awesome power of redemption too. Let's look at Annakin/Darth's path to redemption such that he ends up as a glowing happy figure in Jedi Nirvana...
Joins forces with the most evil Sith Lord in galactic history.
Viciously murders hundreds of young jedi padawans, dispatching them like pigs in a slaughterhouse.
Leads a galactic coup to install a galactic emperor, killing untold billions, perhaps trillions of innocents in the process.
Complicit in the systematic murder of every jedi in the galaxy, excepting apparently Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Becomes the brutal enforcer of the despotic emperor for decades, routinely crushing rebellions at the cost of more billions/trillions of innocent lives.
Personally oversees the creation of the most powerful weapon in the history of the galaxy, and then approves its use to destroy an entire world filled with living breathing souls.
I won't bother with the random use of his jedi powers for fun diversions like choking old B-List actors to death.
Now, balance all of that against:
Saves his son from being killed by the Emperor.
Yep. Sounds good to me. Give that guy a ticket to heaven!
It would depend entirely how an afterlife would work for DV.
If it's an achievement based afterlife, like Valhalla, then he would have to weight all his X acts against his Y acts.
But if it was a faith based afterlife, like Christian Heaven, then simply asking for forgiveness and honestly desiring to atone for one's crimes means Vader would get into heaven even if he'd done all the terrible stuff.
Even different gods have different opinions on the nature of morality.
Odin didn't even care about good and evil, only glorious death in combat, so even the most evil man in history could get into Valhalla if he died in battle.
Several religions had no good vs evil dichotomy, hence their afterlife required no moral component.
So, again, as I've said, everything depends on the setting itself, the nature of Nature in that setting, how magic works.
For example, magic in my own setting is a function of sub-atomic nanites. A druid could flame strike an entire forest into ash and he wouldn't lose his power as they're not being granted to him, he's taping a resource.
On the other hand, in Greyhawk (the old default D&D setting), a druid is being granted his powers and they'd be striped if he ever "stopped revering nature."
Different settings have different physics of magic.
How is killing your boss to save your child morally any better than killing your child to save your boss? Emotionally expedient, I'll grant you, but that's convenience! :P[grumble]It worked for Darth Vader...[/grumble]Except he didn't do it for convenience, he did it to save his son's life. Good act.Yep, and this shows the awesome power of redemption too. Let's look at Annakin/Darth's path to redemption such that he ends up as a glowing happy figure in Jedi Nirvana...
Joins forces with the most evil Sith Lord in galactic history.
Viciously murders hundreds of young jedi padawans, dispatching them like pigs in a slaughterhouse.Leads a galactic coup to install a galactic emperor, killing untold billions, perhaps trillions of innocents in the process.
Complicit in the systematic murder of every jedi in the galaxy, excepting apparently Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Becomes the brutal enforcer of the despotic emperor for decades, routinely crushing rebellions at the cost of more billions/trillions of innocent lives.
Personally oversees the creation of the most powerful weapon in the history of the galaxy, and then approves its use to destroy an entire world filled with living breathing souls.
I won't bother with the random use of his jedi powers for fun diversions like choking old B-List actors to death.
Now, balance all of that against:
Saves his son from being killed by the Emperor.
Yep. Sounds good to me. Give that guy a ticket to heaven!
Ah, but he didn't just save his son from the emperor, he destroyed the most powerful evil being in the galaxy, saved the last of the jedi so they can rebuild, and with the emperor's death ended a war that involved millions without killing millions on either side. He also made peace with his son before he croaked, which is another plus.
Ah, but he didn't just save his son from the emperor, he destroyed the most powerful evil being in the galaxy, saved the last of the jedi so they can rebuild, and with the emperor's death ended a war that involved millions without killing millions on either side. He also made peace with his son before he croaked, which is another plus.
Right... an emperor he had helped put in power and whose bidding he had done for decades.
The "last of the jedi" because he had personally killed hundreds of them and he had been complicit in the murder of the rest.
He helped to end a war that was largely the result of his own actions, and which had already led to the deaths of untold billions, probably trillions of people.
I mean, sure, you can put some lipstick on the pig.... but there is no way anyone can objectively say that Darth Vader's villainy was remotely countered by his final acts. This is like saying Hitler would be redeemed if he commuted a few death penalties in his final hours...
Ah, but he didn't just save his son from the emperor, he destroyed the most powerful evil being in the galaxy, saved the last of the jedi so they can rebuild, and with the emperor's death ended a war that involved millions without killing millions on either side. He also made peace with his son before he croaked, which is another plus.
Right... an emperor he had helped put in power and whose bidding he had done for decades.
The "last of the jedi" because he had personally killed hundreds of them and he had been complicit in the murder of the rest.
He helped to end a war that was largely the result of his own actions, and which had already led to the deaths of untold billions, probably trillions of people.
I mean, sure, you can put some lipstick on the pig.... but there is no way anyone can objectively say that Darth Vader's villainy was remotely countered by his final acts. This is like saying Hitler would be redeemed if he commuted a few death penalties in his final hours...
Yeah, but he was upset when he did those things! :p