| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
most Dire creature are Neutral so other than it try to bite/claw off your face is there any reason to kill them outright?
it came up in a game where the druid at 1st level tried to use animal empathy to prevent the Dire Rats from attacking, sadly he failed and the rest of the party is unhappy that he did not outright attack it.
i looked at the description of the template and it makes me wonder if he should not be admonished by the other players for trying to adjust it's attitude toward them.
i was always under the impression that dire creatures were evil and to be killed when ever possible. i am new to pathfinder and so many things are changed from 2nd and 3rd edition of D&D.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off- using wild empathy for its intended purpose is nothing to complain about. A fight avoided is a fight that does not wear on the parties resources. I would have everyone else sitting back with readied actions to turn the thing into a smoking crater...but still, it is worth trying at least.
But as a general philosophical argument, I will differ to the text
Dire creatures are large, feral-looking animals. They are not just bigger versions of normal animals, however. On the whole, dire creatures are bigger, stronger, faster, and more aggressive than their normal counterparts.
The aggressive part (combined with the whole 'stronger' bit) seems like it has serious implications. Dire animals are large, dangerous beasts that present a potential threat to any human(oid) that comes across them.
So it is a perfectly sound argument that leaving such an animal around is irresponsible. The same could be said for leaving bandits without informing the proper authorities of their presence (well, assuming that you do not kill them yourselves; turning them over to authorities works too).
Of course, dire creatures are part of the natural ecosystem, and there are also arguments for not just wiping them out too. So this is a philosophical argument really, and not one tied to the alignment system (which can be refreshing).
|
Dire creatures aren't evil, they're just much more aggressive than their non-dire counterparts. The druid was being reasonable trying to use Wild Empathy, even if it's a bit of a long shot when they're already attacking, for the same reason it's a long shot to try Diplomacy on someone who's trying to cave your face in.
EDIT: as lemeres pointed out the aggression can cause problems, but that largely depends on where the animals are. If you come across some rodents of unusual size in the forbidden forest, then there's no problem just passing on by. In the sewer systems of a busy city, with sewer workers turning up killed... a good-aligned druid could have a problem with that. Though they still might try a solution that doesn't involve slaughtering the rats.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adventurers are just Dire humanoids. Bigger stronger and much much much more aggressive.
nicely put Bardarok, lol
i thank you folks for your insight, i will have a little chat with my group the next time we get together. as a player one sometimes wants to kill before being killed, but one has to take into consideration how their class and even character backstory comes into play. so as in most things in life..... no black and white, just areas of gray.
|
How PCs deal with non-intelligent animals is a lot less to do with alignment, and more to do with the characters personality. A druid or ranger might attempt to preserve and relocate an animal, where as the fighter epitome of Gaston will want to know where the closest taxidermist is. So if one player disagrees with how another players characters acts, you should encourage the players to resolve it through role-playing their characters, and not through an interplayer dispute.
As an aside given their level I would imagine the likelihood of success with wild empathy to be very low, since the DC is 21 (25+Charisma Modifier for hostile creature, and a dire rat's chat is 2 (so -4),
Whether playing good, evil or other alignments, my group usually doesn't wait for animals to attack...
They pretty much leave a trail of death through any forest they walk through. Playing druids and rangers in the group is entertaining, and sometimes sad...
Actually had a party that called themselves "The Epicureans"... they ate most of what they killed. Went on adventures to try new flavors... that sort of thing.
I told them unicorn tasted like chicken.
I wonder if Int 2 animals recognise that adventurers are a good source of food, with all the dead bodies they leave in their wake.
Gives me an idea about a party having a pack of wolves following them around...
I wonder if Int 2 animals recognise that adventurers are a good source of food, with all the dead bodies they leave in their wake.
Gives me an idea about a party having a pack of wolves following them around...
Well, sharks followed pirate ships for similar reasons (well, ships in general since premodern trash disposal was 'dump it in the water', so there tended to be a lot of tasty left overs). In fact, isn't that one of the stated reasons for why you don't just jump ship in Skull and Shackles (I have honestly never played it- I could just be confusing justifications for why aquatic races might stick around on the boards)
Oh, and from the murderhobo perspective- animals typically do not have mad L00T, and as such you can often skip them. Can I haz double XP for nonviolent resolution PLZ?
Unless you follow the money spider model...in which case KILL EVERYTHING.