A player (playing a druid) just tried to use a dominated animal to detect traps... like a monk (with his saving throws) and I wasn't sure if it's against a druid's code since technically all it says is
"A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid..."
So what I also want to know is, what does it mean to "revere nature"?
Torture is evil, but so is nature. Just watch a cat if you don't believe me.
Eh, I could see it either way. If the animal has a reasonable chance to not be terrifically maimed by a trap, then showing its abilities is fairly "revering" of nature. Likewise, if the druid fully intended to heal any damage caused to the creature, then sure. However, if the druid was just pushing bessie the cow down the corridor of revolving axes and hoping for some nat 20s, that's probably not too "revering" of nature.
Basically, it's your call as the gm what crosses the line. Note that druids don't have to protect nature, they only have to respect it.
Yes. That's not a good thing. I don't revere things by actively and knowingly putting them in danger of getting killed in order to save myself.
Throwing cats at spikes is clearly a direct violation of a mandate to "revere nature".
Making use of an animal's superior senses to attempt to legitimately detect a trap or search is one thing. Sending an animal in specifically to act as a trap-springer, not so much.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A player (playing a druid) just tried to use a dominated animal to detect traps... like a monk (with his saving throws) and I wasn't sure if it's against a druid's code since technically all it says is
"A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid..."
So what I also want to know is, what does it mean to "revere nature"?
That's not "torture".
Alignment check, not loss of class abilities, for sure. It isn't a "nice" thing to do, and if it becomes common practice should have ramifications, but as pointed out above nature isn't particularly nice either. Survival of the most fit, etc.
Unless there was an over abundance of those animals in the area (aka deer hunting season) in which case, everything would be on the up and up.
Druids can be selfish and disrespectful of individual animal's life - that's my interpretation of a NE druid. He might abuse a specific animal for trap triggering and still admire its skills to evade the consequences. And enjoy its suffering. Evil can be a twisted alignment.
Or he thinks it's his duty to sacrifice this animal for the greater benefit of nature, despite being unhappy about it - that would be LN, from my point of view.
Druids can be selfish and disrespectful of individual animal's life - that's my interpretation of a NE druid. He might abuse a specific animal for trap triggering and still admire its skills to evade the consequences. And enjoy its suffering. Evil can be a twisted alignment.
Or he thinks it's his duty to sacrifice this animal for the greater benefit of nature, despite being unhappy about it - that would be LN, from my point of view.
Druids must revere nature. A druid that enslaves an animal against its will to kill itself for mere convenience is not revering nature. An evil druid typically should not direct their cruelty to animals and nature
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Revere nature is very, very vague. There is a lot of nature. Some Druids pick only parts of it to revere and don't care about the rest.
Perhaps they "revere"(feel deep respect for) the usefulness of animals in dungeons as backup rogues.
Revere nature is very, very vague. There is a lot of nature. Some Druids pick only parts of it to revere and don't care about the rest.
Perhaps they "revere"(feel deep respect for) the usefulness of animals in dungeons as backup rogues.
There are a lot of aspects to nature. The Stormcaller Druids that make pilgrimages to the Eye of Abenedgo worship the storm's destructive power and obviously care not for what the storm uproots in it's passage.
The question for the above example is the following.. Does the Druid show any reverence for nature at all? Is his treatment of animals in line with his alignment? If the answer to both is yes, then he or she is golden.
Eldest Sons said it best. "A Druid is supposed to treat nature as his family. It's hardly unknown that there those who take advantage of their families."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one on this thread that actually lives with a cat?
Animals torture other animals all the time. Cats, in particular, are notorious for killing animals simply "for funsies," and something like 50% of their kills are neither eaten nor presented to their owners -- they're simply left to rot.
Even dolphins kill not only other animals for no apparent reason, but also their own kind.
"Nature red in tooth and claw" is not a joke. The joke is to think that a druid must give a hamster turd what happens to any particular animal. "Nature," after all, is what put that chipmunk in front of that alley cat. If the chipmunk didn't want to die horribly, it should have paid more attention to what was going on.
It's also noted that dolphins and chimpanzees are among the few animals which have demonstrated enough self-awareness to identify the nature of an image in a mirror as themselves and not another animal. This among other reasons have given arguments that they are at least borderline sentient.
Nature is harsh, nature is brutal, nature is however not cruel or evil, as those are motivating factors that animals do not have. The chimps do indeed kill for food, and fight for territory, but such is the struggle of nature, the cycle of predator and prey, often not pretty, and never "nice", but neither is hunting or killing in nature malicious. There is no life without death.
I have 8 cats, they do indeed kill more than needed, though let us conjecture that this is because domestic cats are often well fed, and do not need to hunt to survive, but you try being a creature adapted to hunt and kill prey over hundreds of millions of years. Then for a tiny bit of time, these fur-less things make your life very easy, give you food, water, and shelter. You no longer need to hunt to live, but the drive to hunt is a vast part of what you are, so yeah, you still hunt and kill, even if it is not for food now. Domestication caused cats we own to act this way, not the cat itself, human actions in changing a species changes the dynamic.
I think the saying goes, you can take the cat out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the cat.
Nature is harsh, nature is brutal, nature is however not cruel or evil, as those are motivating factors that animals do not have. The chimps do indeed kill for food, and fight for territory, but such is the struggle of nature, the cycle of predator and prey, often not pretty, and never "nice", but neither is hunting or killing in nature malicious. There is no life without death.
I have 8 cats, they do indeed kill more than needed, though let us conjecture that this is because domestic cats are often well fed, and do not need to hunt to survive, but you try being a creature adapted to hunt and kill prey over hundreds of millions of years. Then for a tiny bit of time, these fur-less things make your life very easy, give you food, water, and shelter. You no longer need to hunt to live, but the drive to hunt is a vast part of what you are, so yeah, you still hunt and kill, even if it is not for food now. Domestication caused cats we own to act this way, not the cat itself, human actions in changing a species changes the dynamic.
I think the saying goes, you can take the cat out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the cat.
Cats, unlike dogs are an interesting case of self-domestication. There evolution included lowering the normal fear reaction that animals have to humans or other animals. Part of the inherited animal traits may have come from human farmers encouraging cats to stay and hunt rodents by leaving food out for them. This encourages pro-survival instincts which become part of the genetic code. Cats express this today by occasionally leaving dead or wounded prey for their owners.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nature is harsh, nature is brutal, nature is however not cruel or evil, as those are motivating factors that animals do not have. The chimps do indeed kill for food, and fight for territory, but such is the struggle of nature, the cycle of predator and prey, often not pretty, and never "nice", but neither is hunting or killing in nature malicious. There is no life without death.
But in a broad sense, the druid who uses animals to spring traps is also simply killing for survival. As a human, she has a greater understanding of survival needs than most animals, and she understands that traps can kill you just as dead as food or lack of territory.
An animal that puts itself in front of a hungry predator is unfortunate, but, as you put it, "there is no life without death" -- and this applies if the predator is a sentient humanoid as well as another animal. But an animal that puts itself in front of a sentient humanoid that needs a way to spring a trap is equally unfortunate -- but again, "there is no life without death."
Revering nature in the abstract does not require that I treat any of nature's specific products with any specific regard. If I am the apex predator, I can take what I wish from nature to fill my needs, because that's the natural role of an apex predator. The lion does not ask the antelope if it wants to be killed, and the antelopes as a whole are even benefitted by having the slow and weak removed from their herds. I'm doing the antelope population a favor by removing the ones with weak Will saves as well.
Ahhh yes, that is right, it is suggested that cats were domesticated of course differently than canines, and that does carry over, excellent point indeed Drahliana.
Our cats love leaving us presents, Misty is just so PROUD of those moles and blue jays.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hypothetical Druid is merely culling animals who have weak wills thereby enforcing only the fittest animals survive to propagate the species. Since the animal was dominated and was able to be dominated, it was deemed weaker than it's other kind and culled from the pack.
The answer is... look at the druid's total behavior as a package instead of one specific area. If the Druid shows evidence of nature reverence in his/her other activities, I'd leave it be. If the player however is showing roleplaying indifference, then it might be time to start with the subtle clues and work your way up to blunt weapons when neccessary.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly the druid is invoking the aspect of the penguin, shoving other animals into the hypothetical waters to test for hypothetical orcas!
Scavion, at least for me (given my profile, no one should be surprised), does not that point of view sort of imply the druid in question see him/herself AS the enforcer of nature's balance, rather than part OF that balance. Small difference in wording, big difference in intent.
Again, just my 2 coppers, though this happens to be a topic that I happen to have very strong opinions about, but they remain just that. Good discussion actually.
Scavion, at least for me (given my profile, no one should be surprised), does not that point of view sort of imply the druid in question see him/herself AS the enforcer of nature's balance, rather than part OF that balance. Small difference in wording, big difference in intent.
Not really. Any predator is in the same relationship. Predators are by their nature enforcers of the balance upon their prey. Salmon keep the fish and crustacean population under control, but at the same time, bears keep the salmon population under control.... and shrimp keep the plankton population under control.
I'll agree to disagree with you on this one, but to each their own. As I do ascribe to:
"If it harms none, do what thou will."
Your game, your druid, your call. Simply just not how I see things, but variety is good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scavion, at least for me (given my profile, no one should be surprised), does not that point of view sort of imply the druid in question see him/herself AS the enforcer of nature's balance, rather than part OF that balance. Small difference in wording, big difference in intent.
Again, just my 2 coppers, though this happens to be a topic that I happen to have very strong opinions about, but they remain just that. Good discussion actually.
Absolutely. I mean Blight Druids are a thing too. Those folks are even more about being enforcers than my hypothetical druid.
My reasoning would be that Druids are literally empowered by Nature. Since that's super vague as a power source I feel that many Druids often have different goals based on Nature's needs and that those Druids became Druids or were chosen by Nature to fulfill those varied needs. Druid A is culling beasts to create nature's best stock. Druid B is a blighter destroying towns and natural places to start fresh. Druid C encourages people to live alongside nature in harmony.
My favorite part is when Druids A, B, and C get into conflict with one another and Nature gets to see whose ideology is the "fittest".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll agree to disagree with you on this one, but to each their own. As I do ascribe to:
"If it harms none, do what thou will."
Yes, but you're conflating "good" with "revering nature." What you just quoted is almost a type specimen for the chaotic good alignment, combining respect for personal freedom with altruism and a respect for other creatures' lives.
Not all druids -- not all people, but we're discussing druids here -- are chaotic good, or even chaotic or good. Neutral evil druids are allowed by rule, and evil, according to pathfinder's definition "implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."
The idea that nature is created in a hierarchy, and I am at the top of the hierarchy, with associated duties and privileges, is a very lawful belief, but also a very common one. It's the belief, for example, that gave us a very reverential "divine right of kings" as well as the various Eastern beliefs about the hierarchy of souls. God created me, to rule the commoners, and God created the commoners, to serve me. Therefore, it is my duty to command them in all things. Indeed, if you replace the word "commoners" with "animals," you've more or less got standard Protestant doctrine on this subject.
And, of course, if you replace "God" with "Nature," you have the druidic version of Cotton Mather. I'd hardly call him "nice," or "good," but I can't call him "irreverent."
Thats fair, I dare say it is very hard for me to separate personal stance and views on this topic, so indeed my particular stance is most certainly skewed.
This is not torture.
I really can't see much difference between sending it down a hallway and sending it in to almost certainly die absorbing 2 blows from the BBEG. If anything it is kinder, the critter likely has a better chance to survive a trap.
Nature is exploitative, nasty, brutal and oft times just plain cruel. It does not care for morals, right or wrong, it just is.
Still have to disagree with nature being cruel. Cruelty is a human construction based on ethics and or morality, depending on whom you ask. While a wolf pack hunting and killing is brutal and can be seen as nasty, cruel I would say no.
The wolves harbor no hatred or prejudice against the deer, cruel generally requires going out of ones way to cause torment for no real reason other than you desire to. Wolves kill and eat the deer, they however do not torment it for no reason other than deriving pleasure or other gain from doing so.
Harsh would be a good term (running down a faun is not a pretty, not at all), but not cruel, I dare say it only seems cruel to we humans because nature is not exactly kind either, it is both harsh and kind in equal parts. Balance requires death to foster life, balance takes and gives in equal measure.
But only we humans have learned how to do things like be cruel, to each other and to other creatures. Predators live and die by the balance of the hunt, only humans change the rules of it.
Ok, so my PF personal translation of the philosophical spouting, it is against the code of druids who do not emulate the harsh and unforgiving aspects of nature. For others, they could care less, or see it as an expression of survival of the fittest. Motivations as varied as the flora and fauna of nature itself, gotta love it.
Of course, still, just my 2 cp.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still have to disagree with nature being cruel.
This is, as far as I can tell, a purely semantic discussion at this point.
A druid is under no more requirement to respect a deer or to treat it nicely than a wolf is. Indeed, a druid is under no more requirement to respect a wolf or to treat it nicely than the wolf is under a requirement to respect the humanoid and treat it nicely.
Some druids will be tree-hugging granola-crunching hippies, others will be ferocious mountain men that exercise absolute dominion over everything that walks, crawls, wriggles, or flies over "their" mountain. Some will be as uncaring as a storm cloud, hurling lightning bolts to relieve their moodiness. Some will be pathological killers, cold as the very stones, attempting to single-mindedly achieve whatever goal they have set.
Because "nature" covers a whole range of things,.... and, fundamentally, "nature" cares about nothing and no one at all.
I don't like granola all that much ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's also noted that dolphins and chimpanzees are among the few animals which have demonstrated enough self-awareness to identify the nature of an image in a mirror as themselves and not another animal. This among other reasons have given arguments that they are at least borderline sentient.
I think perhaps you mean sapient, as chimps, dolphins, and most other animals are definitely sentient.
|
...cruel generally requires going out of ones way to cause torment for no real reason other than you desire to.
Like cats playing with their food?
And other predators do kill for fun. Ask any farmer with livestock. If predators are able to chase the herd/flock into a corner of a fenced pasture, it's quite common for them to kill them all despite being far more than they can eat.
Arguably it's not cruel because they're not intelligent/self-aware enough, but that's getting into semantics.
Yes I suppose sapient is a more appropriate term yes.
I will maintain my bit about all of those factors still coming back to changes made by humans. Fences, cats who do not need to hunt per say but still do(unless feral or abandon), and herd animals with unusually poor defense instincts vs. predators, all have our doing, and would not otherwise occur in nature.
I suppose one could also cite wolverines as an animal that seems to enjoy killing for the sheer act of it.
When I get reincarnated as a house cat, perhaps I shall learn more, until then, mysteries remain.
Quality chat on all sides though, I appreciate the insightful and thoughtful counterpoint.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about Blight Druids, seems like they don't care for animals, or you know, much of anything.
Of course a regular druid that's evil could rationalize it as weeding out the weak, so the strong survive.
Druids are way more complicated than Paladins and except for not wearing metal don't really have a "code" per se.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeaaaah, when it comes to "Must respect nature", animals are not synonymous with nature. How else would blight druids get by only giving a crap about bugs and bacteria? It's arguably evil, but judging according to "natural morals", you're using what resources you have to survive. Just like any other beast of the wild would do.
Not revering an animal does not mean you don't revere nature. Wolves have no reverence for deer. Sharks have no reverence for other fish. Druids need revere none of these things. A druid that wants to encourage a great mass extinction so that only fungus survives is still a druid. A blight druid is a druid whether she wants to pet your dog or set it on fire.
If you think natural organisms don't treat each other terribly, I'm sorry, but you have no experience with nature. Fungus infects ants and drives them slowly insane, then drives them to infect the rest of their hive. Spiders liquefy their prey's internal organs and let them slowly, slowly die in their webs. Orcas and cats play viciously with their prey, literally torturing them for pure amusement. You could probably even find an animal or two that uses animals just as this druid does—presenting them as lures, or using them as living tools to ward off predators. That's arguably what many parasites do.
All of that is nature. So a druid that treats animals as living tools is probably a bit evil, yes, but undruidic? Not at all. Pure self-interest. Neutral Evil.
tl;dr: Druids are not animal welfare activists.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
As I said, there are infinite shades of grey here. But I think the thing that binds all normal druids is their passion for nature (plants, animals, and arguably vermin and fey). Obviously archetypes can change that dramatically.
Actually, archetypes shouldn't change that dramatically unless they say they change it dramatically. The druid class uses the term "revere" with no further qualifications. The Blight Druid neither adds qualifications or changes how the base druid works in this regard. Therefore, whatever attitude a blight druid can have that counts as "revering" nature, a normal druid can have too.
Besides, this is what the book says about a normal Druid.
Druids worship personifications of elemental forces, natural powers, or nature itself. Typically this means devotion to a nature deity, though druids are just as likely to revere vague spirits, animalistic demigods, or even specific awe-inspiring natural wonders.
A druid's worship doesn't have to be about animals. A druid can be totally devoted to an aspect weather (and fulfill the "revere" clause), but view animals as mere tools. Such a druid would probably have no religious issues with "volunteering" animals for the trapfinder role.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the blight druid is not the only druid allowed to not care about animals. It's just an archetype that makes it easier to play such a druid. There is nothing in the blight druid description saying, "Although all other druids are bound to love plants and animals, blight druids are exempt from this section of the Druid Code."
Probably because no such restriction ever existed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I suppose sapient is a more appropriate term yes.
I will maintain my bit about all of those factors still coming back to changes made by humans. Fences, cats who do not need to hunt per say but still do(unless feral or abandon), and herd animals with unusually poor defense instincts vs. predators, all have our doing, and would not otherwise occur in nature.
Sorry, but this is blatantly incorrect. Orcas will merrily "play with their food" just as cats do (though they're generally more social about it). There has been footage taken of fully wild orcas throwing live seals between each other, having a grand old time. Cheetahs have also been seen practicing hunting on young gazelles.
Blaming humans for it is just ignoring Occam's Razor: The simplest solution is that animals like to play, too, and like humans, some of them play rough. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But kc, it's a requirement of the orthodoxy that humans are uniquely evil, the natural world sans humans is pure and innocent and anything bad that goes on in nature, ever, is the fault of humans.
There's that and people misinterpreting Darwin and believing that absolutely everything that happens in nature is economically gritty and derived wholly from the survival of the fittest. You've got people on both ends of the cynicism scale who are thoroughly convinced that being a jerk just to be a jerk is a wholly human experience.