Help with Druid's Moral Discussion

[Guash]

Hey guys,
So, I am a beginner DM doing a campaign with a group of players and I set for them an encounter with a few mind-controlled wolves. The Ranger tried communicating with them and failed and so did the Druid. Once the battle started, the Ranger fled because fighting wild animals is against his character's principles. The Druid, however, stayed, fought and knocked out all the wolves. In the second before the wolves blacked out, I told the Druid he noticed a feeling of relief coming from the wolves as if they were finally free. He then proceeded to end the life of the unconscious wolves.
Okay so, here the problem starts. As far as I see it, there is no rule saying that Druids cannot kill an animal, especially seeing that nature is about killing or getting killed and he tried the other way around it, failing. However, those kills were really unnecessary. Now my group is demanding that I take an action to punish him. One of the group is even claiming that "if it was him, the druid would have lost his powers, no questions asked".
What do you guys think? Is there some rule that says he can't kill animals? Is there really a need for punishment here? And if so, how severe?
Thanks for your attention!

 

[jaelis]

I think it is best to let the player decide how to play their character. There’s no special rule saying druids must be kind to animals. If the player had previously established that the character was protective of animals, via an ideal or bond say, then they missed a chance to gain inspiration.

Even alignment is best considered a tool for character development, not a restriction or bludgeon.

Now, if the player wants to make this into a moral issue for the character, that can be fun and you can support it. But I wouldn’t try to impose it from outside.

 

[MarkB]

You could maybe ask the player what his character's reasoning was? That seems like the best start.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Sounds like the player got a bit confused, thinking that the feeling of being free meant that the wolves were somehow evil or had become hosts to parasitic nastinesses, rather than thinking that this feeling showed them to be now ex-mind controlled. If that's the case then he thought he was doing for the best.
On the other hand if he just thought, hurr hurr free throat slitting opportunity ooh shiny and red...maybe there is more to it.

Don't forget that as DM you can buy yourself all kinds of thinking time by giving a knowing look and making reference to the big picture/long game. And it may be that he continues in this (opened) vein in which case a session where the Circle summon him/teleport him to a special emergency moot to discuss his behaviour may be in order...leading to a temporary loss of powers until a quest is fulfilled by way of reparation.

On the other hand it may be that he was genuinely wrong end of the sticked and this doesn't show up again. But tell the players, punishment (if warranted) can be swift, or it can be slow in coming. But come it will.

 

[toucanbuzz]

I'm mystified about the group dynamics here. My players are all friends, and they'd never gang up to condemn another player. I'm likely missing some of the full story, but my gut says there's a problem if other players are asking that another player be punished.

That issue aside, as a general principle, avoid punishing players in-game for playing their character. It's a fantasy game where it's acceptable to kill scores of sentient creatures, loot their bodies, and leave the corpses to rot. When you start imposing your real-world beliefs how players should act instead of letting players play their characters, you'll run into some real problems at the table. And if you begin punishing players in this manner in-game, you'll have less players at your table because they'll quit. This isn't the same as natural repercussions, such as kill a guard and you'll get locked up or worse. In your scenario, it appears you're being asked to roleplay the gods, which is a translation generally for imposed morality. A bad idea.

Finally, put yourself in the player's shoes for a second. He's playing a druid, and you've presented him with an abomination to nature, magically controlled beasts. In his mind, he's likely doing them a favor.

 

[Dausuul]

Hey guys,
So, I am a beginner DM doing a campaign with a group of players and I set for them an encounter with a few mind-controlled wolves. The Ranger tried communicating with them and failed and so did the Druid. Once the battle started, the Ranger fled because fighting wild animals is against his character's principles. The Druid, however, stayed, fought and knocked out all the wolves. In the second before the wolves blacked out, I told the Druid he noticed a feeling of relief coming from the wolves as if they were finally free. He then proceeded to end the life of the unconscious wolves.
Okay so, here the problem starts. As far as I see it, there is no rule saying that Druids cannot kill an animal, especially seeing that nature is about killing or getting killed and he tried the other way around it, failing. However, those kills were really unnecessary. Now my group is demanding that I take an action to punish him. One of the group is even claiming that "if it was him, the druid would have lost his powers, no questions asked".
What do you guys think? Is there some rule that says he can't kill animals? Is there really a need for punishment here? And if so, how severe?
Thanks for your attention!

When in doubt, choose the less heavy-handed option. "Lose all your powers" is the most heavy-handed thing there is. I'm not even gonna call it a last resort; to me, it's no resort. I would flat-out kill a PC before doing that.

As much as possible, I avoid policing how players choose to play their characters. The world reacts to their actions, sure, but I draw a red line around the character sheet. The game world belongs to me. Your character belongs to you*.

Clerics and paladins are the only classes where I'd even consider crossing that line; those classes are explicitly built around the idea that a deity gives you power to advance that deity's ideals. If you egregiously violate those ideals... well, your old deity might cut you off. But a cleric or paladin of any significant level is a valuable asset. Another deity (probably a rather nasty one) likes the cut of your jib and takes over granting you power. You might not even know for a while.

But, again, that's only where the PC's whole concept involves a god looking over his/her shoulder and it's impossible to justify a lack of response from that god. Druids ain't clerics. They don't have gods, they draw power from nature, and nature is capable of horrific brutality. I would take this as an opportunity to explore the druid's conception of nature, maybe give some indications that he's touched a darker side of the forces from which his power comes.

And don't let the other players pressure you into doing something against your better judgment. They can run their games how they like. It's your game and your call.

[SIZE=-2]*This is why I do my damndest to ignore alignment. You can write whatever you like in that space. Slaughter innocents on a whim and call yourself Lawful Good? Sure, go for it. That's not the label I'd put on you, but feel free to bathe in hypocrisy. Just don't get upset when NPCs who are actually good people take a violent dislike to your character.[/SIZE]

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Why did the Druid choose to knock out the wolves, rather than kill them, during the combat in the first place? Why do you say that "those kills were really unnecessary"? There seems to be more to the story.

Based on the info you provided, it seems to me that the Druid did not start out intending to kill the wolves, but that your narration of the Druid sensing the relief of the wolves then led to the decision to finish them off. Do you think the player misinterpreted that somehow? Like the player thought that killing the wolves would complete the "freeing"? I would not punish a player for roleplaying what they thought was the right thing to do in the moment.

 

[ad_hoc]

Traditionally Druids are brutal.

They will have no qualms about killing humans to dissuade them from entering wilds or killing predator animals they deem to be disruptive.

The main thing that would go against their ethics would be something like creating or protecting undead which are an abomination against nature.

 

[77IM]

If role-playing choices have consequences, you should tell the players those consequences BEFORE they commit to taking an action. For example, if the druid kills slumbering humans in a village, that's a high crime and the town guard will be after him. You should remind him of this BEFORE he slits their throats.

Since you didn't mention or discuss this aspect of druidic roleplaying BEFORE the druid killed the wolves, it is too late for any sort of consequences, especially punishment.

However, right now is a FANTASTIC time for your group to have a discussion about what role-playing means and how role-playing "against type" can have serious consequences, especially for mystical characters that draw power from highly opinionated sources, like deities or the primal forces of nature. Talk to all the players about it so you are all on the same page going forward.

And don't fret -- this happens to all new DMs eventually!

 

[aco175]

As a druid I can say that I spoke with the locals and they are having problems with wolves, so I needed to kill them to keep the balance. As long as I'm not wiping them out and upsetting the balance the other way, I should be good. To knock them out in combat shows that he was trying to not kill them. It might be the comment about seeing something in their demeanor about being set freed allowed him to think they should be killed. I would not take any action on this.