Help with Druid's Moral Discussion

[Immoralkickass]

I think too many people have the wrong idea of how a druid should behave. They are not the tree-hugging, animal-loving, urban-hating people that you would believe them to be.

I am playing a druid, and i too have a pretty judgmental group of party members. There was once, our party was ambushed while asleep, but we manage to defeat the enemy, killing all but one, left alive for questioning. When it was clear he knows nothing, my druid finished him off while he was still tied up. It was deemed 'unnecessary' by the whole party just because he was defenseless.

In my eyes, an enemy that is subdued is still my enemy, and the best type of enemy is a dead one. Also, I've watched too many movies where the hero was tied up and the enemy let their guard down around him, only for him to secretly cut/untie himself and escape or seek revenge. Its never a good idea to underestimate your enemy, what more in D&D where there is magic available.

To answer your question, no you shouldn't punish him (druids don't even worship a god, so how are you going to strip him of his powers?), there is no rule that druids cannot kill animals, and if i have to choose my life over a bunch of wolves, I'd choose my life every time, no questions.

 

[jaelis]

I think too many people have the wrong idea of how a druid should behave. They are not the tree-hugging, animal-loving, urban-hating people that you would believe them to be.

IMO any idea of how a druid "should" behave is wrong. They do have an underlying ethos, but there are unlimited ways to express that.

 

[Sunseeker]

There's no "Druid Code" that prevents druids from killings animals. Depending on the druidic lore, many druids are tasked as caretakers of nature, cleansing it of corruption. The Druid may have misunderstand that the wolves were "free" from the mind control, but that's not terribly a fault of his. He may feel guilty over it finding it out later...or maybe he won't, feeling that the wolves were too weak and survival of the fittest and all that.

 

[Shiroiken]

The other players are free to have their character's react however they wish, especially the Ranger. Only the DM can decide what outside ramifications will occur, and most of that has to do with how your world works. If you don't feel the need to provide consequences for what happened, there is no reason to implement any. It's your world and campaign.

If the druid gets spells from a nature deity (a concept from older editions still used by many), the deity may be displeased. This displeasure should be no different than any cleric (or paladin) would receive from their deity for violating a religious tenet. Usually a vision/dream, followed by a minor act of atonement should be sufficient, but denial of spells and/or granted abilities is a possibility if the gods are strict in your world. Another thing to consider in this matter, is that some nature deities can be quite savage, and might even approve of the slaying.

If druids are an organization (such as in Greyhawk), there might be social consequences. The character may be admonished, physically punished, fined, jailed, or even outcast, depending on the rules and strictness of the organization. Of course, they'd have to find out about the act, but the other character may make that happen. As with the deity, there may not be any rules broken, causing no social consequences.

By flat RAW, the druid gets their spells from nature spirits, similar to the primordial of 4E. These spirits are unlikely to directly impact the character's actions directly IMO. If you run things this way, and want to provide a punishment, I'd simply not allow the character to use Shapechange to turn into a wolf (or possibly any canine), as the Wolf Spirits are angry, and deny him their favor. This is a minor drawback that the player can roleplay around, but does not seriously hamper the character.

 

[Hjorimir]

I'd have other druids confront him about the event. It's a great RP opportunity. Depending on how your campaign is structured, there could be pressure and fallout from the slaying of the wolves...or not. I'm firmly in the camp that a player's actions should have realistic consequences. Otherwise, why pretend that the player's choices have any meaning?

 

[Li Shenron]

One of the group is even claiming that "if it was him, the druid would have lost his powers, no questions asked".

Good that it's not him then.

There is no rule that establishes how a character may lose her class abilities because of her behaviour. If you establish such a rule, it will be a house rule, so you can do whatever you feel appropriate for your fantasy world. There is no universal consensus, just some old habits by some gaming groups, that were always contested or ignored by other gaming groups.

What is important, is that a character is played consistently. If a player keeps changing the character behaviour depending on the whims or convenience, you can normally experience suspension of disbelief (unless she is actually capable of making the inconsistency itself the defining feature of her character).

Otherwise a Druid can be a true puppy-lover and treehugger, while another Druid can see mercy-killing as morally better, another Druid may believe that balance is more important than the individuals and thus proceed to kill healthy animals just because nature would be better with a lesser number of them, and finally yet another Druid may believe that cruel ritual animal sacrifices are essential in her worship. They are all possible Druids which differ in the means, and the difference between good and evil is rather in the means than in the ends. In fact, there is no alignment restriction for Druids.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'd have other druids confront him about the event. It's a great RP opportunity. Depending on how your campaign is structured, there could be pressure and fallout from the slaying of the wolves...or not. I'm firmly in the camp that a player's actions should have realistic consequences. Otherwise, why pretend that the player's choices have any meaning?

The "realistic consequence" is simply that this Druids hangs around with other Druids of similar morals.

 

[Hjorimir]

The "realistic consequence" is simply that this Druids hangs around with other Druids of similar morals.

Sure, that's a possible consequence if the DM determines that there are druids of a similar moral fabric. Then again, (s)he may determine that the character's druidic peers are outraged and feel they need to respond with extreme prejudice. There is no right or wrong answer here.

 

[Aenorgreen]

Druids believe in the way of nature, which is pretty cruel and harsh. There is nothing wrong with killing animals. They should not lose their powers, in fact I think you should never have a PC lose their powers. Also, remember that the players never have the information you have as a DM. he very likely interpreted that comment about being free as that they were glad to be no longer having to act for another and that the druid was just freeing them permanently by killing them.

 

[transtemporal]

People who live in the wilderness aren't sentimental about killing animals, but they generally don't kill more than they need and they don't kill purely for sport. They might kill an animal (or a pack of animals) to protect a settlement or defend themselves, especially if the animal was bold enough to attack first. I don't really think it makes sense to punish the druid.