Animal Companion abuse (?)

[scruffygrognard]

Last night I got into a heated debate with 2 of my players, because I warned them (as players of druids) against abusing their animal companions.

To them, the animal companion is no more than a meat-shield or trap-setter-offer.

For example:
-----
The party comes upon a murky pool of water in a natural cavern. Paul's druid sends his Giant Toad companion, "Deathy," into the pool to investigate.
Upon swimming 20' or so into the pool the toad is attacked by two killer frogs, who manage to knock it out very quickly.
The party, from the shore, is able to dispatch one frog with 2 shots (a crossbow bolt and a sling bullet). The other frog then swims to the bottom of the pool to hide in the muck.
The party states that the frog eventually has to re-emerge and will wait for it to surface so that they can dispatch it as well. I let them know that the toad will likely die in the interim, to which Paul responds: "So?"
After I informed him that he should think of the toad as a friend and pet, he rolled his eyes (as did the other druid's player) and sat back while another player put the toad out of it's misery with a crossbow bolt.
------

Thus the argument...

I pretty much told him that if that happened again, he'd lose his spell ability; at which point his sulked about how druids sucked in my campaign.

Thoughts?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think you're in the right.

Normally in a situation like this, people would criticize you for (presumably) not having discussed this before campaign start, but I would have thought that's common sense.

Well, you've told him now, so hopefully he'll improve. Find out if he wants a "better" animal companion too. I doubt a giant toad is that cool.

 

[Keith Robinson]

I don't think it's worth falling out over an animal companion. I agree that companion's get abused - I once had a player who used his to suck up Attack of Opportunities before he went into combat.

Since it's something that obviously bothers you, I'm sure there are better ways of dealing with it. You could always add an xp penalty for when an animal companion is killed, much the same way a wizard suffers one (well, in 3.5 anyway), or you could adjust the time it takes to get a new one (from 24 hours to, say, one week) or you could have the player have to go on a small side quest to find one (which may not always be convenient or can be inserted at the DM's discretion) or just make it DM discretion as to when player's get new companions.

I think taking away a character's spell casting is way too harsh IMO, especially as there are other solutions.

 

[Luce]

From SRD:
"...
Ex-Druids

A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).
"


I consider callously using animal companions as cannon folder to be violation of druid ethos. Thus I concur with your ruling.

 

[Jack7]

I'm with you on this one.


Whereas I'm no modern bent upon the idea of equality between humans and animals, I am on the other hand very respectful of animals, and the pets and livestock I do have I tend to treat as animal companions. (Not equals, if any animal endangered a human then the animal goes down, I'd kill it myself and have before, but otherwise I treat my animals or any other tame or domesticated animal as companions and as such they are under my care. Wild animals I treat respectfully and although I often study them, I don't harm them.)

It also seems to me though that a Druid, especially, would have the same sort of attitude towards animals in general, as say a Saint Francis, and would be expected to treat animals fairly, if not as actual companions. You wouldn't send your buddy in combat, or your comrades in arms in to set off suspected traps or to risk himself unnecessarily in dangerous situations. That defeats the whole idea of a "companion." Especially if there were much better, much safer, and much more productive ways to use him.

Which brings up my real point. I think the way the game is designed, far too many things in-game are considered disposable, rather than develop-able.

For example I cross breed animals to produce new breeds of animals (which I hope and certainly work towards) that are smarter, more adaptable, and who suffer far fewer physical and health problems than either antecedent or progenitor.

I view these animals as companions, because I raise them to be (the ones that stay with me and don't go to others), and because the intent of my experiments is to produce better animals, and because of all of the work I put into their breeding and development.

If I had a dog (in the real world) or a fantasy type animal companion (in such a world) that I had put a lot of time and work into training and developing and breeding and raising then there's no way I'd squander such a valuable friend and asset in stupid actions and maneuvers. My intent would be to develop my companions, and that goes for animal companions as well as those who are my family, friends, and those under my command.

Anyone I'm in charge of or who is my companion or under my charge, I have responsibilities and duties towards, and I'd much rather expend my time and effort in developing them than expending them for disposal. I'd rather exploit for development and mutual long-term advantage, than exploit for selfish momentary advantage and quick disposal.

I see selfish exploitation as both morally inferior to mutual advantage, and physically wasteful and senseless to boot. In my book doubly idiotic unless absolutely necessary.

That being said I think you can solve the problem by showing your players the ways in which they can use their animal companions in far more useful and productive ways, and in far less wasteful ways, than as meat-shields and trap-triggers.

For instance most animals have keenly developed senses, which can be exploited to great effect if you know what you're doing. Many are excellent explorers, trackers, surveillers, some even combatants if they are trained properly and well deployed. And of course many are excellent alarms and forewarners of danger.

My advice is rather than merely taking the negative approach of "don't do that, it's wrong" (in my opinion it is at least stupidly wasteful and counter-productive) give them opportunities in which they can see the true value and the numerous beneficial capabilities of their animal companions.

In this way they will grow to respect what their animal companions can actually (and sometimes amazingly) do on an individual level, and they will begin to think of their animal companions as assets, rather than mere disposable and easily replaceable objects. They will also begin to understand that animal companions, like any good ally, can also be a real boon towards their own survival, and that the abilities of their animal companions will augment and compliment their own capabilities in a very useful, beneficial way. But since it is just a game then you as DM must give them opportunities for their animals to be employed in this way, and they must be willing to come to understand and exploit these potential new uses of their animal companions.

One thing you might do is introduce an NPC (such as a Ranger, or a Druid, or even someone with a familiar) who makes very good use of their companion, and obviously respects and values their companion. As a guide for how to better develop your player's animal companions. someone to show them the ropes of how to make best use of an animal, as a rancher might say.

I think that approach will probably solve the problem for everyone concerned.

Good luck.

 

[the Jester]

Last night I got into a heated debate with 2 of my players, because I warned them (as players of druids) against abusing their animal companions.

To them, the animal companion is no more than a meat-shield or trap-setter-offer.

For example:
-----
The party comes upon a murky pool of water in a natural cavern. Paul's druid sends his Giant Toad companion, "Deathy," into the pool to investigate.
Upon swimming 20' or so into the pool the toad is attacked by two killer frogs, who manage to knock it out very quickly.
The party, from the shore, is able to dispatch one frog with 2 shots (a crossbow bolt and a sling bullet). The other frog then swims to the bottom of the pool to hide in the muck.
The party states that the frog eventually has to re-emerge and will wait for it to surface so that they can dispatch it as well. I let them know that the toad will likely die in the interim, to which Paul responds: "So?"
After I informed him that he should think of the toad as a friend and pet, he rolled his eyes (as did the other druid's player) and sat back while another player put the toad out of it's misery with a crossbow bolt.
------

Thus the argument...

I pretty much told him that if that happened again, he'd lose his spell ability; at which point his sulked about how druids sucked in my campaign.

Thoughts?

You are absolutely right. Guys who cast spells without worrying about the ethical implications are called "sorcerers and wizards"; perhaps your druid players would be more comfortable with a d4 Hit Die and no real combat ability.

 

[Alzrius]

I'd like to quote from an article on my favorite blog about this:

The 3.0 SRD included some very, VERY, important notes on Animal Companions. Those notes still appeared in the 3.5 DMG – but they didn’t make it into the 3.5 SRD, and don’t seem to have made it into Pathfinder. (Personally, I’d have recommended that Pathfinders writers consult the 3.0 SRD as well as the 3.5 version, after all, they’re both free to use). Fortunately, the 3.0 version is easy to update: for the most part you simply have to remove plurals.

The lists of possible animal companions assume that the character spends most of her time in the animals’ home territory and treats it well. If she spends most of her time at sea, in cities, or otherwise in places that her companion doesn’t like, her companion will soon desert. Remember, animal companions are loyal friends but not pets or servants. They won’t remain loyal if being the character’s friend becomes too onerous.

The animal is still an animal. It’s not a magical beast, as a familiar or a paladin’s mount is. While it may have learned some tricks, it’s still no more intelligent than any other animal of its kind, and it retains all its bestial instincts. Unlike intelligent followers or cohorts, animals can’t follow complex instructions, such as “Attack the gnoll with the wand.” A character can give a simple verbal command, such as “Attack” or “Come,” as a free action, provided such a command is among the tricks the animal has learned. A more complex instruction, such as telling an animal to attack and pointing out a specific target, is a standard action. Animals are ill-equipped to handle unusual situations, such as combats with invisible opponents, and they typically hesitate to attack weird and unnatural creatures, such as beholders and oozes.

Left to its own judgment, an animal follows a character and attacks creatures that attack her (or that attack the animal itself). To do more than that, it needs to learn tricks. An animal with an Intelligence of two can learn six tricks.

In other words, even in 3.5, that combat-capable animal companion was a dangerous wild animal which just happened to like you – not an extension of your will. It didn’t necessarily like your friends, have any judgement, refrain from chasing food, interesting scents, or mates, or know not to casually kill annoying kids and villagers. It would balk at many situations – and if you kept trying to drag it into those situations, it would leave. Parking your pet lion in the stables at the inn was a recipe for being responsible for the deaths of several other people’s horses, some other livestock, a stableboy or two, and probably a few adults during the ensuing chaos.

 

[Janx]

Not discounting the SRD quote which clearly shows the Toad couldn't have been used in such a way....

Assuming the Toad would/could be asked to explore the pool, that's not an unreasonable thing to do.

The player's mistake was their callous disregard for the animal by answering "So?" when the GM brought up the animal's safety during the fight.

Animals know what people like animals. This Druid does not like animals. Therefore, no animal should befriend him.

 

[steeldragons]

Not discounting the SRD quote which clearly shows the Toad couldn't have been used in such a way....

Assuming the Toad would/could be asked to explore the pool, that's not an unreasonable thing to do.

The player's mistake was their callous disregard for the animal by answering "So?" when the GM brought up the animal's safety during the fight.

Animals know what people like animals. This Druid does not like animals. Therefore, no animal should befriend him.

This.

From SRD:
"...
Ex-Druids

A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).
"

I consider callously using animal companions as cannon folder to be violation of druid ethos. Thus I concur with your ruling.

...and this.

And...basically everything practically everyone else in the thread has said thus far.

Given you just brought it up (at least that's how I'm reading it), I would give either druid player one more misstep...however slight. Then, rain down the full fury of nature (i.e. other druids?) upon them.

Yes, using the toad to explore the pond is completely reasonable. The rest is certainly not!

As a DM, if this were a recurring behavior, I would have stripped them of druidic powers (yes, all of them) before now.

[EDIT Even from the other druid character for letting this go on in his/her presence! [/EDIT]

Generally speaking, 3 strikes works for pretty much any indescretion (alignment being the most common, but also non-pally or non-druidic behavior).

Let the player's whine as much as they want, they chose (didn't they?) to be these classes! You're just adjudicating the cosmos...that's all.

Good luck.
Have fun and happy power-stripping (as, I imagine from the sounds of it, the behavior will not change).
--SD

 

[scruffygrognard]

Thanks all for the feedback.

I was worried about being too harsh because this player gets his back up if he feels that he is being unduly punished for his actions.

I neglected to point out that this is the 2nd animal companion killed by the druid. The first was a fighting rooster that he befriended through animal friendship (I'm running a modified 3.0 game) and, upon realizing that it wasn't effective in combat (?????), killed it and ate it.

I've asked him to stop playing a druid but, sadly, this behavior is par for the course with my group.