I'd say it's more like stripped down 3rd edition with AD&D window dressings.
Man that sounds SO good to me!
Animal Companion abuse (?)
- Thread starter scruffygrognard
- Start date
Man that sounds SO good to me!
Moorcrys
Explorer
Chris, as usual, I love your system of AD&D. I work in NYC and if I didn't work evenings I'd be bugging you to let me join your campaign.
I think this is more of an alignment issue - you do allow neutral evil druids in your game system and his attitude feels pretty neutral evil to me. Your player's druid seems like someone who uses his divinely invested power to compel animals to serve him and then uses these animals until they become inconvenient or show weakness, or until the companion ceases to be situationally useful to him. Nature can be cruel like that... there are plenty of parasites, bullies, and animals that basically enslave other animals or at least take complete advantage of them in the real natural world, even if it results in the other creature's death. I've watched my cat toy with a mouse for some time before he kills it... holding it for a bit in its claws, then letting it go until the mouse feels like it has a way out for just long enough that the little bugger makes a run for it and my cat gets to pounce on it over and over again until the poor mouse dies from fright and exhaustion. Sure it improves my cat's kitty hunting skills, and that ultimately may be why he does it, but damn you can also see how much he enjoys toying with that mouse. It could be your player's particular druidic philosophy and not necessarily against the mandate of nature. By having neutral evil druids, a valid argument could be made to play that kind of nature priest in your campaign world, I think.
As a conscious humanoid in a game-world with a 9-point alignment system, however, I would tell your player that he's drifting strongly toward neutral evil by celebrating the darker, more 'inhumane' side of nature. Animals mostly act in such a way to ensure survival... your player's druid does not need to act that way in order to survive, he's choosing to embody that particular philosophy of the natural world. Seems neutral evil to me. What alignment is he now? Do you impose penalties for alignment shifts?
Furthermore, as a DM, I would also be inclined to make the creatures he called and 'befriended' from then on reflect the aspects of nature that he chooses to champion. Such creatures would tend to embody the more brutal, uncaring, and unforgiving side of nature, just as he does. These companions would be willing to assist as long as the druid showed his superiority, power, and strength, but would be utterly ruthless and without feeling, pity, or sense of obligation to the druid should he prove weak or, in the eyes of the animal, unfit to remain the dominant member of the pack. They may be on constant lookout for his weaknesses so that they may supplant him as leader. Nature can be torturously vicious and unforgiving, and if the druid in question chooses to celebrate those aspects of the natural world... completely valid. So be it. But what he has become he also creates, or at least attracts, especially as a divine voice of the natural order.
Let him reap what he sows. That, to me, is the ultimate justice of the natural world. I would be very wary of my future companions if I were him.
I think this is more of an alignment issue - you do allow neutral evil druids in your game system and his attitude feels pretty neutral evil to me. Your player's druid seems like someone who uses his divinely invested power to compel animals to serve him and then uses these animals until they become inconvenient or show weakness, or until the companion ceases to be situationally useful to him. Nature can be cruel like that... there are plenty of parasites, bullies, and animals that basically enslave other animals or at least take complete advantage of them in the real natural world, even if it results in the other creature's death. I've watched my cat toy with a mouse for some time before he kills it... holding it for a bit in its claws, then letting it go until the mouse feels like it has a way out for just long enough that the little bugger makes a run for it and my cat gets to pounce on it over and over again until the poor mouse dies from fright and exhaustion. Sure it improves my cat's kitty hunting skills, and that ultimately may be why he does it, but damn you can also see how much he enjoys toying with that mouse. It could be your player's particular druidic philosophy and not necessarily against the mandate of nature. By having neutral evil druids, a valid argument could be made to play that kind of nature priest in your campaign world, I think.
As a conscious humanoid in a game-world with a 9-point alignment system, however, I would tell your player that he's drifting strongly toward neutral evil by celebrating the darker, more 'inhumane' side of nature. Animals mostly act in such a way to ensure survival... your player's druid does not need to act that way in order to survive, he's choosing to embody that particular philosophy of the natural world. Seems neutral evil to me. What alignment is he now? Do you impose penalties for alignment shifts?
Furthermore, as a DM, I would also be inclined to make the creatures he called and 'befriended' from then on reflect the aspects of nature that he chooses to champion. Such creatures would tend to embody the more brutal, uncaring, and unforgiving side of nature, just as he does. These companions would be willing to assist as long as the druid showed his superiority, power, and strength, but would be utterly ruthless and without feeling, pity, or sense of obligation to the druid should he prove weak or, in the eyes of the animal, unfit to remain the dominant member of the pack. They may be on constant lookout for his weaknesses so that they may supplant him as leader. Nature can be torturously vicious and unforgiving, and if the druid in question chooses to celebrate those aspects of the natural world... completely valid. So be it. But what he has become he also creates, or at least attracts, especially as a divine voice of the natural order.
Let him reap what he sows. That, to me, is the ultimate justice of the natural world. I would be very wary of my future companions if I were him.
