D&D 5E FIND STEED: Your Pony Has Opinions

[MonkeezOnFire]

I have the opposite problem. I play a paladin and my steed has the personality of "proud, dumb warrior guy" so he constantly wants to get into battles and "gloriously defeat the enemies of Erathis." Most of the time while mounted I take direct control but sometimes I dismount and he gets to act on his own. He almost always just charges the nearest creature. This was cute when I first got him but we are now level 9 and he hasn't scaled at all so he basically poofs out of existence if anyone looks at him funny in combat. And resummoning him in the middle of an adventuring day is one less spell slot used for a smite or emergency heal.

But he isn't actually bothered by dying. What irritates him the most is when I hook him up to a cart in conjunction with a draft horse I bought. He feels that menial labour is boring.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[iserith]

As with all summoned monsters, the DM is expected to provide the stats for the steed and allows/disallows choices depending on the circumstances of the campaign. The DM should however have a discussion with the player about how they wish to go about it since the steed has a potentially major impact on the roleplaying (for example - where the steed comes from can matter a lot since it is a fey/fiend/celestial).

As the spell itself grants the steed decision-making power of its own as an intelligent creature and nowhere does the spell's description say that the steed obeys the PC's commands like a zombie (there's a difference between a faithful servant and a dominated slave), there is going to be a common sense limit to how much the player can push the steed unless the campaign itself is the type that rolls with extreme in-game decisions (ex. a Monty Python style campaign).

If it's a campaign that is roleplaying-focused with a level of immersion that everyone has agreed upon and the player is mature enough to not constantly throw their steed into pits of carrion crawlers, problems where the DM has to curb the brakes on what the steed is willing to do will probably not come up.

Every campaign is "roleplaying-focused" since players are playing roles by determining what their characters think, do, and say.

The assertion that the steed "wouldn't" do this or that really strikes me as an excuse by the DM to jump in and play the character (or in this case, the character's resource) for the player whenever the DM doesn't like the player's choice. Because D&D shares elements with childhood games of make-believe, for every reason a DM can think of that the steed wouldn't jump into a pit of carrion crawlers, a player can think of a reason why it might. Provided that choice is contributing to the group's ability to achieve the goals of play - that is, everyone having a good time and creating an exciting, memorable story - then whatever reason underpinning it is fine.

If a DM doesn't like a player's choice because perhaps it isn't fun for everyone and/or isn't helping to create an exciting, memorable story, that is deserving of a side discussion in my view to get on the same page rather than the creation of a backdoor to negating the player's choice in the first place.

 

[Storyteller Hero]

Every campaign is "roleplaying-focused" since players are playing roles by determining what their characters think, do, and say.

The assertion that the steed "wouldn't" do this or that really strikes me as an excuse by the DM to jump in and play the character (or in this case, the character's resource) for the player whenever the DM doesn't like the player's choice. Because D&D shares elements with childhood games of make-believe, for every reason a DM can think of that the steed wouldn't jump into a pit of carrion crawlers, a player can think of a reason why it might. Provided that choice is contributing to the group's ability to achieve the goals of play - that is, everyone having a good time and creating an exciting, memorable story - then whatever reason underpinning it is fine.

If a DM doesn't like a player's choice because perhaps it isn't fun for everyone and/or isn't helping to create an exciting, memorable story, that is deserving of a side discussion in my view to get on the same page rather than the creation of a backdoor to negating the player's choice in the first place.

There's a difference between being focused and being the general theme. For example, some campaigns could focus primarily on the wargaming aspects of DnD, with minimal roleplaying.

Also, I'm not suggesting that the DM pull a unexpected fast one all of a sudden on any player.

If the DM and player have had a discussion about the steed as well as a session zero about the expectations of both sides about the campaign, and the player decides to not only disregard the discussion with the DM but also what all the players agreed upon during session zero, it becomes a problem where the DM can and probably should step in somehow, at least to remind the player about being consistent in a cooperative gaming activity.

Another result of the DM having a discussion beforehand with the player - they also have prior agreements on HOW the DM cuts in on what the player does at the table.

 

[iserith]

There's a difference between being focused and being the general theme. For example, some campaigns could focus primarily on the wargaming aspects of DnD, with minimal roleplaying.

Not according to how the rules define roleplaying which is simply determining what your character does. Determining that your character attacks an orc is roleplaying whether you do that via active roleplaying or descriptive roleplaying. If all a player does is have his or her character attack orcs in a given session, he or she is roleplaying no less than someone who has his or her character engage in a session-long first-person internal struggle and/or dialogue with other characters about the morality of killing orcs. It's all roleplaying.

Now, you might say something like, in the course of our roleplaying as a group, I really want you guys to expound upon your internal struggles as bold adventurers confronting deadly perils and engage more with the social interaction pillar than combat, but make no mistake that the guy or gal who just wants to kill orcs is also roleplaying.

Also, I'm not suggesting that the DM pull a unexpected fast one all of a sudden on any player.

If the DM and player have had a discussion about the steed as well as a session zero about the expectations of both sides about the campaign, and the player decides to not only disregard the discussion with the DM but also what all the players agreed upon during session zero, it becomes a problem where the DM can and probably should step in somehow, at least to remind the player about being consistent in a cooperative gaming activity.

Another result of the DM having a discussion beforehand with the player - they also have prior agreements on HOW the DM cuts in on what the player does at the table.

I agree that people should be held to their agreements. "I'm sometimes going to take over the playing of your character when I don't like your choices" isn't something I'd agree to, but if I did, I'd expect to hold to it and be held to it.

 

[Umbran]

As the spell itself grants the steed decision-making power of its own as an intelligent creature and nowhere does the spell's description say that the steed obeys the PC's commands like a zombie (there's a difference between a faithful servant and a dominated slave), there is going to be a common sense limit to how much the player can push the steed...

As long as we remember the fact that it is a spiritual entity, and basically immortal. Unless it is not aware of its nature, it wil have a somewhat different perspective on its role than most living creatures. One would have to go a long way to find a physical threat that would really worry the thing, as its continued existence is only rarely in question.

Of greater interest might be the moral or ethical implications of its actions. You probalby can't order your Celestial steed to go stomp on puppies for no good reason, for example.

 

[Umbran]

Not according to how the rules define roleplaying which is simply determining what your character does.

Are you sure (or do you even reasonably suspect) that the pedantism of definitions is really going to be constructive?

 

[iserith]

Are you sure (or do you even reasonably suspect) that the pedantism of definitions is really going to be constructive?

My position is one based on inclusivity in addition to what the game has to say about the definition under discussion. My understanding is that, as a community and per this community's rules, we're for that. No matter a particular D&D game's or player's focus, we're all roleplaying. To suggest or infer that one person is roleplaying and another person isn't because of how they treat a spell like find steed doesn't strike me as inclusive and I have offered a rules-based position to resolve that.

If that position is not to your liking, I'm happy to discuss it with you over PM so as not to derail the thread.

 

[Oofta]

Counterpoint- the steed is in service of a Paladin; at best, it deserves to be served up in an Ikea meatball, if not a glue factory.

Unfortunately, unlike Ikea meatballs which sit in your stomach like lard laced with concrete, the paladin's steed disappears when it dies. Not very filling.

I know this because I had a dwarf who viewed steeds as backup food supply and couldn't understand why we couldn't just carve up the paladin's steed for supper. It could have hobbled around on three legs for a while as the food digested.

Stupid selfish paladins.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Loved the thread title, but not the conclusion.

The Paladin mounts (at least) are spirits taking on the form of normal critters. Despite their intellect, their attitude will be deferential to their Caller. Think of the Cylon response, “By your command.”

Or the exchange between Shaka Zulu and his most important follower:

“Remember, Shaka, we share a common life.”

“Indeed- yours”