PC vs. PC XP

[Lord Wyrm]

While Eberron actually goes into the rules of this more so than any other setting, the I and the other DMs in my local hobby store have MULTIPLE druidic traditions in any setting. So saying one druid is wrong is not proper, Greyhawk even has two tradtions I know of back in the old TSR days:
Standard Druid- Protect the forest yadda yadda
Blighter- Burn the forest, kill the animals, and cause all kinds of evil havoc.

 

[DonTadow]

Yes, but this is going from "Following A General Philosophy" to "Micromanagement".

Reverence for nature can take more than one form- as has been amply shown. To say that all druids must believe the same way about this specific issue is at best silly. We're not talking about a druid who cleared an old growth forest because his strip-mining operation had expended to the point where he could sink its profits into his veal empire and needed more cattle pen room. We're talking about a druid who was violently offended at an animal being skinned.

If you consider micromanagement making sure characters understand the philosophies of the class. I"m saying there are basic principles, one of them is the proper use of nature and the order of life. Yes, in earlier editions there were tons of philosphies which have been sewn up in the many prestige classes that wotc has produced. But we're talking level 1, basic druid from the phb, and it would be silly for a druid following the order of nature to attack someone for skinning an animal. What on earth is this guy even wearing for clothing or does he eat?

Sure, a druid could have philosphies against skinning animals. But the DM would have to either know ahead of time or make sure that the player is following his own philosphies of druids. The character would have to wear no armor throughout hte entire campaign. (considering his druid philosophiy is against skinning animals and can't wear metal armor and weaponry).

 

[irdeggman]

First off I think the DM ruled well in attempting to reward role-playing without encouraging in party combat and dissension.

Now I would rather not tell a player how to run his character - in fact dismiss this as you will, it is your character. But I do have to question how much was meta-gaming and how much was in-character roleplaying. My logic is if the character felt strongly enough over the situation that she "attacked" the ranger and "asked' her animal companion to do the same - then why the attempt at non-lethal damage that was only switched after the sorcerer intervened? Just doesn't sit well with me, but I wasn't there nor do I know the character histories/past behaviors.

Now something else I have noticed over the years is the misuse of animal companions. What I mean is that they are not the same as familiars, they do not get greater than animal intelligence and perform as a "normal animal of their type"

From the SRD:

A 1st-level druid’s companion is completely typical for its kind except as noted below. As a druid advances in level, the animal’s power increases as shown on the table. If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished.



Teach an Animal a Trick: You can teach an animal a specific trick with one week of work and a successful Handle Animal check against the indicated DC. An animal with an Intelligence score of 1 can learn a maximum of three tricks, while an animal with an Intelligence score of 2 can learn a maximum of six tricks. Possible tricks (and their associated DCs) include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following.

Basically the animal companion works just like a normal animal of its kind with the exceptions listed in the PHB for an animal companion (e.g., extra HD, AC, bonus tricks {this one is important and is often overlooked}, etc.) but the animal doesn't automatically gain an increase in Intelligence (like a familiar does).

I have played in too many games where the player just has his/her animal companions perform things without bothering to follow any of the rules on teaching them tricks (which is the game mechanic to be used).

 

[gunter uxbridge]

Again...I'm the DM from this issue...

You must also realize that for the Druid in this instance that the Wolf was a sort of animal totem for her. Had it been just about any other animal I'm sure the character would have reacted different. Her reaction also comes from a bit of ignorance about how the world outside the forest really works. I'm sure that from now on both the druid will be more careful about interfering with peoples trade and the ranger she battled with will be careful about wolves in general. Everyone learned something.

I also learned that Druids can kick major bootie when pressed. It was three against one and she took out all three. Them there are LONG odds!!!

 

[Lord Wyrm]

There the piece of information that made all the difference. He wasn't skiining some animal he was skinning an animal the druid venerated as a totem. He was skinning her god. How would a cleric of Pelor react if a fighter or rogue started skinning an astral deva or children? The same way.

 

[Drowbane]

Again...I'm the DM from this issue...

You must also realize that for the Druid in this instance that the Wolf was a sort of animal totem for her. Had it been just about any other animal I'm sure the character would have reacted different. Her reaction also comes from a bit of ignorance about how the world outside the forest really works. I'm sure that from now on both the druid will be more careful about interfering with peoples trade and the ranger she battled with will be careful about wolves in general. Everyone learned something.

I also learned that Druids can kick major bootie when pressed. It was three against one and she took out all three. Them there are LONG odds!!!

Hmm, knowing she was of the Wolf Totem is a huge piece of info for the senario.

Yeah, Druids own. I'm pretty sure Kres could wipe his party np... Just gotta drop people in the right order. Namely: War Mage, Cleric, Wizard, Ranger, Psy Rogue, and Fighter.

Our War Mage would be the greatest Threat. Dropping the healer would be next priority, then the gimp Diviner. From there its purely mop-up.

Druids own. lol

 

[irdeggman]

Again...I'm the DM from this issue...

You must also realize that for the Druid in this instance that the Wolf was a sort of animal totem for her. Had it been just about any other animal I'm sure the character would have reacted different. Her reaction also comes from a bit of ignorance about how the world outside the forest really works. I'm sure that from now on both the druid will be more careful about interfering with peoples trade and the ranger she battled with will be careful about wolves in general. Everyone learned something.

I also learned that Druids can kick major bootie when pressed. It was three against one and she took out all three. Them there are LONG odds!!!

More insight that helps.

But my last question was still not adressed - why then attempt non-lethal damage vice straight up lethal? All attacks (except for unarmed and a very few weapons) default to lethal and require a "conscious decision" to make them non-lethal. The character was apparently rightfully "pissed" at the ranger and IMO put into a semi-rage. Hence seeing blood, so no quarter asked no quarter given. {This seems to scream "meta-gaming" which counters awarding xp for role-play, IMO.}

Did the druid and wolf gain a surprise round in the combat? That can make a huge difference in the results.

Does the druid wear any parts of a wolf to show as "symbols" of her honoring of the animal totem? If so (and it can still fit to wear parts as a means of honoring, happens in many cultures in the real world) then skinning a dead animal can not be of itself an act that goes against her beliefs.