Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7477739" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Apologies, when you asked "would it change your perspective on how the Beastmaster Ranger is supposed to view their companion?" I thought you were continuing the same line of thought. I think it is a fine little ability, not sure it helps the PHB Beastmaster with some of their bigger issues in the action economy. But, if one of your big problems is the companion dying too often, this is a nice work around.  You know, I wondered why you put enchanters into that list, double checked and I once more was getting Enchantment and Transmutation mixed up. But let's tackle these in some semblance of an order. I have no disagreement in your interpretation of RAW. Like you said this is all a tone and morality question. Enchanters mind control people. There is not a spell that allows them to control another person or beast until the 5th level spell "Dominate Person" and that only lasts for a minute. So, you will not have a long term fighting companion as an enchanter most of the time, usually they will end up simply turning someone who was trying to kill them against the other enemies. Since it was kill or be killed, you have few qualms about that in general. Now, if you are constantly mind controlling the blacksmith into fighting for you, removing his own will, we've veered hard into evil territory, and that is a for the DM and table to discuss the tone and what they find acceptable at the table. Necromancers do often raise the bodies of those they killed, but again this starts with a life or death struggle. A person was trying to kill them, they failed, and then the necromancer utilizes their remains. However, everyone would generally acknowledge that the created zombie or skeleton is not the same as the individual killed, and is not a being with their own will and mind. They are no longer living, and if a person murdered the waitress simply to create a zombie servant, we are back into hard evil territory as opposed to utilizing the body of that orc that tried to decapitate you. As to your final paragraph as to the difference between a nation and the ranger, I bolded the part you got completely wrong. The animal does not know there is a high risk of death. Most animals do not have the mental capacity to consider the future in that manner, nor can they end up protesting as a young soldier might do. Also, conscripting young men into a meat grinder war is not something that is generally viewed favorably by a nations populace, unless the war itself is highly supported. In which case the young men might volunteer seeing it as a duty towards their people. We are talking an entirely different set of standards here. To get closer to what we are talking about with a ranger constantly luring animals into fighting and dying for them, we would probably need to devolve into talking about child soldiers, since the smartest animals are generally closest in comparison to young children. And, once more, we delve into hard evil territory if we talk about a nation recruiting child soldiers into an endless war. So, once more, from my perspective, there is nothing wrong with your interpretation of the rules of the game. However, there are some serious moral implications to utilizing a constant stream of living, feeling creatures to die simply to save your own hide. And those moral implications go completely against the traditional view of the Ranger and their Animal Companion in the fantasy setting. The nature of the draft does, which is part of why the draft was so reviled. As for the entire subclass, yeah, it could be argued to skirt that line of acceptability. But, a single companion and a powerful bond between the character and the companion where both strive to protect and help the other is a very different type of situation than the ranger who sends "wolf #7" into the fight knowing that after they die they will just walk into the woods and convince "wolf #8" to fight with them. That becomes heavily exploitative and pushes it over the edge. And that is the line that I'm arguing about. The difference between having a single companion and devoting resources to keeping them alive and well, and just having a conveyor belt of disposable bodies.  It is actually one of the things I really like about the Revised Ranger's design is that there is some sort of mystic bond between the Ranger and their animal companion which allows the ranger to call them back from the dead if the worst happens. The way we interpreted that in my home game was that the two had bonded their very souls, and that as long as one lived, the other lived within them. Luckily the ranger never died during that campaign, but I could see it being easier to raise them as long as their companion lived, but that would require a house rule.</blockquote>

Verification