The druid is not fighting!!! LONG!

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by mmu1:

As for the "You can't blame the Druid, it was his character and his choice" crowd - I don't think I've ever heard a bigger load. That's an interesting world you live in - I haven't realized so many people confuse freedom of choice with freedom to act without consequences or criticism.

No, the mother of big loads is someone saying that since they don't like the way you are playing your character, they will force you to change or else.

No one is saying the druid shouldn't be criticized, but this situation is NOT solely the druid's fault. D&D is a really forgiving system regarding character death- the psychic warrior could have disengaged from melee for one round to get healed if he wanted to. He however pulled the classic hack-n-slash move of "never retreat". I have dealt with this same problem both as a player and a DM, and the best solution is for the party to come to a resolution on their own- but don't punish anybody. That will only lead to REALLY hard feelings.

Originally posted by mmu1:

Oh, and as far Half-Orc Barbarians go, please keep your fantasies to yourself... That doesn't sound remotely like any character I've ever played.

Originally posted by mmu1:

I've had a Chaotic Neutral barbarian that would have gutted the Druid for being so pathetically craven...

Whatever.

 

[Shaele]

No one is saying the druid shouldn't be criticized, but this situation is NOT solely the druid's fault. D&D is a really forgiving system regarding character death- the psychic warrior could have disengaged from melee for one round to get healed if he wanted to. He however pulled the classic hack-n-slash move of "never retreat". [/B]

Actually, the original poster indicated that the psychic warrior was blocking the drow from moving forward and engaging the wizard and druid. Retreating in that circumstance would mean backing up and giving the drow free reign to pound on the wizard... in this case the psychic warrior was probably doing what he _should_ have done - protect his friends.

Seems pretty clear cut, despite RP objections. The psychic warrior was holding back a wave of creatures and preventing the rest of the party from being swarmed. He probably couldn't retreat without putting the rest of the party at risk. He yelled for help, trusting the druid to save him, and the druid chose to do something else instead.

The problem here isn't one incident, it's that this is seems to be endemic behavior for that character (and player). He chooses to let other party members take a greater share of the risk. Does he contribute? Sure, sounds like it. Is he willing to risk himself to help out the rest of the party (which definitely includes healing if he's the only healer)? Hmm, that's the part that's questionable. Adventuring is risky, and a smart party needs to be able to rely on one another. If he's not pulling his weight, it's not unreasonable for these characters to find a solution - which might include replacing him.

So... is it fair to "force the player to create another character" as someone suggested? It might be. If he won't change the way he plays the druid, then it's perfectly reasonable for the party in "kick him out" in game, and expect the player to create a new character that _will_ step in and heal when required.

Bottom line, the group has to decide what's acceptable to them. If they're having fun with it, great. If not, time for a change. Despite what's been said earlier, the game isn't primarily about roleplaying, it's about a group of people having fun together. Roleplaying should be secondary to that goal.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Let me start by being that annoying bastard who comments on how purely argumentitive this thread has gotten. Now that that's out of the way.

I had a similar situation in the campaign I'm DMing. Adventurers go into a cave, trip alarm, dwarven rogue and human fighter both charge in and attack one guard each, going to opposing sides of the room. Cleric #1 stands outside door, Cleric #2 runs forward from the treeline where he was planning to snipe from. Mage stands outside. Re-inforcements pour in, fighter takes some serious hits, rogue's getting flanked. Mage tries to help the rogue, but isn't a combat character, gets knocked to near death and runs outside, falling unconcious. Cleric #1 watches. Cleric #2 runs in to heal the warrior. The fight goes for a while, rogue gets surrounded, warrior's been taking hits left and right, cleric #2's been alternating between healing (and dodging AOO's) and trying to contribute to the fight. Cleric #1 healed the mage and decided to light a lantern. Rogue goes down, critted by a greataxe. Remaning orcs swarm the fighter. Cleric #2 runs out of healing and shouts for help. Cleric #1 finally moves to help and starts using healing spells.

Cleric #1 has made a history of not participating, and we had a little talk. I told him that I was dissapointed with his conduct, and I felt that he wasn't trying to participate. I told him that I didn't mind him playing a quiet character, but if he continued to sit out of the game, I was going to have to ask him to leave.

Of course, this was right before I told everyone else I was dissapointed in them for not acting like a team (splitting up, not covering eachother, not making use of their strengths) and not considering retreat as an option when faced with an overwhelming force.

And that worked, mostly. I've found that if someone isn't willing to listen when the DM makes a direct request, they shouldn't be in that DM's game. If it's a problem, talk to them. I've found it usually works.

edit: Pronoun use.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Really.

In a past campaign, we had a fighter/mage, a rogue, a ranger, and a gnome druid. Our druid was also a bit...unusual, but mostly it was eccentricity.

He liked to cast Create Water over foe's heads. Or friends', if they irritated him.

He liked to collect toilet paper from the dungeons we visited.

He sometimes liked to dress up in a tutu.

Now the fighter/mage was a militant young man raised in a Spartan demon-fighting city. A no-nonsense kind of guy. And right from the start, he and the druid were...less than best friends. And if it had stayed at that level, it would have been fine. The fighter/mage didn't really like the druid, but he could still travel with him. Even if he did get wet sometimes.

But when the druid's actions started to endanger the group, the druid crossed a line. The fighter/mage's player told the DM, "my character would never travel with a guy like this! My character is being put in danger, and his mission put at risk, all the time. Why does my character have to travel with him?"

And the DM realized it was a valid point. The druid--roleplaying well--had created a certain situation where, if the other players were allowed to roleplay as well, there would be conflict. And there was.

After that, in character, the ranger (who had finally also had enough,) took the druid aside and explained that enough was enough. The druid was a great companion, but if he kept endangering the party, they would have to leave him behind. And the druid did shape up. He was still a crazy-arsed gnome, but he held himself back if it would endanger his friends.

I suggest that you take the same tact with your druid. Let it play out in character, and warn the druid player that the other players are allowed to roleplay their PCs' natural responses to his actions. And if the entire party decides to leave the druid at the inn one night, the player will have to roll up a new character.

Then it's up to the druid, in character, as to whether he becomes more assertive, or goes off to adventure on his own. And it's up to the player whether he wants to keep playing a hesitant druid--perhaps learning to become more aggressive--or create a new character with a different mindset.

 

[mmu1]

Supposedly CN? Check.
Barbarian? Check.
Behaves like a murderous bully towards fellow party members? Check.

It must be my imagination.

Ok, so you can pick up on superficial similarities... It's not my poor Barbarian's fault that you might have played characters in the past that others didn't like and tried to beat the crap out of.

 

[Wippit Guud]

So, I've just read about 30 posts, where people were defending the Druid's right to roleplay as a coward. In that, I think you;re all wrong, the Druid is roleplaying terribly. If he's a coward, he shouldn't be there in the first place! If a bunch of guys comes up to a cowards and says, "Hey! We're gonna go kill a bunch of people, wanna come?" the first thing he's likely to do is run from them.

Now, to correct the problem... if I was in the party, I'd hire someone to attack the druid (not to kill), and only the druid, and then have the rest of the party, on their turn, say "I have nothing to do." In character, not evil, and effective.

If you REALLY want to test if the druid is roleplaying... set up an encounter where the big bad evil guy is sacrificing bears and deer and stuff on an altar to a god of anti-nature. The druid should be the first one to charge in to kill him. If he doesn't - bad roleplayer. I'd have the gods make his next level be a blighter, and take away his druid powers.

 

[rounser]

Ok, so you can pick up on superficial similarities... It's not my poor Barbarian's fault that you might have played characters in the past that others didn't like and tried to beat the crap out of.

Spoken like a true bully - implying that those who are on the receiving end deserve mistreatment, and using that as justification for victimising and misuse of power. It must be easy for you to get into character.

For what it's worth, CN barbarian half-wit half-orcs who need attitude adjustments simply annoy me, I've never had a character attacked by one. However, the violent hollow threats such characters tend to fling around are obnoxious, and the smokescreen of excuses their players hide behind (chaotic neutral, stupid, third-person speaking half-orc barbarians are allowed to bully around other PCs with threats of violence because it fits the stereotype) is deserving, IMO, of contempt.

 

[Tsyr]

Now, to correct the problem... if I was in the party, I'd hire someone to attack the druid (not to kill), and only the druid, and then have the rest of the party, on their turn, say "I have nothing to do." In character, not evil, and effective.

Not evil?

Not evil?

From the SRD...

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Lets see... Is hiring a thug to beet the crap out of someone showing respect for the dignity of a sentient being? Making a personal sacrifice to help others? Altruistic? Nope.

Is it hurting and opressing someone else? Yup.

I'll let that stand.

The druid wasn't good, or evil... He was being neutral. If we want to drag alignments into this, which seems to be happening.

 

[Wippit Guud]

Lets see... Is hiring a thug to beet the crap out of someone showing respect for the dignity of a sentient being? Making a personal sacrifice to help others? Altruistic? Nope.

Is it hurting and opressing someone else? Yup.

I'll let that stand.

Wow... the entire initial training of just about every Armed force in existance - called Boot Camp by those who appreciate it - can be summed up as one word: Evil. Because it's a sadistic person using a hell of a lot of hurting (Evil implies hurting) as a way to train people.

Physical therapists are evil. They inflict pay as a way of life, in an attempt to fix people.

Fitness trainers are evil, making people go through all that pain, oh and building a better body in the process.

If pain accomplishes something good, why is it evil?

 

[DragonLancer]

Wow... the entire initial training of just about every Armed force in existance - called Boot Camp by those who appreciate it - can be summed up as one word: Evil. Because it's a sadistic person using a hell of a lot of hurting (Evil implies hurting) as a way to train people.

Physical therapists are evil. They inflict pay as a way of life, in an attempt to fix people.

Fitness trainers are evil, making people go through all that pain, oh and building a better body in the process.

If pain accomplishes something good, why is it evil?

In this case you are not using it to train someone for military service or helping them get fit, your paying someone to beat him up simply because you don't like how he operates! What your suggesting is evil.