The druid is not fighting!!! LONG!

[cildarith]

Glad to see I'm not the only one here who thinks taking risks for the greater good and being a selfish git aren't equally valid and acceptable choices.

But for a truely neutral character, perhaps they are equally valid choices (though the rest of the group may not find them acceptable).

 

[DanteHayes]

Arbados has also said that, the Druid doesn't put himself into dangerous situations because he wants to make it to Epic levels.

I mention this because it speaks to the player of the Druid's motivations.

He doesn't avoid conflict because of any high-brow reasons.

He avoids it so he wont die. So, he can enjoy the benifits of being a high-power character.

I would hardly allow this attitude to be defended as quality role-playing.

But for a truely neutral character, perhaps they are equally valid choices (though the rest of the group may not find them acceptable).

And, if the rest of the group doesn't find the choices he makes to be acceptable, they should rid themselves of his dead weight.

 

[Wippit Guud]

What is the character's alignment, anyways? Law vs Chaos has no bearing on this issue, but Good vs Evil does:

SRD:

Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

-snip-

Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

-snip-

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.

If the Druid is Neutral Good, he's breaking alignment.

If the Druid is Neutral, people he's adventured with for 12 levels, and who he trusts to save him (even if he doesn't trust them), he's breaking alignment.

If the Druid is Neutral Evil... all is well and good, but the rest of the party may not like it.

 

[cildarith]

And, if the rest of the group doesn't find the choices he makes to be acceptable, they should rid themselves of his dead weight.

And have no healer whatsoever.

 

[Wippit Guud]

And have no healer whatsoever.

Hire an NPC... cheaper than dying, and he'll do what you tell him to do.

 

[DragonLancer]

Hire an NPC... cheaper than dying, and he'll do what you tell him to do.

Ony if the DM is doing a bad job. NPC's are people too don't forget.

Sorry guys, but your being far too harsh on the situation.

 

[cildarith]

Hire an NPC... cheaper than dying, and he'll do what you tell him to do.

If your campaign world is full of unemployed 12th-level clerics and druids begging for work, no matter how dangerous, then you can just go right ahead and do that!

It would not be that easy, IMC, however. And it might be more expensive than dying!

 

[Wippit Guud]

Ony if the DM is doing a bad job. NPC's are people too don't forget.

Sorry guys, but your being far too harsh on the situation.

How are we being harsh?

If 5 people are hired to go paint a house, and 4 guys paint it all while one guy sits off under a tree, claiming he doesn't want to get paint all over his clothes so he can wear them to a date later that night (doesn't want to die to get to epic levels), should the other 4 let him get paid for the job?

 

[Necrogorgon]

I guess the idea of compromising didn't take. Is there any way the player of the Druid could post his side of this?

 

[Wippit Guud]

If your campaign world is full of unemployed 12th-level clerics and druids begging for work, no matter how dangerous, then you can just go right ahead and do that!

"Hey. Anyone with healing spells want a share of the dragon hoarde we're going to go grab?"

The world is full of adventurers, just need someone who's run by the DM.