The druid is not fighting!!! LONG!

[Creeping Death]

*snip*
One plays a druid, with an altrusitic goal of reaching epic levels.

Watch it! How are his goals altruistic? Here is the meaning of the word altruistic:

1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

He did not risk his life to save his companion. What he did was maybe cowardice, maybe smart, maybe selfish, but definately not atruistic. Neither is self gain an altruistic endeavor.

He is not playing a combat character, and doesn't always have healing spells to hand (since he's a druid not a cleric). He doesn't close to combat because he doesn't want to be taken down or be hurt so that he has to use nessecary healing on himself.

Doesn't want to get hurt? Sorry, but that's part of the life of an adventurer, if he doesn't want to get hurt, he needs to change his profession and just stick to gardening.

During a fight when the party should have run away (and yes, it is a superior force if they are having to hold them at bay rather than fight), the PW needs healing.

Stop! We do not know if the party could have run away. We do not know the layout of the battlefield and what the character or the players knew. We do not know if that was an option, so stop talking like it was.

The druid decides that before he does that he is going to boost his protective spells. Unfort, the PW died (because the party didn't run) and everyone blames the druid's player.

Well, if the PW and the DD were keeping the drow at bay, the druid would not have to wade into combat to heal the pw, he could have just stood behind him and healed him. The drow would have had to charge past incuring several AoO just to hit the druid. We do not have any indication that the drow in this campaign are stupid or suicidal.

*snip*...character deaths do happen. Sometimes its because of other party members, sometimes its inaction or simply bad luck.
What if it was the NPC defender who fumbled an attack, unfortunately hit the PW and did enough damage to kill him? Whould you be out for his blood as well? I don't think so.

Death's do happen, unfortunately it really looks more like inaction than anything else. If the DD did hit the PW by accident, the DM would have told us that. If he didn't, the it would sound like he is against the way the druid is played. Either way tho, if it was an accident because of a die roll and the druid still chose not to help, then it is still his inaction that made the final difference.

If the other players arn't happy with that then why should that one player be grilled for it. He made a choice, regardless of his ultimate OOC motivation. The party shouldn't dump him, kill him, have him beaten up/killed...etc. Thats not what the game is about. The game is about having fun, and playing. The party I'm sure should handle this situation in good graces, as friends, but do it IC. Let the party discuss this as characters. Its not fair on that one player that he should be forced to make a new character because of this. Wheres the fun for him then?

Where's the fun for the other 3 players? If 3 out of 4 players want hack'n slash or role playing then the 4th needs to accomodate or leave (sit out). If 3 want a well oiled combat machine, then the 4th should accomodate. You may not like the consequences of some actions, but you do have to face the music when you goof, drop the ball, or are found careless or unreliable. Wether it was on purpose or on accident. If in character they say "look man, it's not working out", then the druid should leave and let the player make a new character.

 

[DragonLancer]

Watch it! How are his goals altruistic?

I've already explained that I used the wrong word. Please read the all the posts before replying. Saves a lot of explaining.

Stop! We do not know if the party could have run away. We do not know the layout of the battlefield and what the character or the players knew. We do not know if that was an option, so stop talking like it was.

Please don't talk to me like a little kid. Your right, we don't know, but I would bet real money on it there was the option to run away. Just because something isn't said doesn't mean it could not have happened.

If in character they say "look man, it's not working out", then the druid should leave and let the player make a new character.

Why? Why should he be forced to make a fresh character? I'm still waiting on a decent response to this. Its his character to play as he sees fit within reason. He made a choice, he and the rest of the party have to live with it. What is so difficult to understand about that?

 

[Mark Chance]

Why should he be forced to make a fresh character? I'm still waiting on a decent response to this. Its his character to play as he sees fit within reason.

Emphasis added.

Who determines what is within reason? The druid alone? The majority of the party? The party leader (if there is one)?

I've had a somewhat similar situation play out a few times in earlier in my current campaign. The de facto party leader, the paladin, laid it out like this:

"Either you shape up, or you ship out."

There was much chest-thumping and excuse-making, but the problem characters shaped up. As GM, I would have had no problem with the party "firing" one of its members. As a player, I have actually participated in a "firing" or other character-to-character disciplinary action before.

For example, ages ago, playing a werewolf shaman in a short-lived FR campaign, my shaman was twice in two successive encounters color sprayed by the party wizard during combat with Evil Humanoids. After the second time, I - totally in character - made it abundantly clear to everyone that if there was a third time that my shaman was "accidentally" color sprayed by the wizard then the wizard better take the time to act fast and kill my character because the shaman swore to devour him as punishment for the foolishness.

Even more ages ago, in a one-shot game while on leave, my uber-fighter was caught in a completely avoidable monster trap/ambush involving stirges, thanks to the mind-numbing carelessness of the party cleric. After defeating the stirges, being healed by the cleric, and arriving safely back at camp, the uber-fighter bare-knuckle thrashed the cleric into unconsciousness and "fined" him 25 gp.

Then there was the more benign time playing DC Heroes wherein my character acted as mentor to a more inexperienced hero (not coincidentally played by a more inexperienced player). The "sidekick" stuck near my hero, followed orders relatively well, and the pair of us became a rather formidable team. I did the same thing in D&D with the same player with me running a wizard and his character as a fighter/bodyguard.


All-in-all, a good time was had.

He made a choice, he and the rest of the party have to live with it. What is so difficult to understand about that?

It isn't difficult to understand. But you're still wrong because you overstate your case. To wit:

The druid made a choice? True.

The druid has to live with it? True.

The rest of the party has to live with that choice? False.

If the party (and, presumably, the GM) decides the druid has to go, then the druid goes.

If I were a player in the group (which, admittedly, I am not), I would at a bare minimum press that the druid be placed on "adventurer probation."

 

[Wormwood]

Why should he be forced to make a fresh character? I'm still waiting on a decent response to this. Its his character to play as he sees fit within reason. He made a choice, he and the rest of the party have to live with it. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Okay, this is an easy one.

1. Since we're all so concerned about 'roleplaying', an elegant 'roleplaying' solution was offered. The other characters have a nice chat with the Druid and tell him, "In the future, you should help us when we need you. If you don't feel you can do this, perhaps we should part company".

2. It's his character to play. Nobody is denying that. It's unfortunate that he's *choosing* to play a selfish character---one who is quite obviously unconcerned with helping his friends. That last bit about not wanting to blow a miniscule amount of XP on the party's behalf pretty much sums up his attitude.

3. Jusy because *he* made a (poor, bad, dumb) choice, why should *they* have to live with it?

Those who survive, of course.

Unless the party is conjoined quintuplets, nobody should ever be *forced* to endure the odious behavior of another.

 

[sword-dancer]

Here are the facts, as they were listed so far:

1. The Druid is the only healer in the party
2. The Druid is not a pacifist - he uses combat spells, and we have been told he has a powerful melee weapon.
3. The Psychic Warrior is getting torn up so that the Druid can cast spells safely.
4. The Druid is at full HP.
5. The Druid is 20' away from the Psychic Warrior.
6. The Psychic Warrior asks for help and healing.
7. The unhurt Druid wastes a round casting Barkskin on himself.
8. After buffing mimself, the Druid makes no move to help his dying companion.

Now, if this was ROLEPLAYING, then he's certainly not roleplaying any kind of character anyone I know would want to have anything to do with - but according to the DM, it's not even a roleplaying issue, the player in question is just too afraid to get his character hurt because he wants to hit Epic level.

mmu1 you remember me of a player .
This Player stood with his Char with 2 hp or so in the frontline, (fighter/cleric) and took a twenty which means he get a -12 or so.
He whined because i shouldn`t let NPCs made dangerous attacks when the PCs are wounded.
I answred him, i don`t made accounts of PCs hit points.

1 Yes and what?

2 Yes he uses his spells, and had decided not to go into melee, powerful weapon or not!
3 The psychic Warrior decided to fight, nearly hacked to death, not decided to retreat, sounds as he had chosen his fate himself.
Stupidity kills.
4 And what is wroing with that?
5 reasonable distance for a Spellcaster
6 And stood in the forefront, Stupid Act!
7 Drow IMC don`t stop for the red cross, and tryiung to cast and loose, the memorized, healing spell would have used what?
8 No he didn`t take foolish rescue the dead body of a ...

And a Fianna of mine had executed your Barbarian in the most dishonoring way a honorable warrior would use against a honorless creature, the feed him to the carrioneater, and made his name known as honorless Nidung, not worthy to be remembered.

 

[Wippit Guud]

For example, ages ago, playing a werewolf shaman in a short-lived FR campaign, my shaman was twice in two successive encounters color sprayed by the party wizard during combat with Evil Humanoids. After the second time, I - totally in character - made it abundantly clear to everyone that if there was a third time that my shaman was "accidentally" color sprayed by the wizard then the wizard better take the time to act fast and kill my character because the shaman swore to devour him as punishment for the foolishness.

I was in a party, and the sorceress kept hitting my monk with spells... the final straw was when he pulled a Jackie Chan move and jumped onto the back of a manticore, and the next round, the hit it (and the monk) with a lightning bolt... while in the air... she also kept joking that she was trying to kill the monk.

Next sesson, the paladin was shocked when he detected evil and the monk had an aura around him. Then started the roleplay of trying to exist with a paladin.

 

[National Acrobat]

One thing that I haven't noticed, or I have just missed it along the way, are the alignments of the other party members. Not to nitpick, but without knowing whether the group is mostly nuetral or good, that could have a bearing. The Druid may just be acting in accordance with the environment that he is in. As an example, I as a DM have yet to have a player play a good rogue for instance.

Another issue is NPC Healers. My party that I run ran into a problem with them about 9 months ago, when they hired a Priest of Hieronious (LN) who stipulated that all terms be agreed to in a written contract. They forgot to put a few things into the contract, and when they did a few deeds that he didn't quite agree with, he refused to do more than was in the contract.

NPC's are not cardboard cut outs to do the party's whim.

 

[DanteHayes]

Why? Why should he be forced to make a fresh character? I'm still waiting on a decent response to this. Its his character to play as he sees fit within reason. He made a choice, he and the rest of the party have to live with it. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Quite simply, you will not recieve an response that you find "decent". There is a fundamental difference in our attitude towards characters/participants in a campaign.

I see the characters as belonging to the campaign they play in, which is owned by all of the players and the DM. Thus, despite some autonomy over the characters that individuals are portraying, ultimately all of the characters are co-owned by all of the participants. That would be my kindly response to player who insisted that they should be allowed to make whatever desicions they want to with their character and the other players just had to "live with it".

Some other posters on this thread obviously subscribe to the complete individual autonomy school of thought. It's not wrong, just different. I couldn't play that way. Lets just lay the blame at the feet of the PRGA and the proliferation of "Living Campaigns" : )

For the record, in my current campaign, which is about 31 months old at this point, we have indeed informed two players that their participation would no longer be tolerated because of their self-centered attitudes, or, what I would term self-centered. One of them asked the question, "Why should I be forced to make a new character or change the way I play this one?". The answer, not kindly, was, "If you don't, you can get out". Probably not the answer you were looking for.

I'm glad the boards are back up. I was enjoying this debate and, I'm eager to hear how things turned out for our DM, his party and their dysfunctional Druid.

Dante

 

[DragonLancer]

I'm glad the boards are back up. I was enjoying this debate and, I'm eager to hear how things turned out for our DM, his party and their dysfunctional Druid.

I agree. Its a good debate even if it feels a little frustrating at times. I'm also looking forward to see how things worked out.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Why? Why should he be forced to make a fresh character? I'm still waiting on a decent response to this. Its his character to play as he sees fit within reason. He made a choice, he and the rest of the party have to live with it. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Think of it from the other side, DragonLancer!

I've created a fighter. He's a tough, no-nonsense kind of guy, ex-military with special ops. training. He doesn't take any bull from anyone. He deals fair, but if you cross him you're out on your ear...or dead.

Now put me in the same party with the druid. My character can't stand this guy. He doesn't care about my life, and isn't willing to put himself into any danger to heal me, when I'm living on the front lines to protect him. So I plan to ditch him at the next inn, and find another companion I can count on.

But then the DM steps in and tells me I can't get rid of the druid, because the druid has a right to roleplay his character any way he wants.

So now I'm playing a fighter. He's a tough, no-nonsense kind of guy, ex-military with special ops training. But he's kind of a pushover. He likes to deal fair, but if people don't he just sucks it up and lives with it.

My question, why should the druid's player be able to determine what kind of character I want to play? Why should I have to play a character who travels with people he doesn't like, and who aren't willing to help him in his times of need?

How far does that go? What if the druid were NE and actively trying to kill the other members of the party? Would they still have to just take it? Would they still have to keep traveling with him, even as he plots their demise?