Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Segemund_Faust 02-08-06, 06:02 PM	We were on an adventure, I, a sorcerer, was in a back carriage on a train with my griffin... The druid was with his bear in front of me, and the rest of the group, a Paladin, a cleric, a ranger, and a Spellfire was in the main cabin with 25 dwarves. We go through an invisible wall, our train crashes, we all take damage, and our train catches fire. I use my Griffin for cover and open the door, and get shot at by about 10 bolts, (we were ambushed by 50+ duegar) which he takes (all but one misses, he has 25 ac, I equiped him well), I am shot by a hold person bolt (dc like 17, I had like 8 fort, heh) fail that save, and am stuck in front of my griffin..., next round, I make the new save, and commence fireballing evil dwarves! We win, (barely, both spellcasters almost died in the begining) and as we look around with smiles on our faces, the druid comes up to me and tells me if I ever use my griffin for cover again he'll attack me! Now I'm confused, he uses summon monster things, and they die or take damage sometimes, and he uses his Animal companion which also takes damage as well, the Paladin agreed with him, and the ranger, so I was told not to use my griffon as cover anymore, I am Chaotic Good, and paid a large amount for the griffon and armor etc, and would like to know if I was out of character here, and if the druid would really do that (Threaten me if I use MY animal that chooses to stay with me to my own uses) When we were arguing this btw, the enemies we were fighting had time to escape (we sorta failed the adventure, but rescued alot of dwarven prisoners), I believe this was foolhardy of the druid, but the Paladin and the others agreed with him! I'm at a loss, did I do something wrong? (Extremely Chaotic btw, have stones of continual flame in my mouth to scare enemies!) I do like this party and they are all my friends, but I would like some different thoughts on this ^_^ Thank you!
MasterOfPsychic 02-08-06, 06:36 PM	If the druid attacks you just for that, he is foolish... Even though druids respect animals, they respect othr life as well... Unless they are weird... Using an animal is NOT evil.. Some people might say it is, but I do not concider it evil... A griffin is a smart creature, and is therefor able to do as he wish to... If he stay loyal to his master, or disobey him... Griffons USE to be valiant, so he'd most likely stay...
Ace the Dead 02-08-06, 07:19 PM	Your actions are in character for a CG sorcorer (and tactially sound), however it would probably not be in character for a Paladin, or to a lesser extent a Druid or Ranger (depending on the archtype the ranger is playing). Each of these classes adhres to something greater than itself, and in many casses do so to the extent of laying down their own life before allowing an innocent or an inocent animal to be harmed. They do not see "your" griffon as your property. However 1) your griffon is intellegent (although probably less so than you), and more free to make its decisions than your druid's bear, ergo using your griffon that way is less odious than the druid's most common use of the animal companion, 2) your griffon is a warrior, who protects your life at risk to its own, (an act of valor a paladin should aspire to) and to demand it do otherwise is an insult to it, 3) this action saved the lives of the party and the dwarven prisoners, and should not have been condemned so thoughly out of hand. I think you are fully justified, however other thinking creatures can draw their own conclusions. The best way to deal with them is to ignore them. If they try to kill you for saving their lives have your character leave them. Talk to your DM about this possiblity and what to do should such an event occur, and the next time it happens have the sorc. saddle the griffon up and fly away, leaving the ungrateful wretches to their fate. There are plenty of ways for a sorcorer to entertain and enrich himself while doing good in the world without having to worry about the loyalty of a paladin. (In case you haddn't noticed, this would have made a character I was playing rather bitter). If that seems out of character for you, defenately don't do it, but I don't know the sorcorer, so can't make that call. Anyway, I hope your future gaming sessions are more fufilling.
totoro 02-08-06, 11:00 PM	I would suggest to the idiotic druid that if he attacks you, he's going to have a griffon digging claws into his face.
AJMANandCORNDOG 02-08-06, 11:11 PM	hehe, digging claws into his face. I, as the paladin, wasn't bent out of shape with the whole ordeal, i simply agreed that the griffin doesn't have to be a meat shield. I wouldn't attack you for using the griffin though, Jon however, is just looking for an excuse to kill you Joe. Ignore him, if he wants to attack a party member he will have to go through the paladin first. unless you offend my ways of serving my diety or my diety in general, then your mence meat ;) :P
ShadowDragon8685 02-08-06, 11:24 PM	Griffons: Size/Type: Large Magical Beast Hit Dice: 7d10+21 (59 hp) Initiative: +2 Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares), fly 80 ft. (average) Armor Class: 17 (-1 size, +2 Dex, +6 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 15 Base Attack/Grapple: +7/+15 Attack: Bite +11 melee (2d6+4) Full Attack: Bite +11 melee (2d6+4) and 2 claws +8 melee (1d4+2) Space/Reach: 10 ft./5 ft. Special Attacks: Pounce, rake 1d6+2 Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision, scent Saves: Fort +8, Ref +7, Will +5 Abilities: Str 18, Dex 15, Con 16, Int 5, Wis 13, Cha 8 Skills: Jump +8, Listen +6, Spot +10 Feats: Iron Will, Multiattack, Weapon Focus (bite) Environment: Temperate hills Organization: Solitary, pair, or pride (6-10) Challenge Rating: 4 Treasure: None Alignment: Always neutral? Advancement: 8-10 HD (Large); 11-21 HD (Huge) Level Adjustment: +3 (cohort) Note the emphasises in bold. Your druid has less purview over the Griffon than he would like, given that this Griffon has the inteligence to choose whom it serves and shields and whom it does not. Although I must question the 'always neutral', given that this is a sentient creature, free to choose of it's own will.
Gedrin 02-09-06, 03:41 AM	So, let me get this straight... You bought a griphon. Gave it armor. Intended it for a battle mount/compainion (see armor note). Then, "used" it as a shield in battle. I put "used" in quotes, because it's difficult to get an 800-1000lb flying preadator to do anything it doesn't actually want to do. When you used it as such...the druid freaked. This is the druid that summons animals regularly to fight for him, as well as his own animal companion. The paladin, who has a warhorse companion, also seems to think using the animal in battle is a bad thing. It seems they're both hypocrites, and I'd call them on it. I wonder what kind of armor the druid has provided for the protection of his animal companion? Has the paladin made a greater investment in protecting his charger? I somehow doubt either of them would be understanding if you were to threaten their lives the next time they used their animal companions in a fight. Personally, I don't see what it has to do with alignment at all. The druid might be looking a bit less good for threatening your life over the matter, and the paladin shouldn't support such an action. However, a CG (or LG, or LE, or anything) character wouldn't normally have a problem using a combat mount for protection in combat. All people would likely have an issue with being threatened with death over the use of a combat mount in combat.
Derren S. 02-09-06, 04:18 AM	You all forget that the paladins warhorse and the druids animal companion are both willing allies and that summoned animals aren't real. The griffon is a slave. So to recap, you buy a slave, give him armor and use him as shield. Thats nowhere near beeing good and chaotic so I can see why the paladin objects. The Druid players is probably like you under the delusion that the griffon is a dumb animal, but actually its a sentient beeing which, depending on the druids alignment, could make the matters worse.
IceFractal 02-09-06, 04:30 AM	An important question: When you say you were using your Griffin as cover, which do you mean? 1) Physically standing behind the Griffin. 2) Using it as cover as described in the Ride skill. Because if it was #2 - using a mount as a cover, as described in the Ride skill, involves no risk to the mount. It's not so much hiding behind the mount as it is suddenly dropping down to the side of the saddle right when they attack you. Of course, they could decide to specifically target the Griffin, but they could do that anyway (and the Griffin may be safer being ridden if you have Mounted Combat).
Papa_duval 02-09-06, 06:50 AM	Ideally, what you should have asked the druid was. Who's life is more important to you, mine or the gryphons. If he answers the gryphons, leave - why would you travel with someone who doesn't care if you die, as long as all the animals live. Of course, since you probably don't want to have to roll up a new character, you would probably better served by simply responding. Then why should i care about your life, or your opinions? The gryphon is my companion, should you try to kill me, you will have to face both of us. If he answers that your life is more important, then ask him how he can say that and then complain that you stood behind a more powerful individual to gain protection in a battle.
Derren S. 02-09-06, 08:19 AM	If he answers the gryphons, leave - why would you travel with someone who doesn't care if you die, as long as all the animals live. Again, a griffon is not an animal but a sentient creature so this argument doesn't work. A normal druid, or any good character, would respond "neither". But don't forget that as its "owner" you are responsible for the griffon. It basically comes down to: Is the griffon your slave or your companion? When it is your slave (and so far it sounds like it) then the objections the other party members have are valid (not to mention that is totally against your alignment). When it is your companion, that means follows you on its own free will and is free to leave, then the threats are nonsense as the griffon could always leave when it doesn't like how it is treated.
Clawhound 02-09-06, 12:03 PM	This comes down to PoV, ethos, and opinion. In short, a fellow character/player had problems with your behavior. You offended his sensibilities. It is now up to you to speak with him and better understand his position. It is also necessary for him to listen to your position. It is necessary for both of you to figure out: what better thing could you have done. If the other player is then uncooperative and assinine, then that is his fault. If the druid attacks you, and if the gryphon is loyal to you, it will then attack the druid. This then begs the question of free will. If the gryphon has free will, and accepts you as its master, then there is nothing that the druid can do to prevent the creature from cooperating with you, or even sacrificing itself.
Dragen White 02-09-06, 12:20 PM	i think its a matter of perspective, would you be willing to do the same for your griffon, would you use yourself or waste a spell to protect it, does it know this, does it trust you and want to keep you safe as well, if this is true, then there is nothing greater than the bond you share with your animal, and that in itself, the love, is good. However on the flipside, if you use it only to die for you, with no intent on healing its wounds or make any attempt to help it in return, then it might get the impression that hes a meat bag and not be used by you, and that in turn forcing it to do otherwise would be evil. Remeber the fine line between these choices is usually a life long bond you share with the animal, for instance being together a long time would one say you were evil for asking to do as such for you, or would they question the many years of freindship??, vice versa a newly bought animal doesnt have that connection with you, so others may doubt your intentions, the animal as well. think about it...
Balor von Balorvitch 02-09-06, 12:20 PM	It basically comes down to: Is the griffon your slave or your companion? When it is your slave (and so far it sounds like it) then the objections the other party members have are valid (not to mention that is totally against your alignment). :rolleyes: Using a 1/2 Lion 1/2 Eagle with prob x3 your hp and AC mount as cover is an evil action, lol that makes no sense. The Griffon is a slave as much as a horse is, don't think so? A druid for sure would! The Griffon was hit once and saved you from a peppering of arrows! You are under no compulsion to treat the Griffon as an equal, but i imagine you prob should. If the Griffon wanted your sorc dead he would do so, more likely if the druid attacks his bear and the Griffon will fight, one will die and how does that serve the Griffon. When in doubt set the Griffon free, if it returns its yours!
Derren S. 02-09-06, 12:57 PM	:rolleyes: Using a 1/2 Lion 1/2 Eagle with prob x3 your hp and AC mount as cover is an evil action, lol that makes no sense. The Griffon is a slave as much as a horse is, don't think so? Very ignorant and wrong. A Horse is an animal and not sentient in D&D sense (Int 2). A griffon is a sentient (Int 5) magical beast so you can't compare a horse animal companion and a griffon slave. Why is using the griffon as cover a evil action? Because the griffon was bought at a slave auction and might be unwillingly to serve as cover but has no other choice. At least that is the impression I get when Segemund_Faust talks about the giffon with sentences like and paid a large amount for the griffon and armor etc So unless the griffon agreed to serve the sorcerer it is evil. And if the griffon did the druid must be pretty dumb to challenge the sorcerer for that but the situation can easily be resolved by asking the griffon if that was ok or not.
Tzor 02-09-06, 01:40 PM	We were on an adventure, I, a sorcerer, was in a back carriage on a train with my griffin ... We go through an invisible wall, our train crashes, we all take damage, and our train catches fire. I use my Griffin for cover and open the door, ... I'm not sure about the druid but if I understand this correctly, you and this Large Magical Beast which normally has a 10' space are standing in this crashed train and using it as a cover you open a door? How? With a ten foot pole? Reality check on isle 8 please. (I'm ignoring how the large magical beast managed to get in the train in the first place.) While I can see an argument for the DM wanting to kill you (not your character you for even suggesting such a thing as opening a door when your cover is a creature with a 10' space) the druid has no justification since the griffin is a magical beast and not an animal. Everyone knows that sorcs always cower behind capable fighters and clearly the griffin is a fighter. The paladin is wrong in siding with the druid, but being a bucket head you can't always expect wise judgements just not evil ones.
Melpomene 02-09-06, 01:51 PM	From a general standpoint, I see no real difference, as Tzor mentioned, between the griffon and a fighter cohort. Both are smart (enough), and both are better suited for barging into an enemy-filled room. On the other hand, you have to be careful not to become Zim from the episode Hobo 13. ^_^
Gedrin 02-09-06, 01:52 PM	You all forget that the paladins warhorse and the druids animal companion are both willing allies and that summoned animals aren't real. The griffon is a slave. So... Your contention is the thousand pound, combat trained, flying preadator with a sentient will is somehow forced, enslaved, to act as a battle mount. Here's a list of some of the choices the gryphon has: 1. Fly off. 2. Fly off. I mention it twice becahse if you're a thousand pound, combat trained, self motivating, flying, now armored, preadator, it's really hard to think of a reason why you wouldn't just fly away if you felt enslaved. 3. Eat the PC. Again, 1000lb preadators tend to eat things that try to enslave them. 4. Move. Just a thought. If you don't think it's apropriate for your AC25 self to be a shield to your AC15 compainion, you could just move out of the way of harm. 5. Express his displeasure at the plan. Yes, he might not be articulate, but if he thought it was a bad plan, he could come up with a way to express it. So, either the gryphon wants to hang around the sorc and help him out, or the gyphon is collossaly inept at being a free willed being. If the gryphon is a sentient, he can choose what to do. To say that he's somehow enslaved is silly. He could litterally leave any time he wants, and is perfectly well equipped, (even better now) to survive on his own in the wild, or maybe find a new job. It sounds to me like the gryphon is well equiped and well cared for, and employed in a profession apropriate to its training and abilities. Further, since it hasn't killed the sorc or just left him high and dry, I'm going to guess that the gryphon will at least tollerate the sorc's leadership.
Kragg Bonemeal 02-09-06, 02:20 PM	I don't think it was wrong to do, as animals are meant to serve. If the druid didn't think so, he better be freeing all of the chickens and pack mules and shearing sheep before coming to you. But you are all missing that the Griffon is NOT sentient. The "Always Neutral" alignment makes it so. Int >2 does not always mean that it has the capacity and ability to form abstract thought, have empathy towards other creatures, and to understand complex philosophical interactions. Magical beasts with Int >2 have unnatural cunning and slyness. If they have a language (e.g. Speaks Griffon and may learn common by buying with skill points) then it is sentient. There is a magical beast cat out there with Int 10 (someone please find it in one of the MM books) that is "Always Neutral". Its preferred food... elves. They are tastier. Now, if it was a sentient creature, able to understand the infliction of duress, pain, and dread in hunting another sentient creature for pleasure (preferred food, not just will eat if starving), then it would be evil. But it is a Magical Beast. Not a Humanoid, Monsterous Humanoid, Giant, etc, etc. Its just a preturnaturally smart feline.
Bruunwald 02-09-06, 02:38 PM	I think you all played in character quite well. The CG sorcerer would probably react in such a way. Knowing your creature companion's limits, you acted quickly and in a tactically sound way. On the other hand, from the druid's perspective, this would have been perceived as a cruel act that needlessly put a living creature in harm's way. And to the paladin, it would have been an unseemly act and dishonorable. Now we're talking someone who stands in front of his own horse to protect it with his life, out of principle. What you should probably do, is to assert your character, stay in character, and argue that you are all good people, but have different methods. Stay strong: you will defend yourself. But remind them that this is your pet griffon, and you did what you thought you had to, and that they ought to put themselves in your position before they judge you. Do all of this in character. And then be ready to live with your differences. They are what gives the game its dynamic.
timothywinters01 02-09-06, 02:41 PM	In all future battles I would use either the paladin or druid for cover instead ;) One point I'd like to make to all the people calling the griffon a sentient creature. Yes griffons, having a 5 intelligence does indeed make them sentient, however unless we're going to start metagaming, a person doesn't know how intelligent a griffon is. There could be a horse for sale that had a 5 intelligence and had been cruelly trained to be an obedient slave. Riding it and using it for cover would only be an evil act if you knew it was actually an intelligent animal acting out of fear for the punishments it receieved when it was trained. Since neither griffons nor horses speak common, even if he did purchase it as a mount there is no reason to assume he realizes it's anything more than another beast of burden.
Derren S. 02-09-06, 02:45 PM	Ignorance is no excuse. It might reduce the alignment hit you take for such actions but it doesn't change the situation. And Kragg, that is total nonsense. When it has a Int>2 it is sentient. Alignment has nothing to do with it. Or do you want to argue that dragons aren't sentient because they have always alignment? That griffons understand common is also a proof that they are sentient.
keldarza 02-09-06, 03:04 PM	It's what I would have done to save my sorc life. So what if the druid has a problem, continue on and use your griffon. As an evil char I would feed the druids animals to my griffon while he wasnt looking ;) [and if the paladin had a horse....] " But remind them that this is your pet griffon, and you did what you thought you had to" I agree with this. Besides, they are GOOD char which means they shouldnt kill you. The paladin shouldn't be moaning, if he was truely that good and noble he would have rushed over to save you knowing archers could drop you like a stone. At the end of the day I think everyone is trying to hard to enforce the roleplaying here and not realising that a death of a human [or whatever you are] is much worse than a griffon taking a few arrows. Now if you had taken your griffon and just stood there laughing as it was slaughtered by arrows, then i'd say they were in the right.
timothywinters01 02-09-06, 03:23 PM	Ignorance is no excuse. It might reduce the alignment hit you take for such actions but it doesn't change the situation. So if you purchased a warhorse who happened to have an intelligence of 5 (which you were completely unaware of), and only obeyed you because it had been taught to fear humans (again you're completely unaware of). You would slowly slip to the dark side eventually becoming evil while riding alongside your fellow lawful good knights (all mounted on animal intelligence horses, who had been trained normally) doing the same combat maneuvers they did? That's total bunk. Evil isn't some sort of disease you catch, it's a choice.
pres_man 02-09-06, 03:25 PM	Let's assume the griffon is a slave. That just makes me want to say, "Hey, hello in there Mr. Paladin!" If it was a slave the paladin would have to react to the situation. I mean when the sorcerer first showed up with his new griffon, what did the paladin say? Sorc: Hey look at this new mount I got. Pala: A griffon, a mighty beast. So what did you befriend it and it agreed to journey with you? Sorc: What? No, I bought it at Hank's Abused and Enslaved Creatures Emporium. Pala: Oh, then that's fine. Was Luke and Leia "evil" because they owned R2-D2 and C3-P0? They were certainly sapient (sentient).
Derren S. 02-09-06, 03:35 PM	Owning a slave is actually not against the paladins code nor it is evil. Using a slave as meatshield is.
pres_man 02-09-06, 03:48 PM	Owning a slave is actually not against the paladins code nor it is evil. Using a slave as meatshield is. :rofl: Right, right, owning a slave is not evil, using a slave for the purpose that you own them for is. :rofl: That's a good one.
Derren S. 02-09-06, 03:56 PM	Pres_men, tell me one reason why it is evil to own a slave when you treat him good? Lack of freedom? Freedom is a chaotic concept, not a good and certainly not a lawful one. So when you treat a slave good, owning a slave would be neutral, not evil. On the other hand using the slaves as shield which means placing them in danger or otherwise risk his life for your own gain is evil. But I see you automatically think of whipped, half starved people who have to work 20 hours a day under inhuman conditions when they hear the word slave.
pres_man 02-09-06, 04:14 PM	Yet only a paladin with both wis and int of 2 would ever think that a sorcerer would buy a fighting beast and equip it for fighting and the sorcerer was planning on it merely being a creature to keep the sorcerer company when he was lonely. Of course the sorcerer was going to use this fighting creature for, you know, combat. And the sorcerer who is obviously not a martial character is going to depend on the beast to take most of the hits. Any paladin that can't see that coming is an idiot. So as soon as the sorcerer showed up with an "enslaved" creature and the sorcerer wasn't going to retire from adventuring, this outcome was envitable and the paladin should have said something. Also comparing forced labor due to debt/crimes and slavery is a pretty far stretch. They may seem similiar but it is only a superficial similiarity. And besides the griffon I am sure was not endebted to the sorcerer due to gambling debts.
Kragg Bonemeal 02-09-06, 05:06 PM	And Kragg, that is total nonsense. When it has a Int>2 it is sentient. Alignment has nothing to do with it. Or do you want to argue that dragons aren't sentient because they have always alignment? Well... blimy... they can understand Common and it says you need a Diplomacy check to make them friendly for training, not Handle Animal. Interesting. Griffons may be on the verge of sentience. But I don't see a Griffon language you can learn. You'd need the spell Speak with Animals. The "Always" alignment must be due to the magical nature. Dragons are that way because of their magical nature. This means that Griffons understand the consequenses of their actions. This means that they should not be able to be used in a Chaotic Evil manner, and should flee no matter your urging in a frightening situation even if you are trying to perform a glorious Lawful Good actions. You can't coax them into charging the dragon if they understand mortality and imminent death. As is, I still stand by my statement that Int>2 does not always mean sentient. That's why I asked for the name of the cat creature that eats elves and is Always Neutral with Int 10.
Louist 02-09-06, 09:21 PM	I am Chaotic Good, and paid a large amount for the griffon and armor etc Note the emphasises in bold. Your druid has less purview over the Griffon than he would like, given that this Griffon has the inteligence to choose whom it serves and shields and whom it does not. Although I must question the 'always neutral', given that this is a sentient creature, free to choose of it's own will. Yes, so it's a wonder why Sege had to buy one. Perhaps the druid is not attacking for using a griffon as a shield, but rather for what he percieves to be metagaming tendancies? I don't think the average druid would attack you over something like that, however, even an out of touch druid would a pang of guilt over using a pet as a living breathing piece of armour. Even a magical pet. I'd talk to him and try to clear up any issues he might have with you/your character, if he is indeed looking for an excuse to kill you.
Louist 02-09-06, 09:32 PM	There is a magical beast cat out there with Int 10 (someone please find it in one of the MM books) that is "Always Neutral". Its preferred food... elves. They are tastier. Now, if it was a sentient creature, able to understand the infliction of duress, pain, and dread in hunting another sentient creature for pleasure (preferred food, not just will eat if starving), then it would be evil. But it is a Magical Beast. Not a Humanoid, Monsterous Humanoid, Giant, etc, etc. Its just a preturnaturally smart feline. What about a lawful good pally who really likes fresh meat? Sure the cow/deer/lamb may not be sentient, but they most definatly feel pain and anguish. The palidin would most likely understand this, but it would not make him evil.
Segemund_Faust 02-10-06, 07:16 AM	He does have freedom to leave whenever he wants, I healed him when he took damage, and he only took one arrow for me, the others missed him. I feed him, and treat him good, the armor was what costed alot, and was made specifically for him... I said he may leave if he wants after this fiasco, and he decided to stay!
jonthepatriarch06 02-10-06, 09:01 AM	That is not true u never Rp'd the Griffon from leaving. When we tried to speak with it, it did not want to talk because it was nervous and did not enjoy bieng underground where you brought it w/o asking it if it would com. You bought it for the purpose of trying to hide behind it. The DM let you get away with opening the door while standing behind the large magical beast. It is not fitting for you to use the creature as a shield and if it knew what you were trying to do, it would have something else to say about it. :nonono:
Derren S. 02-10-06, 10:08 AM	And you are? Am I correct when I assume that you are either the druid or the paladin player?
Radijs 02-10-06, 10:20 AM	My guess would be: The druid from the OP.
Segemund_Faust 02-10-06, 10:58 AM	I did roleplay it, and yes, he is the druid who wants to kill me :mad: I told the DM, I tell my Griffon if he wants to leave, he can, and if he DID, he could, he can fly faster then I can fly with my spells, if I even WANTED to catch him.
LordofNightmares 02-10-06, 11:10 AM	After reading the original post and a few of the first replies, I want to drop my 2 coppers on this. The Griffon seems to be acting as a personal bodyguard for the sorcerer, and so it seems it is perfectly fine to use him/her as cover, becase that's what bodyguards do.