Am I acting in allingment? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Am I acting in allingment? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
SOKAR
10-30-04, 11:10 PM I am playing a true neutral druid in a pary of 4, and he has a medium viper companion. His snake is his only true friend. He does not much care about anything, but y'know, he helps the party, heals them and such, but he's a kind of follower, not a leader. The L.G. cleric and pally make all the decisions, and he just goes with them because he does not like being alone. Is that TN behavoir?

On a side note, whenever there is an encounter, he does not tell his snake to attack; rather have him stay back because his snake is the only thing in the world that he loves, and he wants him safe. The cleric is very annoyed at this and thinks that the snake "Has to be more useful, or he will have to go." The Dm says that the Druid is fine doing what he is doing, but the cleric gets so annoying at every encounter. Is there anything that we can do about this???

Thank You.
Insane Pixie
10-30-04, 11:16 PM I am not completely sure about familiar (or companion) rules, but I would just have it follow you (directly behind you) and if any foes try to attack him, they have to pass you, leaving them open to an opportunity, and if the DM is like the ones I know, he won't leave his precious' open for attack.
Lxarth
10-30-04, 11:17 PM I think you are doing fine.

I wouldn't have my "pet" go to the front lines, unless it is a Wardog...but thats a little different. Plus, it's up to you if you want to send it up anyways.
Bringslite
10-30-04, 11:53 PM Yeah, it is your companion and probably doesn't soak up exp so I would tell the Cleric to shut the hell up. Maybe ask the Cleric, in front of the DM, why he wants you to use a venomous (spelling) snake to help him in combat anyhoo. Not very Holy. :devil:
Dragonspirit
10-30-04, 11:59 PM I actually applaud you.

Too often, my players treat their animals as little more than a walking weapon, often neglecting it's desires or needs for an increase in tactical benefit.
Kiri Sittori
10-31-04, 01:43 AM I am playing a true neutral druid in a pary of 4, and he has a medium viper companion. His snake is his only true friend. He does not much care about anything, but y'know, he helps the party, heals them and such, but he's a kind of follower, not a leader. The L.G. cleric and pally make all the decisions, and he just goes with them because he does not like being alone. Is that TN behavoir?

On a side note, whenever there is an encounter, he does not tell his snake to attack; rather have him stay back because his snake is the only thing in the world that he loves, and he wants him safe. The cleric is very annoyed at this and thinks that the snake "Has to be more useful, or he will have to go." The Dm says that the Druid is fine doing what he is doing, but the cleric gets so annoying at every encounter. Is there anything that we can do about this???

Thank You.

-For the alignment angle: Yes, that's just fine for TN.

-For the snake: To the nine hells with "usefulness." First off, yer druidic ethos wouldn't allow you to put an animal companion in danger for just any ol' encounter --- perhaps in defence of nature, but not for "beat up the Ogres and take their gold."
Second, the snake follows YOU, not the cleric. Thus, he really doesn't have any "say" in the matter, beyond his annoyance.

Finally, no, there's nothin' that "we" can do. It's a roleplayin' matter between yer druid and the cleric.
Ongorth
10-31-04, 02:12 AM Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, don't act an alignment. Act as a person instead. It works much better.
Thunder
10-31-04, 03:42 AM From the standpoint of your animal companion being "useful" and "Getting Rid of It" if it is not is not their choice. He is your animal companion and has other uses than being some meatshield for the other members. As I do recall at your level the snake does not have enough hitpoints to survive even the most minor of injuries. Your treatment of your companion is fine and as good characters they should realize this.

Now as far as your alignment goes, true neutral does not mean follow and let the two goodly characters be your compass. Infact by taking a passive role and not making choices for yourself or speaking up you are betraying being True Neutral. Yes you might feel the need to help heal some injured villagers with your spells at your compatriots request, but why do it? Good characters do it for the good, Evil characters might do it for greed because they can than ask for some reward. But think of what drives your character and act upon that. Neutral is a tough alignment to roleplay well. To roleplay TN well you should find yourself asking the Cleric and Paladin why are we going here or doing this now. But at all times remember where your loyalties lie.

I hope that you can convince the party to lay off the viper, and that he will become useful in key situations, just not in direct melee. I also hope you do not take TN as being passive TN is far from it, they desire the blance of the Multiverse and sometimes even take the side of evil to swing the balance back to Neutral. But it does sound as if you are doing a fine job keeping the Viper safe which should be near the top of your priority list.
Dansan
10-31-04, 08:23 AM As said in the Players Handbook, there are actually two neutrals. The Neutral Neutral, as I like to call it, means that you can follow people around and such. You're not at all interested in politics and behave like most commoners would. A thief that steals for food is neutral neutral. The guard who captures thieves just because he needs the money is neutral neutral.

However, Druids in my opinion should be more of the second kind of neutral, being True Neutral. This is all about balancing things out, and taking an eye for the bigger picture. In 2nd edition, the druids handbook really helped me out in correctly playing True Neutral. Its not that for every good act you have to perform an evil act, but you do accept every alignment as a natural and necessary phenomenon, even if you like good characters more.
In this latter case, just following the lead of the leadership characters is NOT good, since you are not taking into view the bigger picture, but are just a follower.
nyysjan
10-31-04, 10:35 AM next time ask the cleric if he would send innocent children in to the front lines of battle and then say 'then why should i send my friend to danger when he has done nothing to deserve it'
Shard of Suzail
10-31-04, 12:18 PM I play a True Neutral, it's nice to see another on the boards. Contrary to popular belief it *is* possible to play a true neutral who simply follows the party about. My Character's god, Chronepsis, is this sort of true neutral and basically observes without taking an overly active part.

Thus, he could simply follow along like a leaf in the wind, doing what the party wants, even if it is good aligned. Neutrality can be viewed over time, so he could spend many many years being effectively good and then join a party that was evil aligned or selfish. He could also spend a lot of time being active and then simply retire for a few years to do herb craft.

The only downside of being an Observer type true neutral is that, one day, you`ll end up leaving the party and never returning, having been attracted by another cause or person. The less of a moral stance you perfect, the less reason you have to be with the party.

My character originally joined our party to act as a journal keeper (she's a librarian and cleric). Now, as the party had gone on, she has taken up the role of actively taking a part in their quest (which is to save Cormyr and track down the Purple Dragon). As the knowledge and stability of the nation was threatened, it seemed the true neutral thing to preserve the balance and avoid the chaos of Orc domination.

Now that the party has suffered so many casualties, i`m slowly moving towards the evil end of the spectrum, so as to get the job done at all costs. Overall though, it all works out neutral in the end.

I would say that its probably better for a true Neutral to have some values rather than be mindless. My character, as a knowledge domain cleric, values learning and culture, so she fights to preserve those. Thus she wouldn't approve of smashing a Drow city up, all the better to use diplomacy. Orcs, however, and primitive types, she regards with great hostility, since they only exist to destoy culture and bring it down to a rustic level.

It must be harder for a druid player though. I have my domains to give me values regardless of my neutrality. A druid is a lot more vague and players seldom interact with the wilderness in the right way to make a druid interesting in moral terms. I would try thinking up some "domains" for your druid. Effectively, places, things or concepts that your character values enough to fight for.

That is, after all, what it comes down to. When is it that your character would effectively say "no, i wont do that".

Lets take your example, goodly heroes, druid follows along. Fair enough, you`ll not be too worried about most things. Maybe, however, the character refuses to deal with abuse of arcane magic (the source of unnatural abberations). So, should the party come across necromancers, then he may well take an active stance to move against them (but not because they are evil, per se). He may also choose not to work with powerful wizards who make golems or magical monsters.

Add onto that the value that the character protects the young and you have some working morals while remaining neutral. Your character will happily adventure with the party, but wouldnt kill baby dragons, for instance. Should the party come across goblins, he may well see to it that the mothers are released with their children, so that they can still survive in the future. Likewise, when the party encounters a saruman type wizard turning the local animals into warped war monsters, then he would make every effort to wipe him and his students out, even more zealously than the paladins of the party, who may just regard the fellow as an eccentric to be avoided.
Khyron the Backstabber
10-31-04, 07:33 PM I am playing a true neutral druid in a pary of 4, and he has a medium viper companion. His snake is his only true friend. He does not much care about anything, but y'know, he helps the party, heals them and such, but he's a kind of follower, not a leader. The L.G. cleric and pally make all the decisions, and he just goes with them because he does not like being alone. Is that TN behavoir?

On a side note, whenever there is an encounter, he does not tell his snake to attack; rather have him stay back because his snake is the only thing in the world that he loves, and he wants him safe. The cleric is very annoyed at this and thinks that the snake "Has to be more useful, or he will have to go." The Dm says that the Druid is fine doing what he is doing, but the cleric gets so annoying at every encounter. Is there anything that we can do about this???

Thank You.

The cleric, if he were RPing his alignment, would understand your protecting your companion. So the cleric needs to change his attitude.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SOKAR 10-30-04, 11:10 PM	I am playing a true neutral druid in a pary of 4, and he has a medium viper companion. His snake is his only true friend. He does not much care about anything, but y'know, he helps the party, heals them and such, but he's a kind of follower, not a leader. The L.G. cleric and pally make all the decisions, and he just goes with them because he does not like being alone. Is that TN behavoir? On a side note, whenever there is an encounter, he does not tell his snake to attack; rather have him stay back because his snake is the only thing in the world that he loves, and he wants him safe. The cleric is very annoyed at this and thinks that the snake "Has to be more useful, or he will have to go." The Dm says that the Druid is fine doing what he is doing, but the cleric gets so annoying at every encounter. Is there anything that we can do about this??? Thank You.
Insane Pixie 10-30-04, 11:16 PM	I am not completely sure about familiar (or companion) rules, but I would just have it follow you (directly behind you) and if any foes try to attack him, they have to pass you, leaving them open to an opportunity, and if the DM is like the ones I know, he won't leave his precious' open for attack.
Lxarth 10-30-04, 11:17 PM	I think you are doing fine. I wouldn't have my "pet" go to the front lines, unless it is a Wardog...but thats a little different. Plus, it's up to you if you want to send it up anyways.
Bringslite 10-30-04, 11:53 PM	Yeah, it is your companion and probably doesn't soak up exp so I would tell the Cleric to shut the hell up. Maybe ask the Cleric, in front of the DM, why he wants you to use a venomous (spelling) snake to help him in combat anyhoo. Not very Holy. :devil:
Dragonspirit 10-30-04, 11:59 PM	I actually applaud you. Too often, my players treat their animals as little more than a walking weapon, often neglecting it's desires or needs for an increase in tactical benefit.
Kiri Sittori 10-31-04, 01:43 AM	I am playing a true neutral druid in a pary of 4, and he has a medium viper companion. His snake is his only true friend. He does not much care about anything, but y'know, he helps the party, heals them and such, but he's a kind of follower, not a leader. The L.G. cleric and pally make all the decisions, and he just goes with them because he does not like being alone. Is that TN behavoir? On a side note, whenever there is an encounter, he does not tell his snake to attack; rather have him stay back because his snake is the only thing in the world that he loves, and he wants him safe. The cleric is very annoyed at this and thinks that the snake "Has to be more useful, or he will have to go." The Dm says that the Druid is fine doing what he is doing, but the cleric gets so annoying at every encounter. Is there anything that we can do about this??? Thank You. -For the alignment angle: Yes, that's just fine for TN. -For the snake: To the nine hells with "usefulness." First off, yer druidic ethos wouldn't allow you to put an animal companion in danger for just any ol' encounter --- perhaps in defence of nature, but not for "beat up the Ogres and take their gold." Second, the snake follows YOU, not the cleric. Thus, he really doesn't have any "say" in the matter, beyond his annoyance. Finally, no, there's nothin' that "we" can do. It's a roleplayin' matter between yer druid and the cleric.
Ongorth 10-31-04, 02:12 AM	Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, don't act an alignment. Act as a person instead. It works much better.
Thunder 10-31-04, 03:42 AM	From the standpoint of your animal companion being "useful" and "Getting Rid of It" if it is not is not their choice. He is your animal companion and has other uses than being some meatshield for the other members. As I do recall at your level the snake does not have enough hitpoints to survive even the most minor of injuries. Your treatment of your companion is fine and as good characters they should realize this. Now as far as your alignment goes, true neutral does not mean follow and let the two goodly characters be your compass. Infact by taking a passive role and not making choices for yourself or speaking up you are betraying being True Neutral. Yes you might feel the need to help heal some injured villagers with your spells at your compatriots request, but why do it? Good characters do it for the good, Evil characters might do it for greed because they can than ask for some reward. But think of what drives your character and act upon that. Neutral is a tough alignment to roleplay well. To roleplay TN well you should find yourself asking the Cleric and Paladin why are we going here or doing this now. But at all times remember where your loyalties lie. I hope that you can convince the party to lay off the viper, and that he will become useful in key situations, just not in direct melee. I also hope you do not take TN as being passive TN is far from it, they desire the blance of the Multiverse and sometimes even take the side of evil to swing the balance back to Neutral. But it does sound as if you are doing a fine job keeping the Viper safe which should be near the top of your priority list.
Dansan 10-31-04, 08:23 AM	As said in the Players Handbook, there are actually two neutrals. The Neutral Neutral, as I like to call it, means that you can follow people around and such. You're not at all interested in politics and behave like most commoners would. A thief that steals for food is neutral neutral. The guard who captures thieves just because he needs the money is neutral neutral. However, Druids in my opinion should be more of the second kind of neutral, being True Neutral. This is all about balancing things out, and taking an eye for the bigger picture. In 2nd edition, the druids handbook really helped me out in correctly playing True Neutral. Its not that for every good act you have to perform an evil act, but you do accept every alignment as a natural and necessary phenomenon, even if you like good characters more. In this latter case, just following the lead of the leadership characters is NOT good, since you are not taking into view the bigger picture, but are just a follower.
nyysjan 10-31-04, 10:35 AM	next time ask the cleric if he would send innocent children in to the front lines of battle and then say 'then why should i send my friend to danger when he has done nothing to deserve it'
Shard of Suzail 10-31-04, 12:18 PM	I play a True Neutral, it's nice to see another on the boards. Contrary to popular belief it is possible to play a true neutral who simply follows the party about. My Character's god, Chronepsis, is this sort of true neutral and basically observes without taking an overly active part. Thus, he could simply follow along like a leaf in the wind, doing what the party wants, even if it is good aligned. Neutrality can be viewed over time, so he could spend many many years being effectively good and then join a party that was evil aligned or selfish. He could also spend a lot of time being active and then simply retire for a few years to do herb craft. The only downside of being an Observer type true neutral is that, one day, you`ll end up leaving the party and never returning, having been attracted by another cause or person. The less of a moral stance you perfect, the less reason you have to be with the party. My character originally joined our party to act as a journal keeper (she's a librarian and cleric). Now, as the party had gone on, she has taken up the role of actively taking a part in their quest (which is to save Cormyr and track down the Purple Dragon). As the knowledge and stability of the nation was threatened, it seemed the true neutral thing to preserve the balance and avoid the chaos of Orc domination. Now that the party has suffered so many casualties, i`m slowly moving towards the evil end of the spectrum, so as to get the job done at all costs. Overall though, it all works out neutral in the end. I would say that its probably better for a true Neutral to have some values rather than be mindless. My character, as a knowledge domain cleric, values learning and culture, so she fights to preserve those. Thus she wouldn't approve of smashing a Drow city up, all the better to use diplomacy. Orcs, however, and primitive types, she regards with great hostility, since they only exist to destoy culture and bring it down to a rustic level. It must be harder for a druid player though. I have my domains to give me values regardless of my neutrality. A druid is a lot more vague and players seldom interact with the wilderness in the right way to make a druid interesting in moral terms. I would try thinking up some "domains" for your druid. Effectively, places, things or concepts that your character values enough to fight for. That is, after all, what it comes down to. When is it that your character would effectively say "no, i wont do that". Lets take your example, goodly heroes, druid follows along. Fair enough, you`ll not be too worried about most things. Maybe, however, the character refuses to deal with abuse of arcane magic (the source of unnatural abberations). So, should the party come across necromancers, then he may well take an active stance to move against them (but not because they are evil, per se). He may also choose not to work with powerful wizards who make golems or magical monsters. Add onto that the value that the character protects the young and you have some working morals while remaining neutral. Your character will happily adventure with the party, but wouldnt kill baby dragons, for instance. Should the party come across goblins, he may well see to it that the mothers are released with their children, so that they can still survive in the future. Likewise, when the party encounters a saruman type wizard turning the local animals into warped war monsters, then he would make every effort to wipe him and his students out, even more zealously than the paladins of the party, who may just regard the fellow as an eccentric to be avoided.
Khyron the Backstabber 10-31-04, 07:33 PM	I am playing a true neutral druid in a pary of 4, and he has a medium viper companion. His snake is his only true friend. He does not much care about anything, but y'know, he helps the party, heals them and such, but he's a kind of follower, not a leader. The L.G. cleric and pally make all the decisions, and he just goes with them because he does not like being alone. Is that TN behavoir? On a side note, whenever there is an encounter, he does not tell his snake to attack; rather have him stay back because his snake is the only thing in the world that he loves, and he wants him safe. The cleric is very annoyed at this and thinks that the snake "Has to be more useful, or he will have to go." The Dm says that the Druid is fine doing what he is doing, but the cleric gets so annoying at every encounter. Is there anything that we can do about this??? Thank You. The cleric, if he were RPing his alignment, would understand your protecting your companion. So the cleric needs to change his attitude.