This is the story:
My character is female elf druid with vow of poverty feat (Neutral good).
She was paid to go with other mercenaries to drive off orcs who were gathering to create an army and attack a city. We´re told that there were many bandits in the woods.
The gold my character received I was going to give to charity once we´ve returned from the mission (we were paid before leaving).
On the way to find the aforementioned orcs, my character foun a group of five men in the woods clearly giving loots to each other (that´s what my DM told me).
I went to talk with them, unarmed and unarmoured, and even made a successfull diplomacy check. All I wanted was to exchange information with them.
Four of them stood in their places, reading their bows and one came in my direction, saying that it was a bad idea to a girl be walking around. This guy even took a short sword and hold it on his hand. And more, he was looking with greed to my visible pocket with the gold asking what was inside.
Even so, my character was still coming in their direction, trying to talk with them.
But them, I made a spot check and read the lips of one of them saying to each other: "a nice princess like this walking alone..."
I then transformed into a wolf and attacked the one who was coming with a short sword in my direction. A friend of mine that was hiding far alway in the bushes threw a fireball killing the other four in just one round.
--------------------------------
So, my DM looked at me and told me that what I done wasn´t exalted and a I acted bad. The other players agreed. He even told me that those five men were going to help my group (!!!!).
I was surprised because I´ve done everything to talk and a female woman walking unarmoured and unarmed cannot look like a menace to no one.
But at least he said that he would let it pass that time.
So, did I acted wrong? What should I´ve had done? Just wait to get my character attacked and raped?
The comment could show that they where suspicious of the situation. Also as you have Vow of Poverty (not that they would know that) you shouldn't have had the gold in your pocket. Keep in mind they might have though it was something else.
The conclusion that they where intent on robing you wouldn't be too extreme in this situation, but **** it too is a jump that isn't warranted.
I would say that the exalted thing to do would to give a warning first, and if it wasn't heeded then the attack could be warranted, but not with lethal damage unless they attack with the same first.
The men in this scenario didn't act in an absurd manner. It's an adventurer rule that those without weapons are more suspicious than those that are armed (because they probably don't need a weapon to kill you). However, the closing in when you could cover a person from a distance with a sword drawn doesn't make sense.
The comment could show that they where suspicious of the situation. Also as you have Vow of Poverty (not that they would know that) you shouldn't have had the gold in your pocket. Keep in mind they might have though it was something else.
The conclusion that they where intent on robing you wouldn't be too extreme in this situation, but **** it too is a jump that isn't warranted.
I would say that the exalted thing to do would to give a warning first, and if it wasn't heeded then the attack could be warranted, but not with lethal damage unless they attack with the same first.
No, the DM made it clear that the five men "knew" that it was a pocket with gold.
I didn´t have the time to do much as when I first attacked and missed, they were all killed by the fireball.
No, the DM made it clear that the five men "knew" that it was a pocket with gold.
You're DM metagamed. This heavily changes my view of the scenario.
I didn´t have the time to do much as when I first attacked and missed, they were all killed by the fireball.
This clinches it. You DM was in the wrong. He made it clear that you where going to be robbed by men that that where supposed to help you! You tried to defend yourself and didn't even harm one of them and then he says this isn't exalted?
Two things that I can think of could explain this.
1. An exalted alignment trap, but no follow through was given for that.
2. Reactive change to your actions.
Either way it is bad for you. I suggest that you obtain a hammer gun and keep it close. :p
The solution in these cases is usually to talk to your DM. See that FAQ at the top of the page.
It seems to be a alignment trap.
Your DM probably wanted you to read his mind and act exactly as he wants you to act. When you failed he decided that you weren't exalted.
That isn't how status keeping of exalted works. He can't steal it without a reason.
a. You didn't kill anyone.
1) Though killing isn't against the vow (you don't have nonviolence/peace)
2) You fought to defend yourself
b. You didn't do evil
Very important as evil is anti-exalted.
Really, the worst you are guilty of is not scoulding your ally for killing them. But that isn't required of exalted.
If it doesnt then the DM is wrong, although with the guy approaching you with a weapon drawn you should have stopped advancing and, if he kept coming, then warned him that he was making you nervous and that you would defend yourself if he came within weapons reach with the sword drawn.
Basically the DM was wrong for failing to realise that what he says he intended as a helpful encounter could just as easily have been construed as leering banditry heading towards robbery and/or ****, and you were wrong for pushing the encounter towards confrontation by continuing your approach against drawn weapons, and for attacking first, most especially without warning.
That being said, was it really likely to go there?
I think you attacked based on paranoia, and your comrade finished them up, based on your attack.
Now, in that setting, a group of people on the road died, more or less by your hands.
You could have done any number of things, such as toss the bag of gold to them, ask if they were looking for work, ask if they had seen the army patrol that you are supposed to meet nearby.
Nope they're dead.
I'd rule the same way.
Just by a phylactery of faithfullness, and stop worrying about it.
Ironically, it is impossible for a Vow of poverty to wear one.
But you all need to realize that I tried to reason with them. Although they looked dangerous, my character tried to talk with them using diplomacy and succeded on it.
She only attacked when he was only 20ft from her and still aproaching with a shortsword on his hand and when a friend of his told another that she was a "princess" with a meaning that looked like they were going to do something evil. And if they were going to help me, why the first guy kept looking with a greedy eye to my gold?
Anyway, no matter how suspicious they could´ve been about my character, I just couldn´t wait to see them possibly attacking me (one attack with a shortsword and FOUR with arrows).
And c´mon! To me, the DM just made up the story about helping us. Why would he made a group of clearly evil and dangeroulsy bandits that would have "help" us?
I trully believe that I tried to talk and make everything ok, but when the character saw that they were planing doing something with her, she acted in self-defence.
Ironically, it is impossible for a Vow of poverty to wear one.
This is why I hate that feat. No faster way to shoot oneself in the foot.
Your best bet would have been to wait until they actually acted; an initiative roll would have been made, and hopefully you'd win; you can then ready an action to do something when you're attacked, so it's obviously self-defense, and you could easily have attacked for non-lethal damage (if there was still doubt).
Either way, I wouldn't call what you did evil; you certainly had good reason to suspect that you were about to get shanked, re-shanked, tri-shanked and quadrashanked.
Further conjecture (and I stress the word conjecture) ...
A VoP druid can be nauseatingly powerful. The druid is potent, Wild Shape is pretty broken, and when you get to keep stat boosts and all the VoP stuff in Wild Shape, there is the capacity to border on the ridiculously twinky. Have you been obviously overshadowing the rest of the party in previous encounters? If so, it's entirely possible that the DM and the rest of the party arranged this trap to hose you out of the VoP.
Whether he just wanted to test your resolve, or really wanted to rob you of your powers (or maybe get you to restrict your use of them) I don't know. On one hand, I don't think GMs should intentionally try to get exalted characters to fall, but on the other hand, having been in a party with a VoP Cleric who slept in a Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, ate Heroes Feast, and used unnecessary Miracles just to show off, I think there's something to be said for reminding PCs of the spirit of their vows.
Anyway, I suggest asking your DM if he feels something is wrong with your character, and take it from there.
If not that situation becomes even more grievous. Changing into a wolf without any apparent spell casting (vocal and somatic components for Polymorph) requires a druid or a high level mage and after that you still don't back off.
That would be the straw that broke the camel's back for me.
I don't think you should've attacked him, but it also looks like your DM was just waiting for you to make that mistake, although the latter is hard to confirm when not in the session yourself
I'd say that him giving you another chance is a good solution, because you could've solved it more peacefully.Something's definitely rotten in Denmark, yes. It's a rare day when five guys who act so incredibly suspicious wind up innocent; I think the DM laid a trap for you, especially after one of them 'came after you with a short sword'. You never draw a weapon unless you're intending to use it, after all, especially after eyeing your gold pouch greedily.
Your best bet would have been to wait until they actually acted; an initiative roll would have been made, and hopefully you'd win; you can then ready an action to do something when you're attacked, so it's obviously self-defense, and you could easily have attacked for non-lethal damage (if there was still doubt).
Either way, I wouldn't call what you did evil; you certainly had good reason to suspect that you were about to get shanked, re-shanked, tri-shanked and quadrashanked.
Further conjecture (and I stress the word conjecture) ...
A VoP druid can be nauseatingly powerful. The druid is potent, Wild Shape is pretty broken, and when you get to keep stat boosts and all the VoP stuff in Wild Shape, there is the capacity to border on the ridiculously twinky. Have you been obviously overshadowing the rest of the party in previous encounters? If so, it's entirely possible that the DM and the rest of the party arranged this trap to hose you out of the VoP.
My Druid has the shapeshange from PH2.
I took it because it´s much more simple and easy to use and it´s also much more balanced than the Wild Shape version.
I also made the druid a spountanous caster from the Unearthed Arcana book (he doens´t has access to every single spell available in an book made).
In fact, he is clearly a weak character in many ways, but I´m trully enjoying to play with she.
And that was our very first game (on this new campaign) and we all started at lvl 5. The only problem I´ve noticed was the fact that all the other three characters were clearly neutral and ambitious.
----------------------
The funny part is that later we arrived at the orc base and I wanted to talk with them to maybe make them stop their plan of attacking the city.
My DM said that it was impossible to talk with them because the orcs weren´t capable of reasoning.
I was shocked. They could be barbaric, but they were not stupid.
What I didn´t like was the fact that every time I tried to be friendly and my Dm never made it possible to work right no matter what I did.
Our next session will be wednsday. I´ll see how it´s going to happen.
I don't think what you did was worth losing your Exalted status, but your actions were a little borderline in my opinion as well. First, don't care at all about anything you have. It's just trash that other people care about. Toss it out like trash. Second, never attack first is a pretty good Exalted rule of thumb.
You took Vow of Poverty, what do you care? "Oh, you like this pouch, huh? Here, it's yours. *toss* Now, I need some information."
Exactly. And would have been true to the character. Above it all. If they attack, your god will protect you, in the form of the wizard in the B.G. with fireballs..your ally...that ended up killing them anyway.
In the end, it's a character, the DM made the ruling, move on.
If you don't like the ruling, and think it was unfair, put in an appeal to the DM. If you don't like the answer, you can always walk, and run your own game...nearby, by post, by chat program, etc.
After hearing opinions from others yeah, seems like it was a trap, and yeah you fell for it. Both wrong, in different ways, I think.
Exactly. And would have been true to the character. Above it all. If they attack, your god will protect you...
Etarnon, that's really on the mark.
I think if you want a good guideline on how to avoid losing your VoP, that's it right there.
I would presume she was still carrying it around because it wasnt really hers to give away till she fulfilled the contract. But regardless, if I was planning to give away some gold I'd want to give it to worthy people, not thugs and bandits.
Both valid points. I did address this in my post, however. If she feels she needs to keep it for a time for whatever reason then give it to another party member to hold onto. She should not be carrying it if she has taken a VoP.
Just because your character didn't know the implications of her actions doesn't mean she was right. She may have been role-played well if she has a wisdom of 6 though.
From my perspective, you had a sniper covering these people, you very unwisely approached these armed men uninvited, and you then murdered them. Murdered. It wasn't self-defense.
Just because your character didn't know the implications of her actions doesn't mean she was right. She may have been role-played well if she has a wisdom of 6 though.
Uhm, first the Druid didn't...her back-up initiated the killing.
Second, murder, in the sense you intend it as a criminal act with criminal definition, is not supported here. Anyone who feels threatened (and can show this later in court) has the right to defend themselves even if no blow is received first on the victim. This is so because the first blow could be the last the victim sees. The victim doesn't have to wait to be attacked physically. Precedent abounds for this in legal systems around the world.
So yes, I believe the OP acted appropriately (if we can judge from one side of the story), and the DM was wrong.
However, going back to the first sentance of this post, the main arguement FOR the DM is that this is NOT a NORMAL NG druid, but an EXALTED NG druid. She should have waited to be attacked first, as that is what a Pure Good character would do. She should have given them the benefit of the doubt. I completely agree with those points. I absolutely agree. However, those are not enough, IMO, to warrant a loss of a VoP. A VoP! This isn't a Vow of Non-Violence, this is a Vow of Poverty! I could see a loss if she fought in order to keep the gold for herself, but she wasn't. She was fighting to give the gold to people who need it more than this group of vagabonds as well as fighting against a percieved threat to her physical (and possibly mental) well-being.
In conclusion: Was it the BEST thing the druid could have done? No. Definently not. But it also wasn't poor enough to warrant a loss of a VoP. Perhaps a warning, but I really don't even see that. The only thing I would fault this druid for is playing an Exalted character in the first place. Much like paladins, what is Exalted and what is not is far too objective to work seamlessly without consulting with the DM beforehand and asking what THEY think is Exalted and non-Exalted.
Doesn't carrying around a huge sack o' gold violate VoP? I understand the OP was going to donate it when he got back, but why wait? It should have been donated immediately, IMO. And if he knew of a better place to donate it to than where he was, a party member should have carried it.
That is false. A VoP can use the money and give it to any charity he chooses not just the nearest. He can even save a little since he is allowed to buy food'drink (water/trail ration/simple weapons like crossbow +bolts). He can even carry any magic item he wants: he just can't use it.
It seems to me that the DM was trying to make a heavy handed point. You are violating your VoP and he used it to cause you trouble. As others have said, shame on both of you.
Nope. He never violated it.
You are abusing the vow (a little, not a ton, of course) and he decided to make you pay. Toss the gold and he would have no reason at all to pull an encounter like that.
False, you overreact alot.
It doenst not mean that I should just hand it over for the firts person I see and even less for clearly some bandits dudes.
My plan was to keep the gold with the character once we´ve completed our mission and use it to help fix the forest (because it was being destroyed by the orcs. Did I said that?) and the people who were prejudiced.
I would never give it to my companions who are doing the mission only for the gold, not for the city and the forest that it´s endangered (like I do).
And as I said, I made a diplomacy check that was succesfull and even so, the guy kept with a dangerous posture to my character (greedy look at my gold and asking about and coming to my direction with a weapon on his hand) even after I made it clear to them that all I wanted was information.
Let´s take a look in another way:
You´re a girl waking in central park and for some reason you got lost. But you´re a very NICE person and luck for yourself, you found a group of five men giving each other money (from theft, as it seems).
When they see you, they all get suspicious and look very dangerous. Four of them draw a handgun. One of them push a big knife and start walking at your direction.
Even so you try to reason with them explaining that all you need is information, this one guy with the big knife keeps coming in your direction looking greedy to your pocket where he can see clearly your wallet.
The other four are murmuring to each other in a sarcastic way something like "oh oh... this poor bastard alone in here..."
And then you attack them.
So, you´re wrong attacking these people and they are poor inocent hopelless good people?
My God, some of you MUST be joking!
You're misrepresenting the scenario. Make sure that when you draw parallels, the new circumstance is actually parallel.
Also, this is pretty clearly a case where the DM mislead the player, but at the same time it isn't unreasonable to think a misunderstanding like this could occur. It's the responsibility of the exalted character to take pains to properly assess the situation. It is not the responsibility of the person going about his daily business to avoid any appearance of evil (ya' know, unless he is a devout to-the-letter Christian sort, I suppose).
You enter their camp. You may have gotten dopl check but what did you say to the "Bandits". It wasn't like he was charging at you. Had you even roll init yet? How would you feel if you set up camp and someone came up to your camp and said, "I come in peace!". What are you just going to put your weapons down and ok well the forst thingy is that way. it would take some more rounds of talking to get me to put up my weapons.
Hi! I´d like the opinion of everyone who have read the "Book of Exalted Deeds" suplement.
This is the story:
My character is female elf druid with vow of poverty feat (Neutral good).
She was paid to go with other mercenaries to drive off orcs who were gathering to create an army and attack a city. We´re told that there were many bandits in the woods.
The gold my character received I was going to give to charity once we´ve returned from the mission (we were paid before leaving).
On the way to find the aforementioned orcs, my character foun a group of five men in the woods clearly giving loots to each other (that´s what my DM told me).
I went to talk with them, unarmed and unarmoured, and even made a successfull diplomacy check. All I wanted was to exchange information with them.
Four of them stood in their places, reading their bows and one came in my direction, saying that it was a bad idea to a girl be walking around. This guy even took a short sword and hold it on his hand. And more, he was looking with greed to my visible pocket with the gold asking what was inside.
Even so, my character was still coming in their direction, trying to talk with them.
But them, I made a spot check and read the lips of one of them saying to each other: "a nice princess like this walking alone..."I then transformed into a wolf and attacked the one who was coming with a short sword in my direction. A friend of mine that was hiding far alway in the bushes threw a fireball killing the other four in just one round.
--------------------------------
So, my DM looked at me and told me that what I done wasn´t exalted and a I acted bad. The other players agreed. He even told me that those five men were going to help my group (!!!!).
I was surprised because I´ve done everything to talk and a female woman walking unarmoured and unarmed cannot look like a menace to no one.
But at least he said that he would let it pass that time.
So, did I acted wrong? What should I´ve had done? Just wait to get my character attacked and raped?
She said that the DM said he would let it pass this time. I assume that means a warning and not loss in anything.
Never heard of a spot check to read lips??
Never heard of a spot check to read lips??
It's in the Player's Handbook.
The central park analog works well. However, they acted illogically from the stand point that bazooka mages exist and that unarmed people can be far more dangerous that armed people.
The situations wasn't baiting, an honest attempt at peaceful contact was made and unarmed ≠ harmless.
I'd say giving the situation one more round would have been a good path to take. It is hard to roleplay a corpse but the exalted path isn't the easy path.
Read Lips: To understand what someone is saying by reading lips, you must be within 30 feet of the speaker, be able to see him or her speak, and understand the speaker’s language. (This use of the skill is language-dependent.) The base DC is 15, but it increases for complex speech or an inarticulate speaker. You must maintain a line of sight to the lips being read.
If your Spot check succeeds, you can understand the general content of a minute’s worth of speaking, but you usually still miss certain details. If the check fails by 4 or less, you can’t read the speaker’s lips. If the check fails by 5 or more, you draw some incorrect conclusion about the speech. The check is rolled secretly in this case, so that you don’t know whether you succeeded or missed by 5.
He made it clear that I knew (through metagaming) they were bandits (even more because we were warned that there were many in the region nearby).
And know, I didn´t failed in the spot check.
About the friend with a bazooka, the truth is that I did not know they were watching. Although I warned them about the group when I was flying around and told them to go there, I´ve went there sometime before them.
And about the Central Park analogy and the "not-everybody-unarmed-is-harmless" I cannot agree. In a medieval fantasy with... what? 1 billion sentient creatures, how many can shapechange? So, everyone that walks around without a weapon is a druid now?
The Druid could have run away as well. Her friends were near and could have heard her yell for help. Exalted is a higher state, no? So why is a "normal" reaction appropriate here? And a wolf outmoves a bandit in the woods every time. So violence was not the only option. Still, she did not kill anyone herself. And she could have been attempting subdual, though I don't recall that being mentioned. The point? A warning should result- at worst.
I still believe that the DM has an issue with this build and was trying to goad her into inappropriate behavior. And nearly succeeded. So my adivce to the OP is to talk with the DM and see if he does have a problem with your character. In game be wary of these morality traps and think a little more when faced with these problems. There is usually another way out. Shifting into a wolf and trying to rip out the throat of a guy who has done nothing more than menace you a bit is normal for an adventurer. You, however, are not a normal adventurer. If he had rushed you, OTOH, violence is a little harder to avoid.
This guy even took a short sword and hold it on his hand. ... Even so, my character was still coming in their direction, trying to talk with them. ... I then transformed into a wolf and attacked the one who was coming with a short sword in my direction. A friend of mine that was hiding far alway in the bushes threw a fireball killing the other four in just one round.
She approached a man, he drew a bladed weapon, she kept coming, and assaulted him.
Clearly being unarmed in the world of D&D does not mean you are defenseless. The druid and the wizard devastated the 5 people without conventional weapons. This was a flat out unprovoked attack, and a massacre. Unjustified homicide.
"Oh, they were looking at me with greed and lust. I read their lips, they called me a princess."
Um, ok. So they equated you to royalty, and you may or may not have read their body language correctly. Big deal. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, it is said. Looks like that's your final destination.
In a medieval fantasy with... what? 1 billion sentient creatures, how many can shapechange? So, everyone that walks around without a weapon is a druid now?
Do you not know you are a druid? Then what the hell are you even talking about! This has nothing to do with the bandits and everything to do with your character's behavior, namely throwing the first punch based on circumstantial evidence.
Further, you only arrived at the conclusion these guys were probably going to kill you via metagaming. Why could you metagame that part but not the part where your party had your back?
Look, you messed up. It happens. Your DM was a tool. That happens, too. You didn't lose VoP, and now you have a better grasp on what your DM expects from an exalted character (namely that you not fly off the handle and attack random people because they look suspicious).
Four of them stood in their places, reading their bows and one came in my direction, saying that it was a bad idea to a girl be walking around. This guy even took a short sword and hold it on his hand. And more, he was looking with greed to my visible pocket with the gold asking what was inside.
Even so, my character was still coming in their direction, trying to talk with them.
But them, I made a spot check and read the lips of one of them saying to each other: "a nice princess like this walking alone..."
I then transformed into a wolf and attacked the one who was coming with a short sword in my direction. A friend of mine that was hiding far alway in the bushes threw a fireball killing the other four in just one round.
--------------------------------
So, my DM looked at me and told me that what I done wasn´t exalted and a I acted bad. The other players agreed. He even told me that those five men were going to help my group (!!!!).
I was surprised because I´ve done everything to talk and a female woman walking unarmoured and unarmed cannot look like a menace to no one.
But at least he said that he would let it pass that time.
So, did I acted wrong? What should I´ve had done? Just wait to get my character attacked and raped?
From a legal standpoint, yes, you acted wrongly.
You were not yet threatened with deadly force when you began to attack.
What you should not have done was walk forward unarmed and unarmoured towards people you suspected might be bandits.
I was surprised because I´ve done everything to talk and a female woman walking unarmoured and unarmed cannot look like a menace to no one.
As other posters have mentioned, this is strange behavior, and in a world of magic and dangers, possibly threatening.
But at least he said that he would let it pass that time.
I bolded this. You did something questionable with relation to your vows, something that other posters also find questionable, and your DM said he would let it pass.
Yet, you are here complaining. The DM has been generous with an extremely powerful feat, and has let you know where the line is. I think you should take the lesson and understand that your DM is not out of line.
Yet, you are here complaining. The DM has been generous with an extremely powerful feat, and has let you know where the line is. I think you should take the lesson and understand that your DM is not out of line.
Wait, what feat are you talking about?
VoP is less not more powerful than wealth per level. You get less abilities/bonuses than you could buy had he the ability.
Wait, what feat are you talking about?
VoP is less not more powerful than wealth per level. You get less abilities/bonuses than you could buy had he the ability.
If you have a +1 good club, a rogue can steal it. If you have a vow of poverty, you can pick up a rock, and its a +1 good rock.
A character with VoP doesn't have to worry about wealth. That character needn't collect any treasure; that character is self-sufficient. That character needn't invest in any item creation feats; that character is self-sufficient. That character needn't worry about being dispelled; that character is self-sufficent.
In exchange for these powers, the character must look beyond herself from a moral perspective. As far as ethics alone are concerned, that character is not self-sufficient.
I want to note that I called it an extremely powerful feat. It is! No feat offers more! But its also a demanding feat, and the OP doesn't seem to recognize just how demanding the DM may be. And, in fact, her DM acted leniently, and the player is still posting a thread about it.
If you have a +1 good club, a rogue can steal it. If you have a vow of poverty, you can pick up a rock, and its a +1 good rock.
Nope. The Rock Fails.
Want to know why? The rock is not a simple weapon. Only simple/natural weapons get the boost.
A character with VoP doesn't have to worry about wealth. That character needn't collect any treasure; that character is self-sufficient. That character needn't invest in any item creation feats; that character is self-sufficient. That character needn't worry about being dispelled; that character is self-sufficent.
In exchange for these powers, the character must look beyond herself from a moral perspective. As far as ethics alone are concerned, that character is not self-sufficient.
I want to note that I called it an extremely powerful feat. It is! No feat offers more! But its also a demanding feat, and the OP doesn't seem to recognize just how demanding the DM may be. And, in fact, her DM acted leniently, and the player is still posting a thread about it.
Um, wealth is alot better than you think.
The VoP can't even use magic items which unless low magic setting are abundant.
You really fear people stealing your stuff? Than sleep with it. With an alarm spell setup so can't get to you. Rogues can't disarm spells (only traps).
Really, this seems weird to say: "well, you can't be dispelled" though to dispel requires enemy to waste action when it could be trying to do something to stop you...
In fact, I'd rather enemy dispel my loot than do something harmful to me.
The game I DM is core only, with few (but existing) exceptions. Vow of Poverty will not be making my list of acceptable exceptions. I speculate that the only player who would opt for it is the one who couldn't role-play it.
My DM told me that I could "clearly know that what they were sharing was loot".
He made it clear that I knew (through metagaming) they were bandits (even more because we were warned that there were many in the region nearby).
And know, I didn´t failed in the spot check.
About the friend with a bazooka, the truth is that I did not know they were watching. Although I warned them about the group when I was flying around and told them to go there, I´ve went there sometime before them.
And about the Central Park analogy and the "not-everybody-unarmed-is-harmless" I cannot agree. In a medieval fantasy with... what? 1 billion sentient creatures, how many can shapechange? So, everyone that walks around without a weapon is a druid now?
There is no way for you to know if you failed.
"The check is rolled secretly in this case, so that you don’t know whether you succeeded or missed by 5."
You not even supposed to roll for that. It is the DM who rolls for it. He/she rolls and then tells you what you saw. Not only that but there is no way for you to have been that close to them to see his lips since you have to be with in 30'. The first "bandit" was 20' away from you at the time and he din't get hit with the fire ball so they would have to have been at least 40' from or more. The DM mostly decided to put a plus to the DC for how far you were. My player pass out loot all the time and that doesn't make them bandits now does it?
Nope. The Rock Fails.
Want to know why? The rock is not a simple weapon. Only simple/natural weapons get the boost.
I didn't know that. I thought improvised weapons were simple weapons.
Um, wealth is alot better than you think.
Well, I think wealth is pretty powerful, so I'm not going to argue with you. But I believe VoP is an extremely powerful feat. I have better things to do than get into this argument. Find someone who cares.
Wait, what feat are you talking about?
VoP is less not more powerful than wealth per level. You get less abilities/bonuses than you could buy had he the ability.
That depends on your class. For a Monk, the +4 AC (and higher by level) you get to compensate your lack of armour (whcih a Monk wouldn't wear anyway), gives you just about the highest AC in the game. The Monk also has to pay more to enhance his/her fists, so the enhancement bonuses from VoP are 'worth' a lot more (not mention you don't have to worry about your amulet slot). For a Druid, it's a possibility to retain all bonuses while wildshaped, which makes it insanely powered.
That depends on your class. For a Monk, the +4 AC (and higher by level) you get to compensate your lack of armour (whcih a Monk wouldn't wear anyway), gives you just about the highest AC in the game. The Monk also has to pay more to enhance his/her fists, so the enhancement bonuses from VoP are 'worth' a lot more (not mention you don't have to worry about your amulet slot). For a Druid, it's a possibility to retain all bonuses while wildshaped, which makes it insanely powered.
Monk=monk belt, bracers of armor or potions of mage armor, necklace of NA, Ioun of Insight, rings of protection
That would be straight AC boosters.
Now for his fist: Buy gauntlets of Mighty Fist: you save 33% because the necklace was the wrong slot for this ability. Really, that is why the necklace costed more.
Now a Druid I'll grant does become nice in Wild Shape, but in Shapeshift? The bonuses are pretty low compared to Wild Shape.
Originally Posted by SRD
Read Lips: To understand what someone is saying by reading lips, you must be within 30 feet of the speaker, be able to see him or her speak, and understand the speaker’s language. (This use of the skill is language-dependent.) The base DC is 15, but it increases for complex speech or an inarticulate speaker. You must maintain a line of sight to the lips being read.
If your Spot check succeeds, you can understand the general content of a minute’s worth of speaking, but you usually still miss certain details. If the check fails by 4 or less, you can’t read the speaker’s lips. If the check fails by 5 or more, you draw some incorrect conclusion about the speech. The check is rolled secretly in this case, so that you don’t know whether you succeeded or missed by 5.
I'd like to point out. What are the chances of a level 5 Druid failing a DC 15 spot check. I mean if she has 8 ranks in it and clearly she needs wisdom for spells. It just doesn't happen short of her having 10-12 wisdom and rolling a 1. So if she has the right stats it's entirely possible if she knows that she didn't fail. (Meta gaming wise)
I do agree that the situation could've been handled better. Exalted characters are suppose to be the best of humanity. There's a reason Paladin's almost die a lot. Granted you arn't a Paladin but your not far off.
He let it pass anyway so do as Maekrix_Waere said and have discussion with your DM on how he thinks a Exalted character should act.
I fully agree with people who suggest discussing with the DM what they consider exalted behavior.
However, I don't think you were in the wrong.
To everyone saying that she should have warned the guy to stop approaching: Valid point, but if they were so bleeding worried, why didn't they tell her to stop where she was? Guy had his Crocodile Dundee out, and was going toward her with his buddies nocking arrows. If I were seeing that, I would take that as aggressive behavior unless they were shouting a warning to me while they did it. Instead of doing that, they were eying her money bag and making comments that TOTALLY could be taken as indicating intent to ****.
Further, for those who think that being exalted means taking it up the bum before you throw a punch, how far do they have to go before it can be considered legitimate self-defense? Do they have to be bringing their sword up to attack, do they have to have swung, do they have to have LANDED A HIT FIRST? Or could it be that aggressive behavior and comments that indicate hostile intentions is enough?
Let's up the scale of the situation: A city run by Exalted individuals, completely good city. You've heard that there is an army of orcs that have been razing the countryside and ransacking towns and cities (it's a BIG army). Now you see an orc army cresting the hillside in the distance. What sound like wardrums can be heard. Just in case they've mistaken you for another city, you put out a really big banner in front of the main gates that reads "We don't want to fight! Do you come in peace?" The orc army continues toward you, not responding in any way to your banner, and these orcs can now be seen to have axes and bows in their hands. Some of them are towing catapults.
So, how many innocents have to be taken out before your "assume the best in everybody", "my god will always nuke the opposition" exalted people can show force? These orcs have not shown any more hostile intent than the bandits did. They're just coming toward you with weapons drawn, ignoring your attempts at diplomacy, which both the city and the druid made, and making sounds (for the bandits, potentially lewd comments; for the orcs, potentially hostile drumming).
But of course, according to several people here, this certainly isn't enough cause to demonstrate self-defense. After all, these orcs haven't actually done anything yet. Best to give them the benefit of the doubt, eh?
Heck, maybe the drums are being played because they want to throw you a party! That's assuming the best in them, right?
On another note, she may have attacked the guy, but there has yet to be a statement on whether there was intent to kill. As was said, it was her buddy, who she did not know was in the bushes, who took to toasting them.
I personally would not have ruled that as a drop from exalted, but I know there's quite a number of ways to interpret the exalted rules (which is why there's so much debate and discussion concerning them).
Guy had his Crocodile Dundee out, and was going toward her with his buddies nocking arrows. If I were seeing that, I would take that as aggressive behavior unless they were shouting a warning to me while they did it. Instead of doing that, they were eying her money bag and making comments that TOTALLY could be taken as indicating intent to ****.
I think a jury could go either way on the whole princess comment eliciting an intent to ****.
Further, for those who think that being exalted means taking it up the bum before you throw a punch, how far do they have to go before it can be considered legitimate self-defense? Do they have to be bringing their sword up to attack, do they have to have swung, do they have to have LANDED A HIT FIRST?
There has to be an imminent threat of injury causing apprehension, IOW, there has to be an assault. The assault need not be one of deadly force to allow her a defense, but if its not an assault using deadly force, she must respond with proportional force.
I think you could argue that their behavior constituted an assault, but its far from clear. Its harder to argue that her response was in anyway proportional, however.
Or could it be that aggressive behavior and comments that indicate hostile intentions is enough?
Aggressive behavior is too vague and subjective a standard. The comments themselves would have to indicate imminent threat of injury, which is more than hostile intentions.
This applies both ways. If the druid had decided to exhibit 'aggressive behavior' such as wild shaping and growling at the slowly approaching 'aggressive' NPC, then it certainly would not have been assault on her part.
Just my
I fully agree with people who suggest discussing with the DM what they consider exalted behavior.
However, I don't think you were in the wrong.
To everyone saying that she should have warned the guy to stop approaching: Valid point, but if they were so bleeding worried, why didn't they tell her to stop where she was? Guy had his Crocodile Dundee out, and was going toward her with his buddies nocking arrows. If I were seeing that, I would take that as aggressive behavior unless they were shouting a warning to me while they did it. Instead of doing that, they were eying her money bag and making comments that TOTALLY could be taken as indicating intent to ****.
Further, for those who think that being exalted means taking it up the bum before you throw a punch, how far do they have to go before it can be considered legitimate self-defense? Do they have to be bringing their sword up to attack, do they have to have swung, do they have to have LANDED A HIT FIRST? Or could it be that aggressive behavior and comments that indicate hostile intentions is enough?
Let's up the scale of the situation: A city run by Exalted individuals, completely good city. You've heard that there is an army of orcs that have been razing the countryside and ransacking towns and cities (it's a BIG army). Now you see an orc army cresting the hillside in the distance. What sound like wardrums can be heard. Just in case they've mistaken you for another city, you put out a really big banner in front of the main gates that reads "We don't want to fight! Do you come in peace?" The orc army continues toward you, not responding in any way to your banner, and these orcs can now be seen to have axes and bows in their hands. Some of them are towing catapults.
So, how many innocents have to be taken out before your "assume the best in everybody", "my god will always nuke the opposition" exalted people can show force? These orcs have not shown any more hostile intent than the bandits did. They're just coming toward you with weapons drawn, ignoring your attempts at diplomacy, which both the city and the druid made, and making sounds (for the bandits, potentially lewd comments; for the orcs, potentially hostile drumming).
But of course, according to several people here, this certainly isn't enough cause to demonstrate self-defense. After all, these orcs haven't actually done anything yet. Best to give them the benefit of the doubt, eh?
Heck, maybe the drums are being played because they want to throw you a party! That's assuming the best in them, right?
On another note, she may have attacked the guy, but there has yet to be a statement on whether there was intent to kill. As was said, it was her buddy, who she did not know was in the bushes, who took to toasting them.
I personally would not have ruled that as a drop from exalted, but I know there's quite a number of ways to interpret the exalted rules (which is why there's so much debate and discussion concerning them).
You do make some good points about her choices but some still are fuzzy. The problem is it's a DM's opinion. If the DM doesn't share it then how can you know right from wrong? It's pretty much just like the Paladin code.
As far as a city ran by an exalted being. I would hope he would have at least defenses prepared to defend the town and probably keep tabs on their movements. Your an exalted character you can assume the worst it's just best to have evidence before the act.
Granted this is all opinion. I'm sure people have very different thoughts on how Exalted characters should function and that's why some people will believe she did the right thing or some with believe it was a bad choice.
The only opinion in the end that matters though is the DM's really. Short of throwing down an excellent points like Thief_of_Hope to point out flaws like what most of us think of what exalted is.
I think a jury could go either way on the whole princess comment eliciting an intent to ****.
The fact that a jury COULD go either way on the comment is enough to show that it's a legitimate interpretation of the comment in question.
There has to be an imminent threat of injury causing apprehension, IOW, there has to be an assault. The assault need not be one of deadly force to allow her a defense, but if its not an assault using deadly force, she must respond with proportional force.
I think you could argue that their behavior constituted an assault, but its far from clear. Its harder to argue that her response was in anyway proportional, however.
Your honor, if I may be frank, a man approaching me with his sword out and his friends whispering to one another with arrows nocked in their bows behind him would certainly fill me with apprehension.
For the proportion of her response, they had lethal weapons out. The presence of a weapon can be taken as intent to use, especially when the weapon is in hand and readied. They had such lethal means of harm out in the open and were approaching her with such weapons when she was herself unarmed. Thus, her shifting into a form that possesses lethal weaponry seems to be a response with proportional force.
We also still don't know what the intent of her attack was. For all we know, she may have chosen wolf form in order to trip the man with the blade, or she may have intended to deal subdual damage. That part of it is still up in the air, however.
Aggressive behavior is too vague and subjective a standard. The comments themselves would have to indicate imminent threat of injury, which is more than hostile intentions.
This applies both ways. If the druid had decided to exhibit 'aggressive behavior' such as wild shaping and growling at the slowly approaching 'aggressive' NPC, then it certainly would not have been assault on her part.
Were she to have shifted form and growled without first having made diplomatic efforts, I would disagree. What this group of men did is the equivolent. They did not say anything to her beyond the comment of how dangerous the woods were, much less anything in response to her efforts at diplomacy.
The vagueness of aggressive behavior is a valid point to an extent. As for her wild shaping and growling to warn him off, I can't help but feel like that should not have been necessary.
She approached them, unarmed, and made an attempt at peaceful discussion, I assume stating her intentions to the group. The facts as presented are that they did not say anything in response to her comments, but rather pulled their weapons and said it was dangerous for a girl to be walking around there. To me, this is a comment that could go either way in the way of intent. They could just as easily have said that in a way indicative of how dangerous THEY were as saying it in a way that meant "Let's help you get on home, lass." It's difficult to prove something like tone of voice in a court of law. So at least part of this will depend on the way in which the men formerly exchanging "loot" (this label stands, since the DM labeled it as such) said their words, which would in turn depend on how well the DM roleplayed his intent with the words.
If in his mind the DM meant for them to say it in a generous, helpful way, but at the table he said it the way thugs in Central Park WOULD say it, the character, I think, was justified in her actions. The fact that she took the words as such and reacted accordingly, as well as the fact that the OP went so far as to USE the Central Park analogy, makes me believe that if these men were, in fact, helpful NPCs, the DM did a poor job in conveying such a fact, particularly with his emphasis on the way that he was eyeing her coin purse.
On another note, the protest that she was metagaming doesn't seem like it should carry so much weight, since the DM was delivering the metagame information. If the DM decides that the characters can tell it's "loot", or can tell that they are eyeing her coin purse, or what have you, that's the DM's perogative, and it is thus legitimate to act on such information.
For the proportion of her response, they had lethal weapons out. The presence of a weapon can be taken as intent to use, especially when the weapon is in hand and readied.
This is the part where I become a dick. Do you have legal authority for that? :D
The presence of a weapon can be taken as intent to use, especially when the weapon is in hand and readied. They had such lethal means of harm out in the open and were approaching her with such weapons when she was herself unarmed. Thus, her shifting into a form that possesses lethal weaponry seems to be a response with proportional force.
We also still don't know what the intent of her attack was. For all we know, she may have chosen wolf form in order to trip the man with the blade, or she may have intended to deal subdual damage. That part of it is still up in the air, however.
How come she gets to have it both ways? IOW, the men approaching her are assumed from the circumstances to have lethal intent, but "for all we know, she may have chosen wolf form in order to trip the man with the blade?"
Actually, I suppose it could be justified on self-defense grounds. Its still shaky, I need to review the facts.
Okay, she said:
Four of them stood in their places, reading their bows and one came in my direction, saying that it was a bad idea to a girl be walking around. This guy even took a short sword and hold it on his hand.
Okay, so they had their bows ready, and the guy had a short sword in his hand. Is that an imminent threat? Would it be enough to cause apprehension (to a reasonable person; i.e., you or me or a jury)?
It depends. If the bows were nocked and aimed at her, I'd think probably. If the bows were ready but not aimed at her, just aimed at the ground, I think not.
I didnt´get the chance to do that as I told earlier.
When one thing that some of you may not understand is that exalted doens´t mean STUPID.
Just because I am a WARRIOR who fights for justice does not mean that I have to wait to be attacked every time by someone before I can do something.
Let´s change the bandits for a adult red dragon. There he is, approaching my character (I´m male and hetero by the way) in attack position, with his mouth burning in fire.
So, the right thing to do was to wait he attack me and then I could do something? Guys, that´s not exalted, that´s just ridiculous.
This is the part where I become a dick. Do you have legal authority for that? :D
I'm afraid I don't understand. Legal authority for my statement?
Or are you questioning the group of men's authority to have their weapons?
Or is it a comment on how I don't know the laws of the DM's world, and thus can't bring into account the laws against brandishing a weapon in public without license to do so?
I suppose if it is the third, I am guilty of such. Without having a description of the campaign world's laws available, I was going with what I could most easily relate to. My apologies.
Although while I think about it, I suppose knowing the country's laws would do no good, since it would be higher powers in the world that made the decision to revoke exalted status.
Further, I think a jury would have difficulty swallowing the idea that they brought those weapons out in self defense when an unarmed individual was approaching them announcing peaceful intention and a desire to avoid conflict.
How come she gets to have it both ways? IOW, the men approaching her are assumed from the circumstances to have lethal intent, but "for all we know, she may have chosen wolf form in order to trip the man with the blade?"
That's true. But she did not approach unarmed men with a weapon out.
Further, the fact still stands that she made attempts at diplomacy, and they were for all effects ignored. I don't feel that this is a small point.
And for what it's worth, I would really appreciate response to the entirety of my argument. It helps me to know better what I said correctly and what can be contested or improved.
I also appreciate a good intellectual debate. Thanks.
My idea was to attack and scare him off and run alway.
I didnt´get the chance to do that as I told earlier.
When one thing that some of you may not understand is that exalted doens´t mean STUPID.
Just because I am a WARRIOR who fights for justice does not mean that I have to wait to be attacked every time by someone before I can do something.
Let´s change the bandits for a adult red dragon. There he is, approaching my character (I´m male and hetero by the way) in attack position, with his mouth burning in fire.
So, the right thing to do was to wait he attack me and then I could do something? Guys, that´s not exalted, that´s just ridiculous.
Excellent, intention is now known. I think "Intent to Scare" sounds like a perfectly legitimate, exalted-status preserving means of self defense.
As for waiting to be attacked first, I agree, and that was part of what I hoped to convey in my first post.
EDIT: Also, I apologize if there was any accidental comment I may have made concerning your sexuality or contesting your gender.
The funny part is that later we arrived at the orc base and I wanted to talk with them to maybe make them stop their plan of attacking the city.
My DM said that it was impossible to talk with them because the orcs weren´t capable of reasoning.
I was shocked. They could be barbaric, but they were not stupid.
What I didn´t like was the fact that every time I tried to be friendly and my Dm never made it possible to work right no matter what I did.
Your DM is running a different game than you're playing.
Have a chat with him and explain that you're trying to do more role-playing and problem solving than fighting. If he doesn't want to change the way things are working in the campaign, STOP PLAYING WITH HIM.
Playing in a campaign that's going in a completely direction than what you're interested in can only end badly for everyone involved.
1) Ask if you can explain your reasoning for what you did. If he says no, which he may, forget about it and move on, but if he's okay with it, explain that your character felt that she was clearly being threatened with robbery and possibly worse, and felt that the bandits were an imminent threat, but still tried to negotiate. Then explain that after that failed and they continued to threaten her, she resorted to violence, but was intending to use nonlethal force until her party-mate broke in. If he starts contradicting you and trying to argue back, though, I'd drop it and move on to the next question. I've seen enough DMs on a power trip to know that you're not going to succeed in doing anything other than anger him.
2) Instead, ask what kind of behavior and reasoning he would have expected an exalted character to use in that sort of situation. Should you have kept negotiating? Run? Find out exactly when he thinks it's okay for an exalted (but non-pacifist) character to resort to violence. If you can work with his interpretation of the rules, go with it. If you have completely incompatible ideas on the subject, I'd ask if you can replace the two two feats with something else (losing all bonus exalted feats, of course) and be brought up to the average party wealth fairly soon to compensate for your drastic loss of abilities.
3) I might also ask if he thinks your character is too overpowered, unless in-game experience directly refutes that. Sometimes DMs try to lay traps to rob characters of certain abilities or magic items when they find them unbalancing, because they don't know how to talk to the player about it out of game or think they might take it badly. If he thinks your character is overpowered, ask if you can swap out the feats and be brought up to the average party wealth fairly soon.
It's possible that this is all a misunderstanding and that your DM just has different expectations than you--the fact that he gave you a warning does support this. But it's also possible that your DM was setting a trap to be vindictive--I've known DMs who love to alignment trap paladins and exalted characters for no particular reason other to be a jerk. If this is indeed the case (which it might be if he can't give you a legitimate answer to what you should have done), I would think about whether or not you really want to be gaming with him. If leaving isn't really an option, for some reason or another, or you don't really think it's all that bad, I would advise you to never play an alignment-sensitive character with him as your DM--it's just asking for trouble.
My God, some of you MUST be joking!
Opinions are like buttholes - everybody has one, they generally don't smell like roses, and others normally don't want to smell them. In this case, you went looking to sniff some roses, my friend, and you found some rosy butts.
The whole situation was probably a understandable misunderstanding. The situation was screwed up, your DM realized this & let it pass, though. In your position, I would've found it fairly tough to believe that a bunch of random persons out in the woods with valuables had good intentions on their minds (and I think everyone would agree to do so is extremely trusting considering the point your character was out there in the first place). As a DM, I'd rule that an attonement would fix your exalted status since it was not intentional & an honest mistake. And before it starts: nope, I don't care about RAW - they're suggestions anyway...like the surgeon general's warning & laws to make home schooling a more difficult option. Doesn't make logical sense to me that part of good is forgiveness of wrong, and an unintentional wrong won't be completely forgiven, but there's a friggin' LG mind-flayer monk in the BoED (and, did that thing take a vow, *gasp*. But, how? It used to be evil!? *Swoon*)! I'd say your actions did violate your exalted status, but not on purpose.
Two things lead me to this conclusion: 1.)You made a diplomacy check. 2.) These are not good men who are not going to make comments about a comely young druid & her pocketful of gold. The gentleman with the knife must not have had the intention of attacking since your diplomacy check probably shifted him close to helpful. The men would all certainly be interested in the gold if they didn't take a VoP, too. And they were referring to you as a princess (and, being that they were probably not well-mannered males & still had beating hearts, probably staring at certain interesting items on your person besides the gold, if you follow) - not a threatening gesture. The DM should have described the situation better; dropped some hints that these guys weren't hostile. But, c'mon, it was an easy mistake to make & no permanent damage (besides the five cinder piles that were probably hunting bandits like yourself prior to their untimely demise - hence the loot). The game will go on.
Opinions are like buttholes - everybody has one, they generally don't smell like roses, and others normally don't want to smell them. In this case, you went looking to sniff some roses, my friend, and you found some rosy butts.
The whole situation was probably a understandable misunderstanding. The situation was screwed up, your DM realized this & let it pass, though. In your position, I would've found it fairly tough to believe that a bunch of random persons out in the woods with valuables had good intentions on their minds (and I think everyone would agree to do so is extremely trusting considering the point your character was out there in the first place). As a DM, I'd rule that an attonement would fix your exalted status since it was not intentional & an honest mistake. And before it starts: nope, I don't care about RAW - they're suggestions anyway...like the surgeon general's warning & laws to make home schooling a more difficult option. Doesn't make logical sense to me that part of good is forgiveness of wrong, and an unintentional wrong won't be completely forgiven, but there's a friggin' LG mind-flayer monk in the BoED (and, did that thing take a vow, *gasp*. But, how? It used to be evil!? *Swoon*)! I'd say your actions did violate your exalted status, but not on purpose.
Two things lead me to this conclusion: 1.)You made a diplomacy check. 2.) These are not good men who are not going to make comments about a comely young druid & her pocketful of gold. The gentleman with the knife must not have had the intention of attacking since your diplomacy check probably shifted him close to helpful. The men would all certainly be interested in the gold if they didn't take a VoP, too. And they were referring to you as a princess (and, being that they were probably not well-mannered males & still had beating hearts, probably staring at certain interesting items on your person besides the gold, if you follow) - not a threatening gesture. The DM should have described the situation better; dropped some hints that these guys weren't hostile. But, c'mon, it was an easy mistake to make & no permanent damage (besides the five cinder piles that were probably hunting bandits like yourself prior to their untimely demise - hence the loot). The game will go on.
Well, I won´t lie to you, but if they were intended originally to be friendly, the guy with the knife (I didn´t tell you that he was coming in my direction? He was.) should haveput it aside.
I think my DM just "made it up" this story about them being friendly just to make me fell wrong. Because, it was clear that he was intended to make it an encounter not just an NPC meetup.
My goodness. A post edit and two posts in the span of 2 minutes. We're good. ;)
Excellent, intention is now known. I think "Intent to Scare" sounds like a perfectly legitimate, exalted-status preserving means of self defense.
As for waiting to be attacked first, I agree, and that was part of what I hoped to convey in my first post.
EDIT: Also, I apologize if there was any accidental comment I may have made concerning your sexuality or contesting your gender.
It´s ok. You don´t need to apology.
Your DM is running a different game than you're playing.
Have a chat with him and explain that you're trying to do more role-playing and problem solving than fighting. If he doesn't want to change the way things are working in the campaign, STOP PLAYING WITH HIM.
Playing in a campaign that's going in a completely direction than what you're interested in can only end badly for everyone involved.
It´s ok, we are friends and I think I can handle it.
I just wanted to know the forum´s opinion about it.
What I believe it´s weird is that when I attacked first the bandits it was a "bad" thing. But attacking the orcs first isn´t. I even asked him: "just because they are orcs it´s ok to kill them without talking first?"
Honestly, if everything you've said is accurate, I think your DM is either out to trap you or playing with an entirely different idea of what exalted means than you are. I'd sit down and talk to him sometime before your next session and do a few things.
1) Ask if you can explain your reasoning for what you did. If he says no, which he may, forget about it and move on, but if he's okay with it, explain that your character felt that she was clearly being threatened with robbery and possibly worse, and felt that the bandits were an imminent threat, but still tried to negotiate. Then explain that after that failed and they continued to threaten her, she resorted to violence, but was intending to use nonlethal force until her party-mate broke in. If he starts contradicting you and trying to argue back, though, I'd drop it and move on to the next question. I've seen enough DMs on a power trip to know that you're not going to succeed in doing anything other than anger him.
2) Instead, ask what kind of behavior and reasoning he would have expected an exalted character to use in that sort of situation. Should you have kept negotiating? Run? Find out exactly when he thinks it's okay for an exalted (but non-pacifist) character to resort to violence. If you can work with his interpretation of the rules, go with it. If you have completely incompatible ideas on the subject, I'd ask if you can replace the two two feats with something else (losing all bonus exalted feats, of course) and be brought up to the average party wealth fairly soon to compensate for your drastic loss of abilities.
3) I might also ask if he thinks your character is too overpowered, unless in-game experience directly refutes that. Sometimes DMs try to lay traps to rob characters of certain abilities or magic items when they find them unbalancing, because they don't know how to talk to the player about it out of game or think they might take it badly. If he thinks your character is overpowered, ask if you can swap out the feats and be brought up to the average party wealth fairly soon.
It's possible that this is all a misunderstanding and that your DM just has different expectations than you--the fact that he gave you a warning does support this. But it's also possible that your DM was setting a trap to be vindictive--I've known DMs who love to alignment trap paladins and exalted characters for no particular reason other to be a jerk. If this is indeed the case (which it might be if he can't give you a legitimate answer to what you should have done), I would think about whether or not you really want to be gaming with him. If leaving isn't really an option, for some reason or another, or you don't really think it's all that bad, I would advise you to never play an alignment-sensitive character with him as your DM--it's just asking for trouble.
My character is fairly weak in fact. This is a problem that all the other players including the DM noticed.
But I have on intention on changing it. I don´t want a Druid that makes 300.000 points of damage or something similiar.
And I don´t believe my DM is trying to be a dick. I think he just didn´t want to get the blame and made an excuse.
------------------------------------------
To the others:
About walking unarmed and anarmoured in the woods. My character is a female elf. ELF. She could be easily just a farmer or a commoner.
And about the comment with "princess", the DM said it in a very clear way that it was with an agressive and sexual tone.
You´re a girl waking in central park and for some reason you got lost. But you´re a very NICE person and luck for yourself, you found a group of five men giving each other money (from theft, as it seems).
When they see you, they all get suspicious and look very dangerous. Four of them draw a handgun. One of them push a big knife and start walking at your direction.
Even so you try to reason with them explaining that all you need is information, this one guy with the big knife keeps coming in your direction looking greedy to your pocket where he can see clearly your wallet.
The other four are murmuring to each other in a sarcastic way something like "oh oh... this poor bastard alone in here..."
And then you attack them.
And if your character was a girl not an exalted character. That would have been fine.
But your character is not a just a girl she's supposed to be Exalted.
You want to play an exalted character. Then your similie runs more in the lines of:
Mother Theresa is walking in central park. Gang of looks like thugs approach, knife, etc. yadi-ya... Staring at that collection tin she's carrying around. Even making comments about nuns dripping with innuendo.
Now what does Mother Theresa do?
Well in your case. Whip out an uzi and start firing.
Yes, it was bad of your DM to set up that trap. Because that's what it was, a trap to test your exalted status.
You fell into it with gusto, you attacked, you intiated the use of force. Not without provocation, true. But provocations are above a character with exalted status. Where a normal person fails and falls to temptation or provocation, an exalted stands fast. That's what makes them exalted. They are above that.
It wasn't self defence, they were not attacking you.
You were the one that made a pre-emptive attack because you thought that they might do so.
It boils down to exalted characters don't whip out the uzi and start shooting because someone looked at her funny and they look they might not be nice people. Or even if they're making innuendoes and lewd comments toward her person.
If they do, they're not exalted, just normal people.
An exalted character isn't just nice, or a goody two-shoes. She's a shining beacon that makes a paladins look like a rogue in comparison on the scale of virtue, goodness, and all of that.
IMO, you should have all tied down before the game just what being exalted entailed in your game, because the BOED is fairly vague (the list it gives is far from exhaustive, and only covers the more general requirements).
For example, how far does being exalted go? If you see eagles starving on the road, are you expected to let them feast on your flesh to sate their hunger and save their lives? Hey, it has been done, so...
This way, the player does not have to suffer just because the DM might have a stricter interpretation of what exalted means (sometimes unfairly so). If an exalted nun is allowed to whip out an uzi and blat everyone in your game, then so be it, but at least confirm it beforehand.;)
Some of you might be tempted to argue that as a rp feat, determining mechanicwise what you can or cannot do is metagaming. But it is exactly because of this that I feel it is even more crucial to properly delineate what you are allowed to do, so that there is no confusion or conflict of interests.
Rather, both of you played the game, each with their own different interpretation of what exalted required.
I have nothing against alignment traps, provided that everyone is on the same frequency. This way, the outcome can then be adjudicated more fairly.
Now what does Mother Theresa do?
Pull out a knife and say back off or pepper spray: just like the OP did.
Remember, only the Mage used the Uzi: it is not like the OP asked him to.
Pull out a knife and say back off or pepper spray: just like the OP did.
Remember, only the Mage used the Uzi: it is not like the OP asked him to.
Thats not what the OP did. At all. We reading the same thing?
She did not say back off, and shapeshift isn't the equivalent of pepper spray.
She pulled out the uzi and fired at the guy. No warning was made. Luckily, she missed. The best you could hope to argue is that Mother Theresa was aiming for the guy's leg.
My idea was to attack and scare him off and run alway.
Ok. Now I see what you are missing. You wanted to attack to scare him and then run away. To attack him you needed to charge towards him, right? So to run away you felt it necessary to run towards the "threat". As I stated earlier, that's ok for Bob the Adventurer. You are not Bob, however, you are Exalted. What's your speed through the woods in wolf form? What's the speed of an armored man through the woods? You were in no danger where you stood and could have fled without a problem. Swift into wolf and suprise round a run action or at least double move. And get away. That's the difference you need to see. Attack is not the only viable form of self defense. Run. If that fails then attack the threat. But only once you identify it as a threat.
Attacking Orcs is "ok" because in a D&D world (barring a houseruled exception but I didn't see a mention of that) orcs are evil. They are known to be murderous and vile creatures. Men, OTOH, are not always evil. You need to do more investigation before attacking them. When you say "how come it's ok to attack the orcs without talking to them first, but not humans?" you are implying that attacking humans on sight is ok. It is. For an evil character. What you really need to ask is if maybe you should try talking with orcs before killing them if this is truly a concern. Again, a normal character would not need to, but Exalted is a higher standard and if you feel that having a double standard is a problem, erring towards unprovoked attack is not the way to go.
All that said, I still think it was a DM set up and you need to talk it out. Find out what he expects from an Exalted character and see if it's the same things you beleive. If not, compromise. But the behavior expected of you needs to be clear.
Ok. Now I see what you are missing. You wanted to attack to scare him and then run away. To attack him you needed to charge towards him, right? So to run away you felt it necessary to run towards the "threat". As I stated earlier, that's ok for Bob the Adventurer. You are not Bob, however, you are Exalted. What's your speed through the woods in wolf form? What's the speed of an armored man through the woods? You were in no danger where you stood and could have fled without a problem. Swift into wolf and suprise round a run action or at least double move. And get away. That's the difference you need to see. Attack is not the only viable form of self defense. Run. If that fails then attack the threat. But only once you identify it as a threat.
Attacking Orcs is "ok" because in a D&D world (barring a houseruled exception but I didn't see a mention of that) orcs are evil. They are known to be murderous and vile creatures. Men, OTOH, are not always evil. You need to do more investigation before attacking them. When you say "how come it's ok to attack the orcs without talking to them first, but not humans?" you are implying that attacking humans on sight is ok. It is. For an evil character. What you really need to ask is if maybe you should try talking with orcs before killing them if this is truly a concern. Again, a normal character would not need to, but Exalted is a higher standard and if you feel that having a double standard is a problem, erring towards unprovoked attack is not the way to go.
All that said, I still think it was a DM set up and you need to talk it out. Find out what he expects from an Exalted character and see if it's the same things you beleive. If not, compromise. But the behavior expected of you needs to be clear.
That was a mistake I made. It has been more than a year since I´ve played D&D and I mistaked mobility feat (that you get as shapechange druid in wolf form) with spring attack.
I attacked him and moved alway. Then I realized my mistake and remembered that I had mobolity, not spring attack. So, I "returned" to the spot just before the bandit.
That was a mistake I made. It has been more than a year since I´ve played D&D and I mistaked mobility feat (that you get as shapechange druid in wolf form) with spring attack.
I attacked him and moved alway. Then I realized my mistake and remembered that I had mobolity, not spring attack. So, I "returned" to the spot just before the bandit.
My point was that there was no need for an attack at all. You could have easily run away if you thought there was danger. Druids get the ability to move through the wilderness unhindered but the bad guys don't. And a wolf's speed is much higher than a medium armored human. Even if you are not of sufficient level to have that ability, a wolf still moves much faster than a human. Running was a viable option. Now, if you merely didn't think of it because you've been out of the game a while I can understand. But if your first thought after diplomacy seems to fail is "fight" instead of "flight" (when applicable, as it was here) you may have an issue with the defining traits of an Exalted person. You should strive to avoid conflict using all options available. Running may not be the adventurer's solution, but it is a more exalted path. Of course, sometimes you will not be able to avoid conflict. In those cases you must do what you must. As you said, Exalted does not mean stupid. It does, however, mean striving for a peaceful resolution.
Your honor, if I may be frank, a man approaching me with his sword out and his friends whispering to one another with arrows nocked in their bows behind him would certainly fill me with apprehension.
For the proportion of her response, they had lethal weapons out. The presence of a weapon can be taken as intent to use, especially when the weapon is in hand and readied. They had such lethal means of harm out in the open and were approaching her with such weapons when she was herself unarmed. Thus, her shifting into a form that possesses lethal weaponry seems to be a response with proportional force.
We also still don't know what the intent of her attack was. For all we know, she may have chosen wolf form in order to trip the man with the blade, or she may have intended to deal subdual damage. That part of it is still up in the air, however.
Were she to have shifted form and growled without first having made diplomatic efforts, I would disagree. What this group of men did is the equivolent. They did not say anything to her beyond the comment of how dangerous the woods were, much less anything in response to her efforts at diplomacy.
The vagueness of aggressive behavior is a valid point to an extent. As for her wild shaping and growling to warn him off, I can't help but feel like that should not have been necessary.
She approached them, unarmed, and made an attempt at peaceful discussion, I assume stating her intentions to the group. The facts as presented are that they did not say anything in response to her comments, but rather pulled their weapons and said it was dangerous for a girl to be walking around there. To me, this is a comment that could go either way in the way of intent. They could just as easily have said that in a way indicative of how dangerous THEY were as saying it in a way that meant "Let's help you get on home, lass." It's difficult to prove something like tone of voice in a court of law. So at least part of this will depend on the way in which the men formerly exchanging "loot" (this label stands, since the DM labeled it as such) said their words, which would in turn depend on how well the DM roleplayed his intent with the words.
If in his mind the DM meant for them to say it in a generous, helpful way, but at the table he said it the way thugs in Central Park WOULD say it, the character, I think, was justified in her actions. The fact that she took the words as such and reacted accordingly, as well as the fact that the OP went so far as to USE the Central Park analogy, makes me believe that if these men were, in fact, helpful NPCs, the DM did a poor job in conveying such a fact, particularly with his emphasis on the way that he was eyeing her coin purse.
On another note, the protest that she was metagaming doesn't seem like it should carry so much weight, since the DM was delivering the metagame information. If the DM decides that the characters can tell it's "loot", or can tell that they are eyeing her coin purse, or what have you, that's the DM's perogative, and it is thus legitimate to act on such information.
Since you asked me to respond to your whole post;
Yes, I think your first three paragraphs are strong. Does the presence of a weapon allow an inference of intent to use? It depends, and I think in this case, not necessarily. Here, out in the woods, a presence of a weapon merely indicates that these men were armed and suspicious. Again, I place heavy weight on the fact that this is DND, and a woman walking alone in the woods could be almost anything. IRL, your argument would be pretty hard to fight.
As for the intent of her attack, we'd probably want to stick to self-defense. Self-defense is a complete defense to assault/battery charges, but it hinges on there being:
a) a prior assault/battery
b) a response proportional to the threat
The problem here is both A & B. And I suppose addressing element B is why you want to draw attention to the intent of her attack.
But the proportionality is important to your next point as well. The men are not required to say anything to her. She approached them. They bore their arms (and our biggest problem is that the OP's facts as given are unclear; were the arrows aimed at her or not? its not enough, I don't think, that one man was carrying a sword, if he was not brandishing it). A proportional response would have been for her to bear her arms, i.e., revert to wild shape. That is, unless there was an imminent threat. Could aiming nocked arrows at a person be an imminent threat? Perhaps, but the OP didn't provide us with enough detail.
As for their response to her diplomatic efforts, I think your argument begins to get more tenuous. The best case you have of their malicious intent is the fact that they were 'eyeing the gold.' But intent is one element of assault, and one that is usually dispositive. If they nocked their arrows at her, and it was not an accident, we have intent. The fact is, intent to assault alone is not enough to actually establish an assault.
Certainly, these NPCs were not helpful. But there's a huge difference between suspicious NPCs and bandit NPCs. And an exalted character, I'm sorry, cannot jump to conclusions if he/she would like to remain exalted. PCs can have an attitude of 'unfriendly' and thus: mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, and insult. None of these are offenses for which the law permits aggression.
I agree, the whole metagaming things doesn't resolve anything. It doesn't seem as if there was much metagaming here at all, and even so, it doesn't seem to bear much of an impact.
And a wolf's speed is much higher than a medium armored human. Even if you are not of sufficient level to have that ability, a wolf still moves much faster than a human.
But wolves are not faster than arrows.
Since you asked me to respond to your whole post;
Yes, I think your first three paragraphs are strong. Does the presence of a weapon allow an inference of intent to use? It depends, and I think in this case, not necessarily. Here, out in the woods, a presence of a weapon merely indicates that these men were armed and suspicious. Again, I place heavy weight on the fact that this is DND, and a woman walking alone in the woods could be almost anything. IRL, your argument would be pretty hard to fight.
As for the intent of her attack, we'd probably want to stick to self-defense. Self-defense is a complete defense to assault/battery charges, but it hinges on there being:
a) a prior assault/battery
b) a response proportional to the threat
The problem here is both A & B. And I suppose addressing element B is why you want to draw attention to the intent of her attack.
But the proportionality is important to your next point as well. The men are not required to say anything to her. She approached them. They bore their arms (and our biggest problem is that the OP's facts as given are unclear; were the arrows aimed at her or not? its not enough, I don't think, that one man was carrying a sword, if he was not brandishing it). A proportional response would have been for her to bear her arms, i.e., revert to wild shape. That is, unless there was an imminent threat. Could aiming nocked arrows at a person be an imminent threat? Perhaps, but the OP didn't provide us with enough detail.
As for their response to her diplomatic efforts, I think your argument begins to get more tenuous. The best case you have of their malicious intent is the fact that they were 'eyeing the gold.' But intent is one element of assault, and one that is usually dispositive. If they nocked their arrows at her, and it was not an accident, we have intent. The fact is, intent to assault alone is not enough to actually establish an assault.
Certainly, these NPCs were not helpful. But there's a huge difference between suspicious NPCs and bandit NPCs. And an exalted character, I'm sorry, cannot jump to conclusions if he/she would like to remain exalted. PCs can have an attitude of 'unfriendly' and thus: mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, and insult. None of these are offenses for which the law permits aggression.
I agree, the whole metagaming things doesn't resolve anything. It doesn't seem as if there was much metagaming here at all, and even so, it doesn't seem to bear much of an impact.
First of all, I appreciate the detailed response. Thank you.
As for some of this, the OP has stated that intent was to scare. I'm afraid I don't have access to my books currently, so I don't know whether attacking without intent to kill and attacking with intent to kill are on equal ground concerning losing one's Exalted status.
Another point too is that these fellows were doing the opposite of "avoiding" the druid; they weren't pulling their weapons out while backing to a safe distance, they were approaching.
Sorry if this seems hurried, I will edit for a more detailed and well thought out response later tonight.
But wolves are not faster than arrows.
They don't need to be. A simple double move of 100 feet will most assuredly remove the wolf from line of sight. No line of sight, no attack. If they had readied actions to shoot if he fled, he may get hit. Oh no! A couple damage taken to spare a life! And, if they were to shoot him in retreat, he would then be justified to respond in kind. You don't shoot something running away from you if all you wanted it to do was leave in the first place, right? So, at worst, this would have led to a justified defense of the Druid by his friend. At best, he flees and no one dies. No questions about his status ensue and everyone is happy.
That would be on page 9 under Violance. Hearing what she said. The people may have shown surprise at her entering camp and use words (we know not what type of checks the DM was going for), They were not commiting evil acts and was not attacking her. There was still hope for the encounter to end peacefully. She know her friend was covering her. She should have keep with dopl till it wasn't possible anymore. Then if combat started beat the tar out of them.
There are guidelines she has to follow unlike the reg group of PC's. So comparing her actions to your own PC's action will not do much good unless you play exalted. Please read those guidelines first before posting.
Try looking at them as something other then bandits. The DM told them they would be going with other hired NPC and this could have been his way of doing that. Also They never made a threating move. The guy approched with the sword in hand doesn't mean he is swing his sword and telling you how much blood you will spill on the ground when he is done. Caution is not the same as threating. They never said anything that would make you think they were to attack and she just attacked them because she thought they were bandits. And THAT IS RIGHT. She attacked them. If it was the same example and the group were cops and she took a swing at them while them (her not being part of the case and having just walked up on them).were on a case she would be in jail. It wouldn't matter if she hit or not. Unless you count how long she would have to stay in jail.
So if she was a reg PC's in that encounter then yes she was in the right. But for exalted there is no way. She is not allowed to go around starting fights with people just because she thinks they are bad people. And killing someone because they might just attack you is also a no-no. (NO IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT SHE DIDN'T ROLL HIGH ENOUGH TO HIT)
she wasn't just not attacked she was not even threated. As far as she has told us they were still talking with her when she attacked. Even if they had decided toattack. they were both know they were there so no matter who attacked first it would have been run by init counts. She would most likely still have gone first.
Incorrect, readied action (nocked bow) come before the Initiative. Really it depends on the bow mens readied action.
I see nocked bow =readied action.
Exalted doesn´t mean "kick my ass first and then I will do something".
When we looked at their camp later we found even more loot.
Mayve I should have let them attack me, kill me and then my ghost would react.
By the way, they were rogues (yeah, class levels in rogue). It would be awesome to see my druid getting five sneak attack in the name of exalted.
I made a vow of poverty not a vow of stupidity.
Exalted doesn´t mean "kick my ass first and then I will do something".
Actually.. it kind of does. I think you're severely underestimating the definition of "Exalted".
I made a vow of poverty not a vow of stupidity.
Its hard for me to sympathize. The title of this thread indicates that you lost exalted status, but in your second to last sentence in your original post, you indicate that you never actually lost that status. The DM decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Four guys with bows armed and one with a sword armed coming in my direction when I knew clearly (the DM told me) that they were bandits and the fact that I attacked was a bad thing?
Exalted doesn´t mean "kick my ass first and then I will do something".
When we looked at their camp later we found even more loot.
Mayve I should have let them attack me, kill me and then my ghost would react.
By the way, they were rogues (yeah, class levels in rogue). It would be awesome to see my druid getting five sneak attack in the name of exalted.
I made a vow of poverty not a vow of stupidity.
Umm. First off, the VoP issue has been quelled, IMO, at least. The issue now is with the Exalted status of your character and your understanding of what that means. I re-read the OP and found this:
Even so, my character was still coming in their direction, trying to talk with them.
Advancing on armed men you suprised with your sudden appearance in their midst is not exactly an unthreatening posture. You forced the issue by continuing your advance after they made it perfectly clear they would brook no further intrusion. If you really "only wanted to exchange information", why not stop and continue the conversation from where you stood? They readied their bows in response to the threat of you refusing to stay put. And if they had readied to shoot you, they would have as soon as you shifted into wolf form and charged their leader. A readied action takes place before the action it is readied against. No shots were fired at you so I must assume the men were simply showing caution. Remember, you invaded their space. They approached you because you were somewhere you did not belong. You kept coming anyway, refusing to budge on your quest for "information". Then you attack first- unprovoked.
This is still, IMO, a misunderstanding on both parts. A warning would be more than appropriate to handle it. Talking with the DM and slowing yourself down a bit would be best. Still, you didn't get punished at all. Really, reading your replies to some of the posts I get the impression that you have a very different understanding of what Exalted means than the rest of us. I suggest reading the description with your DM and having a discussion as to what both of your expectations are. That's the only way to keep this from popping up again. And again. And...
Advancing on armed men you suprised with your sudden appearance in their midst is not exactly an unthreatening posture. You forced the issue by continuing your advance after they made it perfectly clear they would brook no further intrusion. If you really "only wanted to exchange information", why not stop and continue the conversation from where you stood? They readied their bows in response to the threat of you refusing to stay put. And if they had readied to shoot you, they would have as soon as you shifted into wolf form and charged their leader. A readied action takes place before the action it is readied against. No shots were fired at you so I must assume the men were simply showing caution. Remember, you invaded their space. They approached you because you were somewhere you did not belong. You kept coming anyway, refusing to budge on your quest for "information". Then you attack first- unprovoked.
Which might be true...except that's not the way it went down. They didn't say "halt," they didn't say, "don't come any closer" or "what are you doing in our campsite?". They didn't act concerned that someone was invading their camp. Instead they greedily eyed her gold and made comments, while keeping weapons trained on her, that could easily be taken as intent to rob and quite possibly be taken as intent to ****. Instead of staying "stop right there and don't come any closer", they made comments like "a nice princess alone in these woods..." Furthermore, the character made an active attempt at diplomacy, which the player says culminated with the man with the sword, whose men had just made comments that could easily be interpreted as a threat of ****, advancing toward the druid with a weapon out.
Honestly, at this point I would have felt threatened as hell. If this were a real-life situation I would have run, as fast as I possibly could, to the nearest police station. If this was a dnd situation in which I was an exalted character, I probably would have tried to defeat them with nonlethal force, yes, striking the first blow if necessary, and take them to the nearest town--a bunch of bandits, who've been stealing from only the gods know who, making leering, rapist-esque remarks at unarmed women in the forest? I don't want to leave those guys around for an actually helpless woman to stumble across. I don't think the character was anywhere near out of line to shift at that point, especially since the player says he meant to try and scare them a little and then run away.
Personally, and I guess a lot of people here disagree with this, but I don't think that exalted means always waiting for the enemy to attack first. If you're being threatened by five opponents who you know, due to DM fiat or otherwise, are criminals, and who are saying things to indicate that you're about to become their next victim, there's nothing wrong with throwing the first punch. You shouldn't kill them, because you're exalted and you don't know for sure that their intent is to harm you specifically, but there's nothing wrong with striking the first blow to scare them off or try and take them in to a legitimate governmental authority--and that's what the character did.
The druid didn't kill them; it was her party-mate who used lethal force. While not predicting that that would happen may not have been the most intelligent move in the world, the fault is on the person who did the killing (and even then it's not all that much of a fault--one of the members of his party was being threatened by several bandits and was clearly outnumbered, and he likely didn't have much more information than that), not the person intending to use non-lethal levels of force. Personally, if I was playing the character, I would role-play her as feeling guilty over what had happened and feeling like she should have prevented those deaths, because that's how I feel an exalted character would probably react, but the character's mistake was one of misjudging what her companions might do if they saw her threatened--one of intellect, not of ethics.
In any case, it's good that the DM gave him a second chance, and I would once again recommend talking to the DM to find out what he thinks you should have done and what he expects from you in the future.
They didn't say halt. That's true. But did they need to after drawing weapons? I mean, seriously, do you need a flashing neon sign to explain that the Druid was not welcome? And he mentioned feeling as though they wanted to attack him. His response? He continued his advance. If he knew they were acting in a hostile fashion why continue pressing forward? That's going to set them even more on edge. They did not want him there. They made that abundantly clear. Yet he presses his advance. So who was being more hostile? The group with weapons readied or the intruder who keeps coming no matter what they do or say?
I never stated an Exalted person should wait to be attacked. What I am saying is that they cannot be presumptuous and rash. The Druid was both of those. If you're trapped in a corner with no means of escape and the men leering are certainly going to do something to you then by all means attack. This, however, did not even come close to resembling a fight or die scenario. I have already explained how fleeing was possible and would have succeeded. An Exalted person should also try non-lethal attacks first, IMO. The Druid did not.
It matters little whether the attack attempted landed or not. The result is still the same. Men died because of the Druid's actions. He attacked a man who did little to provoke it (even less considering the Exalted status) and his companion killed them all because of it. It's possible the Wizard would have killed them if the Druid wasn't there- and if that was the case there would be no issue- but he was there and they died because of it.
Creating an Exalted character is not only about the benefits. You need to play the status properly as well. Doing otherwise is ignoring a balancing factor and really not doing any sort of justice to the intent of the ability. If you want to attack people for looking at you menacingly when you keep moving towards them, don't play an exalted character. There would be no argument whatsoever if that one word was not attached to the character.
The insistence of not being at fault, though, making up excuses for clearly idiotic and threatening (albeit not outright declarative of war, at first) actions, strongly suggests an attitude fundamentally incompatible with playing an exalted character. I'd consider stripping the status and the feats (but allowing replacements and providing opportunities to catch up to standard wealth quickly) just for that.
Not exalted, and plain stupid. Even if they had intended to harm her, she was a druid, and one with VoP at that -- the first volley would very likely have mostly missed, particularly if she took total defense, and even if they'd connected they wouldn't have killed her, and she could've mopped the floor with them. They were no legitimate threat regardless of intent. Worth a warning for sure, probably not worth stripping status and feats for a first offense, though.
The insistence of not being at fault, though, making up excuses for clearly idiotic and threatening (albeit not outright declarative of war, at first) actions, strongly suggests an attitude fundamentally incompatible with playing an exalted character. I'd consider stripping the status and the feats (but allowing replacements and providing opportunities to catch up to standard wealth quickly) just for that.
QFT. I agree that a couple of (probably) low level NPCs would not pose much of a threat. At least not enough of a threat for the Wizard to Incinerate them.
QFT. I agree that a couple of (probably) low level NPCs would not pose much of a threat. At least not enough of a threat for the Wizard to Incinerate them.
To be fair, the Wizard was reacting to what the Druid did. I personally don't have much of an issue with the Wizard backing up his rash friend in that way. If the Wizard was acting alone and flambéd them for no reason I would have a problem. But, as stated, the Wizard tried to help the best way he could. His friend got himself into a pickle and the Wizard took it upon himself to remedy the situation. If the Wizard frequently roasts people for less than that, however, there may be an issue.
EDIT: If the Wizzie is also Exalted, however, ignore the above.
@ Polly:
They didn't say halt. That's true. But did they need to after drawing weapons? I mean, seriously, do you need a flashing neon sign to explain that the Druid was not welcome? And he mentioned feeling as though they wanted to attack him. His response? He continued his advance. If he knew they were acting in a hostile fashion why continue pressing forward? That's going to set them even more on edge. They did not want him there. They made that abundantly clear. Yet he presses his advance. So who was being more hostile? The group with weapons readied or the intruder who keeps coming no matter what they do or say?
Well, the the thing is, pulling a weapon can indicate a lot of different things. Yes, it can indicate "get the hell out of my campsite". It can also indicate "I'm a bandit and I'm going to rob you, as you appear to be unarmed and helpless." All of the subsequent body language and conversation seemed to indicate the latter. Why say things along the lines of "an innocent princess shouldn't be out here in these scary woods alone" when you can say "get out of our camp," if the latter is what you mean?
I never stated an Exalted person should wait to be attacked. What I am saying is that they cannot be presumptuous and rash. The Druid was both of those. If you're trapped in a corner with no means of escape and the men leering are certainly going to do something to you then by all means attack. This, however, did not even come close to resembling a fight or die scenario. I have already explained how fleeing was possible and would have succeeded. An Exalted person should also try non-lethal attacks first, IMO. The Druid did not.
I'm sorry for attributing the "wait to be attacked" statement to you. That was from a couple of other people posting in the thread, and I should have specified that. Anyway, you're correct that an exalted person should generally try to avoid killing people except as a last resort. Except, according the player, he shifted into the wolf to do two things: make a few snapping, snarling attacks to try and scare them and show he wasn't as helpless as they seemed to think, and then run if that didn't work out. While he wasn't using specifically non-lethal damage that I know of, he did say that his intent was not to kill. So he was using a non-deadly level of force, and his intent was to run if they didn't flee. That sounds like trying to avoid killing to me.
It matters little whether the attack attempted landed or not. The result is still the same. Men died because of the Druid's actions. He attacked a man who did little to provoke it (even less considering the Exalted status) and his companion killed them all because of it. It's possible the Wizard would have killed them if the Druid wasn't there- and if that was the case there would be no issue- but he was there and they died because of it.
I think you're equating cause and guilt. They aren't the same. Yes, the characters actions led, in terms of causality, to the deaths of those men. But she didn't intend for them to die. She didn't intend for them to even be seriously hurt. She was trying to scare them off. She had no intent to kill, and furthermore did not land the killing blow--nor did she ever even attempt to land such a blow. If I start fistfight with someone and then somebody I know, who I didn't even know was there, shoots that person, am I a murderer?
Creating an Exalted character is not only about the benefits. You need to play the status properly as well. Doing otherwise is ignoring a balancing factor and really not doing any sort of justice to the intent of the ability. If you want to attack people for looking at you menacingly when you keep moving towards them, don't play an exalted character. There would be no argument whatsoever if that one word was not attached to the character.
She didn't attack someone because they looked at her menacingly. She attacked a group of known criminals with weapons out who were making comments that indicated intent to harm. At that point, I think a normal good character would be well within their rights to defend themselves by whatever means they deemed necessary. But you're right. The character wasn't a normal good character. She was exalted. So instead of trying to fight them with whatever level of force turned out to be necessary, she specifically tried to scare them with a few bites, with the contingency plan of running away if it failed.
Yeah, she made some dumb decisions. She shouldn't have advanced on the guys at the start when she was trying to negotiate. She might have foreseen that her comrades were around somewhere and might react badly if she stopped to think about it. But nowhere do I see actions that are morally unsuitable to an exalted player, so much as I see a character who felt extremely threatened (as I think any woman would if offered statements that could sound like a threat of ****) making several errors of logic and common sense.
In any case, if you disagree, that's fine. I guess we just have different ideas ourselves of what exactly exalted behavior constitutes.
But she didn't intend for them to die. She didn't intend for them to even be seriously hurt. She was trying to scare them off. She had no intent to kill, and furthermore did not land the killing blow--nor did she ever even attempt to land such a blow.
So we give the benefit of the doubt, in regards to intent, to the druid, but not the bandits? Sure they were muttering really suspicious and threatening things, but I've heard worse come out of US marines in a packed Denny's. Something about being manly and looking threatening. You can't always take it at face value. Could just be a bunch of jerks trying to look tough in front of their friends.
If I start fistfight with someone and then somebody I know, who I didn't even know was there, shoots that person, am I a murderer?
No, but you're an ***hole who hangs out with murderers. Not only is that questionable for an exaulted character to be doing, but you'd also be responsible for bringing him in.
Well, the the thing is, pulling a weapon can indicate a lot of different things. Yes, it can indicate "get the hell out of my campsite". It can also indicate "I'm a bandit and I'm going to rob you, as you appear to be unarmed and helpless." All of the subsequent body language and conversation seemed to indicate the latter. Why say things along the lines of "an innocent princess shouldn't be out here in these scary woods alone" when you can say "get out of our camp," if the latter is what you mean?
Assuming it was the latter situation (I'm not arguing it, either), we still have a problem. If he knew they were going to rob him, or even if he felt that way, why was he still moving towards them? Getting closer to the bandit was a provocative action. The response should have been to flee, which would have been ridiculously easy as a wolf. Maintaining an advance against probable robbers would be fine for an adventurer. This, however, is an Exalted character and as such should have exhausted all options before attacking. Including attempting to run.
The short of it: "I'm a bandit and I'm going to rob you, as you appear to be unarmed and helpless." = "Get the hell out of my campsite".
I'm sorry for attributing the "wait to be attacked" statement to you. That was from a couple of other people posting in the thread, and I should have specified that. Anyway, you're correct that an exalted person should generally try to avoid killing people except as a last resort. Except, according the player, he shifted into the wolf to do two things: make a few snapping, snarling attacks to try and scare them and show he wasn't as helpless as they seemed to think, and then run if that didn't work out. While he wasn't using specifically non-lethal damage that I know of, he did say that his intent was not to kill. So he was using a non-deadly level of force, and his intent was to run if they didn't flee. That sounds like trying to avoid killing to me.
No problem. And it did need to be said.
This little bit from the OP refutes your claim of non-violent intent, however:
I then transformed into a wolf and attacked the one who was coming with a short sword in my direction
He did later express trying to scare the man and then run. After people stated his actions were less than Exalted, I might add. But, placing my faith in his truthfullness, there is still the same problem. Why run towards and attack something you plan on running away from? It makes no sense. It is aggressive and will produce a violent reaction. Leaving was the correct choice. It was not the path taken.
I think you're equating cause and guilt. They aren't the same. Yes, the characters actions led, in terms of causality, to the deaths of those men. But she didn't intend for them to die. She didn't intend for them to even be seriously hurt. She was trying to scare them off. She had no intent to kill, and furthermore did not land the killing blow--nor did she ever even attempt to land such a blow. If I start fistfight with someone and then somebody I know, who I didn't even know was there, shoots that person, am I a murderer?
I never tried to say I could win a murder case, here. The issue is that these men were killed as the direct result of the actions of an Exalted character. If the Druid was not Exalted, I'd have never mentioned it. The issue here is a higher level of responsibility. If I run over someone while I'm driving home and they die, whether I meant to or not really doesn't mean a whole lot in the "Exalted" way of seeing things. The guy is still dead. And here, without the provocative actions of the Druid, the results would have been different. Even if the Wizard still killed them, the Druid would be absolved. He should have ran. He, instead, forced a fight and a reaction from his friend. A normal adventurer would have no problems. An Exalted adventurer is held to a higher standard.
And considering the fact that the Druid tried to "scare" them first is sketchy at best, I see the resposibility being clearly on the Druid. Again, if the goal was to flee, why not just flee?
She didn't attack someone because they looked at her menacingly. She attacked a group of known criminals with weapons out who were making comments that indicated intent to harm. At that point, I think a normal good character would be well within their rights to defend themselves by whatever means they deemed necessary. But you're right. The character wasn't a normal good character. She was exalted. So instead of trying to fight them with whatever level of force turned out to be necessary, she specifically tried to scare them with a few bites, with the contingency plan of running away if it failed.
Again, why not just leave? He had the means and the reason, yet he decided to "frighten" a group of hostile, armed men. Seems like the most illogical choice to make, no? If all you want to do is leave, why scare them first? Just leave. That's the main problem here. They did not start this in any way. The Druid did.
Yeah, she made some dumb decisions. She shouldn't have advanced on the guys at the start when she was trying to negotiate. She might have foreseen that her comrades were around somewhere and might react badly if she stopped to think about it. But nowhere do I see actions that are morally unsuitable to an exalted player, so much as I see a character who felt extremely threatened (as I think any woman would if offered statements that could sound like a threat of ****) making several errors of logic and common sense.
That makes perfect sense to me. Illogical actions in the face of a dire situation (only percieved that way or not) that led to a poor outcome. However, it's the argumentative nature of the player that has given some of us concern. He seems to think he was perfectly in the right and made no mistakes. That's why this continues. It could all be resolved by the player simply taking more time to assess these situations in more detail. Then he should think about what an Exalted character should do and do it. Acting rashly is not Exalted, IMO. The DM should also stop setting up "alignment traps" and giving the players metagame knowledge. That had a hand in this, as well. He needs to see that being Exalted means he needs to change his playstyle from that of a normal character to one of higher morality. He's close, but isn't quite there, IMO.
In any case, if you disagree, that's fine. I guess we just have different ideas ourselves of what exactly exalted behavior constitutes.
That may be the case. I hope my post here cleared up my position. If you still feel we differ too much, that's fine. I appreciate your civility in this discussion. Topics like this can degenerate quickly and if more people approached them in the way you did a lot less would.
A friend of mine that was hiding far alway in the bushes threw a fireball killing the other four in just one round.
I saw it suggested that the druid was unaware that the wizard was there. This is clearly not the case. They were traveling together. There is no reason to suspect that the druid was unaware of the backup.
Many have also suggested that the group of men were not clearly communicating whether they wanted to take advantage of her or be left alone. The druid likewise did not communicate that she felt apprehensive about their behavior, nor did she communicate that she desired them to leave the area.
"Answer my questions or leave immediately, or you will all perish instantly in a fiery ball of death!"
She made no effort to communicate their imminent peril. She sucker punched them.
Actually.. it kind of does. I think you're severely underestimating the definition of "Exalted".
I agree. I think the DM agrees. Rather than taking the DMs hint, she's choosing to struggle against it. Conform to his idea of Exalted or be prepared to lose that status. The DM sets the alignment definitions, it's as simple as that. Start with asking him how he expected an Exalted character to act in that situation.
Anyway, you've brought up a lot of good points, and I think I agree with you a lot more than I thought I did. Kudos to you, as well, for keeping it civil.
I agree, Zombie_Babies, that simply fleeing from the start would have been the better, more exalted course of action. It just seems to me that the course that the druid chose, while the ending was tragically unintended, was not entirely incompatible with exalted behavior either.
Anyway, you've brought up a lot of good points, and I think I agree with you a lot more than I thought I did. Kudos to you, as well, for keeping it civil.
When my posts are met with replies such as yours I find it easy to keep my rebuttals civil. It is nice to exchange opinions in this way. And I see that we do agree on the majority of the issues we spoke of. And that's good enough for me.
Happy gaming, Polly.About he raping, I was joking.
But you all need to realize that I tried to reason with them. Although they looked dangerous, my character tried to talk with them using diplomacy and succeded on it.
She only attacked when he was only 20ft from her and still aproaching with a shortsword on his hand and when a friend of his told another that she was a "princess" with a meaning that looked like they were going to do something evil. And if they were going to help me, why the first guy kept looking with a greedy eye to my gold?
Anyway, no matter how suspicious they could´ve been about my character, I just couldn´t wait to see them possibly attacking me (one attack with a shortsword and FOUR with arrows).
And c´mon! To me, the DM just made up the story about helping us. Why would he made a group of clearly evil and dangeroulsy bandits that would have "help" us?
I trully believe that I tried to talk and make everything ok, but when the character saw that they were planing doing something with her, she acted in self-defence.
This is my what I was trying to get at. There is no way she could have read there lips is if the wizard centered the fire ball behide the men by 10' and I still don't think the spell would have hit all of them without being center in the mens which would means the 5th man died in the fire ball too.
A friend of mine that was hiding far alway in the bushes threw a fireball killing the other four in just one round.
How could the men been with in 30' of her and behide the first man and the first man not get hit by the fireball. I think the DM added a distance mod to the DC roll and she failed and read the lips wrong. Or the 1st man was hit with the fireball.
Also I seen someone say that stealing was an evil act. I'm afraid that would a unlawful act but not evil unless they killed they people first. The loot could have easily come from the orc in the forest.
Not really.
Yes, the characters actions led, in terms of causality, to the deaths of those men. But she didn't intend for them to die. She didn't intend for them to even be seriously hurt. She was trying to scare them off. She had no intent to kill, and furthermore did not land the killing blow--nor did she ever even attempt to land such a blow. If I start fistfight with someone and then somebody I know, who I didn't even know was there, shoots that person, am I a murderer?
An excellent point. No, you wouldn't be a murderer, but you might be an accomplice to murder, as there might be a conspiracy to murder.
That could be enough to strip exalted status.
I am the DM.
Not really.
you have said that before but not said anything else?????
The action was not self-defense. The PC had the option of peacefully withdrawing at all times. If anything, the bandits have the self-defense claim. The Druid does not have some special right to walk into any environment or situation uninvited. The Druid was invading their space (though not clearly bounded as their property). They were not pursuing, encroaching on, or attacking the Druid or her party at any point in this narrative. None of them made any attack. Maybe they would have, but they all died too soon. The druid did attack first, she just failed to succeed in that attack.
No, Lecen, I’m not joking. The Central Park analogy doesn’t hold any water. The Druid had every opportunity to avoid the confrontation, and in your analogy you forgot to mention the elite sniper team covering the poor lost girl in Central Park. By the way, this isn’t Central Park, and your Exalted Druid isn’t some lost tourist. It’s a very bad place that the PC entered, knowing full well it was a bad place, and that she was being heroic in so doing. The analogy is junk.
The threats of sword and arrows aren’t very credible either. Many posters are equating them to real-world weapons pointed at a read-world human, which is inaccurate. What are the odds that the Druid could have died in a single round of combat? They might as well have been spud guns and a cane pole. She is a weapon. Their weapons aren’t effective. The druid has no reason to believe that she is in mortal danger, but she attacks anyway.
That the bandits are equally guilty – or even guilty to a greater extent – is also irrelevant unless they are exalted bandits. This is not a level playing field by any stretch. The Druid has put herself at a disadvantage by taking this path. She needs to live with that all the time, even when it might get her killed. This is not a topic for a jury, and an exalted character is not entitled to that sort of consideration from the powers that bestow supernatural favor on them.
Most people in dangerous situations try to look dangerous, especially people who are insecure. That’s not an excuse to open fire. Honestly, if five day laborers in a bad neighborhood just got paid, how much differently would you expect them to act? If she knows the woods are full of bandits, so do they _even if they aren’t the bandits_. I don’t even see it as a trap. This is how I would expect people to act in this environment.
As far as I can see from the narrative, there is no Good reason to fight these individuals. In fact, it appears that the cause would be better served by more humility. Even the meta-game knowledge that they were bandits does not change this. The Druid needs their cooperation, not justice (assuming justice was even an option).
[I’m sorry if I have the PC’s gender confused, but it is immaterial to the discussion.]
Oh, and highlight Clem-Da-Squig’s entire post to show the hidden text. It may make more sense then.
you have said that before but not said anything else?????
Highlight his post. Hidden text.
Like a wolf feeling threatened you jumped entirely by a mile (excuse the pun). Although true you didn't harm physically an opponent, you attempted 1st blood by actually attacking when initiative wasn't rolled while they were just making a "Ready Action" in case you might pose a threat. I will admit on my part I have jumped a gun more then once in a D&D game (I over think to much) but I can recognize a near same scenario.
Also those who say the Druid is innocent well... it goes under several headings of:
~ How do you know they weren't protecting themselves from a stranger who might just try and murder them
~ Why did the Druid stop using Diplomacy and figure it was a good a time as any to munch on "Bandits" in wolf form
~ How come the Druid didn't remember the money in your pocket would be not of concern to the Druid seeing as you would give it away anyway for the sake of another (Because with VoP you are Goody Two Shoes and could be very kind hearted if you donate money)
~ How come the Druid didn't think their might be "Spies" within the ranks of whatever bandits their were?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Get To The Short Of It:
By attempting to cause 1st blood and without initiative rolls in place and all though armed, they clearly had self defense over you because if its a forest filled with "Bandits" how do you know these weren't mercenaries (Note the Eying of the pouch of the gold as mercenaries do work for gold) who might be just a tad edgy as they might have been attacked by bandits maybe a night or two ago, and the fact they didn't shoot you or say "Give Us Your Money" or anything similar to that, so in fact you have a higher chance of losing your feat then maintaining it (Like would a Paladin still be a Paladin if he hunts the innocent thinking they were evil? Highly unlikely).
~ How come the Druid didn't remember the money in your pocket would be not of concern to the Druid seeing as you would give it away anyway for the sake of another (Because with VoP you are Goody Two Shoes and could be very kind hearted if you donate money)
What about the money? He just needs to donate it for a worthy cause, which suggests that he ultimately still has autonomy over where the money goes and how it is used. He is not necessarily obliged to hand it over to the 1st person he encounters if he believes that said person is not deserving.
~ Why did the Druid stop using Diplomacy and figure it was a good a time as any to munch on "Bandits" in wolf form
When you use diplomacy: if they start getting ready to attack: you definately get the feeling you failed at it and should stop before dig yourself a hole.
It is like when you say, " yes, you look fat in that". Nothing further you say will help the situation with your spouse.
You are a low lv druid, for goodness sake. If you know that a whole pack of bandits are going to attack you, it makes sense to ready yourself for battle, rather than futilely trying a path of action you know will not work (and will just disadvantage yourself, because you really are not all that strong yet). You can't take hits, so it is not reasonable to wait for a hail of arrows or a flurry of sword swings to hit you before you can reasonably conclude that "I guess that means the diplomatic attempt was an utter failure".
It seems some are also forgetting the major issue of her continuing to advance on people she deemed to be a threat. Why? Why would you approach those who you believe want to hurt you unless you want a fight? The bandits made it clear she was not welcome by drawing weapons (aggressive, but not an overt assault) and she decided to ignore the warning. They still gave her plenty of leeway by allowing her to continue approaching without opening fire- and for this they were rewarded with an attempted attack and a flaming death.
Most of the time combat is a give when the DM ask for init rolls. So combat, no matter what anyone say besides the OP or the DM (yes I saw the hidden text thanks), was not a fact that was going to happen. I would draw the line when combat was going to happen no matter what I did which was not the case here. Wild shape start at 5 level but more then likely she was higher then that. If the fire ball kill the other men there is no way they were above a CR 2 most likely a cr 1 with the leader being a 2 or 3. I'm going to say she was 6th and she can correct me if I'm wrong and that would have put her at 17AC not including dex or any feats. no way she would have be in trouble also doesn't includ the +2NA from the wolf form.
Wrong, wildshape does not = shapeshaft. It is a different ability (though one must never gain one to have the other).
Wolf form will be weaker since shapshift (even in wildshape wolfs suck). You become a bear with wildshape to be decent.
No one is saying she should have waited to be shot and stabbed before reacting. She should have run. A swift action to wildshape and a run (or double move) action puts her well out of line of sight. Unless they formed a search party and had Druids and wolves themselves she would escape. And she could yell for help (free action) before she left in an attempt to get backup from her friends. She chose to make a rash assumption and act on it. Which is fine, if you're not Exalted.
It seems some are also forgetting the major issue of her continuing to advance on people she deemed to be a threat. Why? Why would you approach those who you believe want to hurt you unless you want a fight? The bandits made it clear she was not welcome by drawing weapons (aggressive, but not an overt assault) and she decided to ignore the warning. They still gave her plenty of leeway by allowing her to continue approaching without opening fire- and for this they were rewarded with an attempted attack and a flaming death.
You seem to forget that the rogue with the shortsword was also advancing on her. They were both approaching each other. If they wanted her to leave them alone, I do not think approaching her is what they would have done. I also believe that one of them telling her to stop would have come in somewhere. I don't know about you, but if my characters walked peacefully towards a group of what were very likely bandits (which they wouldn't do), and they were greeted with four bows drawn with arrows nocked and one man approaching with a drawn shortsword AFTER I made a diplomacy check, I would be very inclined to conclude that I am about to be attacked. In addition, I would like to remind you that the OP stated that they mistook their Mobility feat for the Spring Attack feat, and intended to first attack, then run away in the same turn.
Now, if I were a bandit, and I was approached by an unarmed and unarmoured woman that I knew, thanks to Metagaming, had a moderate-large amount of gold in her purse, I would be very inclined to beat her up and take that gold. If she ran, I would be more than willing to chase her. If she changed into a wolf, then ran, I would be disinclined to chase her, but might consider it with the help of my four friends. If she changed into a wolf, bit me on the leg, THEN ran off into the woods, I would be VERY disinclined to chase her. IMO, nothing can change the mind of a petty person faster than a small bit of personal injury, which could be followed by more if he pursues the matter.
Also, apparently you ARE asking her to let her druid be attacked before she can respond, at least with violence, anyway. However, I would like to remind you that this is a game, and, as such, retreat is usually the dead last thing to cross a player's mind. That is one of the many rules of D&D that is generally accepted. I know that, were I "in the moment," I would certainly never consider retreating unless shown that it is neccessary. If I were in this situation, and I was so...well...that I decided it would be a good idea to approach the bandits, I would have acted the exact same way, and would be just as angry for being reprimanded. The prerequisite for a NG Exalted character to resort to violence should not be a surprise round of Sneak Attacks.
Violence should be used after diplomacy has failed, but before your enemies get the chance to gang up on you during a surprise round. Remember, this isn't a Lawful Stupid character, its a Neutral Good-Stupid character. Neutral Good characters take rash actions every once in a while, they just try not to make a habit out of it. The action WAS rash, but was still in keeping with the NG alignment. It was not Evil, not by a long shot, but neutral. It was not the BEST thing the character could have done, but it was nowhere near enough to bring the character's Exaltedness into question. Remember, intent is just as important as what happens.
If I had a group of followers, and I believe the next room might be trapped, so I order them to stay where they are until I check that room out, and, while checking the room, I accidently trigger a trap which causes the ceiling of the room where my followers are waiting to collapse, killing them and trapping me, am I a murderer? Of course not, I didn't intend for them to die, I intended to prevent just that. However, my actions directly led to their death, and I will regret that for the rest of my life. It is much like here. The druid attacked the bandits because, if they attacked her, the encounter would only end with one side dead or the other. However, by intending to attack the bandit then run away (Via what was thought to be Spring Attack), she hoped that either she would scare the bandits away and to put more distance between them in case of the battle. The bandit's wound would heal in a few days, and a few days is definently worth a few lives. However, the plan did not work out as anticipated, and the bandits got fried by a wizard in the trees who did not care what happened, one way or the other. The druid probably regrets that she ever tried it, and would acknowledge that, in retrospect, it wasn't the best plan, but she never intended for the deaths to occur. In fact she tried for the exact opposite, but it didn't work out.
However, according to you (apparently), the end is all that matters, not the intent. I reject that stance fully, and that is probably why we disagree to such an extent.
Wrong, wildshape does not = shapeshaft. It is a different ability (though one must never gain one to have the other).
Wolf form will be weaker since shapshift (even in wildshape wolfs suck). You become a bear with wildshape to be decent.
How is she weaker? What if she also has the spell casting wildshape feat?
How is she weaker? What if she also has the spell casting wildshape feat?
Natural spell can't be used in shapeshift (it requires wildshape as a prereq and you never get wildshape).
You can next round swift sction turn back to cast, but that leaves a round undefended as human.
Think of it like this, you are a group of hunters out trying to catch a bounty on the bandits in the dangerous forest and you see young lady with a full purse walking around alone and with no fear of the bandits or any other woodland monsters why isn't she scared? Maybe she is a friend of the bandits or a shapechanged monster, so you draw your weapons and advance wanting to ind out whats she's doing. She keeps advancing so is obviously powerful but you don't want to back down from what looks like a girl in front of your mates so you keep advancing. Meanwhile you mates are muttering the same and wondering what a girl is doing alone in the woods or they are thinking she will sleep with them if they rescue her. Without warning she turns into a wolf and tries to bite you then everything explodes and you die
I think it would have been fine if you had just warned them and asked them to explain the situation but you didn't so I would have warned you about what I expect from exalted and given you a 2nd chance
In my opinion that was an un-exalted action almost warranting a fall. I think you should have asked them what they were doing and who they were, you knew they were bandits but your character didn't. You really shouldn't have advanced.
Think of it like this, you are a group of hunters out trying to catch a bounty on the bandits in the dangerous forest and you see young lady with a full purse walking around alone and with no fear of the bandits or any other woodland monsters why isn't she scared? Maybe she is a friend of the bandits or a shapechanged monster, so you draw your weapons and advance wanting to ind out whats she's doing. She keeps advancing so is obviously powerful but you don't want to back down from what looks like a girl in front of your mates so you keep advancing. Meanwhile you mates are muttering the same and wondering what a girl is doing alone in the woods or they are thinking she will sleep with them if they rescue her. Without warning she turns into a wolf and tries to bite you then everything explodes and you die
I think it would have been fine if you had just warned them and asked them to explain the situation but you didn't so I would have warned you about what I expect from exalted and given you a 2nd chance
A diplomacy check doesn't entail explaining the situation and giving, if not a warning, a reason to stop advancing?
Natural spell can't be used in shapeshift (it requires wildshape as a prereq and you never get wildshape).
You can next round swift sction turn back to cast, but that leaves a round undefended as human.
I assumed that since she was a druid she used wildshape class feature. How do you get she was shapeshifting???
Also those who say the Druid is innocent well... it goes under several headings of:
~ How do you know they weren't protecting themselves from a stranger who might just try and murder them
~ Why did the Druid stop using Diplomacy and figure it was a good a time as any to munch on "Bandits" in wolf form
Because the comments from the bandits very much implied they were going to rob and **** her? I'd consider it an equal threat to exalted status to back down now and leave these guys so they can find actual prey.
~ How come the Druid didn't remember the money in your pocket would be not of concern to the Druid seeing as you would give it away anyway for the sake of another (Because with VoP you are Goody Two Shoes and could be very kind hearted if you donate money)
As others already said, VoP means the druid has to donate it. It also goes on to specify it should be to a worthy cause - otherwise, the next time I play an evil overlord, I'll just search for a VoP party to trail and ask for their loot in order to finance my plans.
~ How come the Druid didn't think their might be "Spies" within the ranks of whatever bandits their were?
Probably because INT usually isn't the highest stat of a druid and she was busy with feeling threatened at the time.
Also, apparently you ARE asking her to let her druid be attacked before she can respond, at least with violence, anyway.
Nope. Apparently, you missed the part where she should have warned them not to come closer.
The druid probably regrets that she ever tried it, and would acknowledge that, in retrospect, it wasn't the best plan, but she never intended for the deaths to occur. In fact she tried for the exact opposite, but it didn't work out.
I think thats exactly what we all have a problem with. The OP doesn't think there was an issue at all. He didn't want to believe that the bandits could have been of any help and that the DM was just trying to make him feel bad. That's a bad attitude to have as an exaulted character and kind of proved he isn't taking the feat as seriously as the DM would like.
However, according to you (apparently), the end is all that matters, not the intent. I reject that stance fully, and that is probably why we disagree to such an extent.
NOBODY SAID THAT. In fact, I think it's really important that you understand that intent is completely subjective. If we should believe the druid only intended to come to the most peaceful conclusion, we should also say that the bandits were just being cautious. Everybody could be excused for being a little rash and shortsighted, because hey, they're all human.
Except she's exaulted. She doesn't get to follow the ordinary rules.
I think, bare minimum, she owed them a warning. A lawful good police officer is required to do that. She sucker punched them. Heck, I think the fact that she appeared to them as a helpless little girl is entrapment.
Anyway, it's apparent that the whole situation was bad, and the DM shouldn't have set up traps like that. It probably happened because the DM doesn't like how powerful that feat is and that the OP isn't portraying exaulted the way he thinks he should. Especially at low levels it can be pretty game-warping.
EDIT:
I assumed that since she was a druid she used wildshape class feature. How do you get she was shapeshifting???
Shapeshift is a variant class feature that replaces Wildshape and makes the druid more balanced.
Nope. Apparently, you missed the part where she should have warned them not to come closer.
Wouldn't that have been part of the diplomacy check? Something like, "Hold on there, I just want to..."
I think thats exactly what we all have a problem with. The OP doesn't think there was an issue at all. He didn't want to believe that the bandits could have been of any help and that the DM was just trying to make him feel bad. That's a bad attitude to have as an exaulted character and kind of proved he isn't taking the feat as seriously as the DM would like.
Everybody could be excused for being a little rash and shortsighted, because hey, they're all human.
Except she's exaulted. She doesn't get to follow the ordinary rules.
But the ordinary rules of classifying acts into Alignments still apply. Exaltedness would only be brought into question if it was a Neutral act which bordered on Evil and lost on a purely Evil act. What was done was neither of those. It was PURE Neutral. The DM should not have reprimanded the druid, saying that it was a bad thing, and if she keeps it up, she will lose her exalted status. I have a problem with that because it implies that she did something that bordered on Evil. That did not happen. It was Pure Neutral, nothing worse. What I WOULDN'T have a problem with would be the DM saying, "Well, you could have handled that a little bit better, but alright, let's go with it." That implies that, while not the best course of events, they were at least acceptable.
Also, rashness is part of Chaos. The Druid is NEUTRAL Good. She is Good, Part Chaos, and Part Law. If she acted the way (most) people on your side say, she wouldn't be Neutral Good, she would be Lawful Good, and if she was Lawful Good, she wouldn't be a druid.
NOBODY SAID THAT. In fact, I think it's really important that you understand that intent is completely subjective. If we should believe the druid only intended to come to the most peaceful conclusion, we should also say that the bandits were just being cautious.
I never said someone SAID that. I put the "apparently" there for a reason. The reason here being that, from my PoV, it is IMPLIED by what I have been hearing from...certain people.
Also, of course intent is subjective. Why do you think this thread has gone on for so long? As for being cautious. I don't think that approaching the person which is making you cautious with a weapon drawn is exactly the smartest thing to do...from either side. I am not saying that the druid handled the situation perfectly, I'm just saying that she acted well ENOUGH to not call her exaltedness into question...YET. I agree that if this becomes a habit, that exaltedness is, indeed, questionable.
I think, bare minimum, she owed them a warning. A lawful good police officer is required to do that. She sucker punched them. Heck, I think the fact that she appeared to them as a helpless little girl is entrapment.
Wouldn't a warning/consolation be offered as part of the Diplomacy check? Isn't that what the police do? They make Diplomacy checks to try and get criminals to give up and turn themselves in.
Anyway, it's apparent that the whole situation was bad, and the DM shouldn't have set up traps like that. It probably happened because the DM doesn't like how powerful that feat is and that the OP isn't portraying exaulted the way he thinks he should. Especially at low levels it can be pretty game-warping.
This I completely and whole-heartedly agree with.
Wouldn't that have been part of the diplomacy check? Something like, "Hold on there, I just want to..."
Actually, this was something I wanted to bring up. I thought it was weird that the OP simply claimed he made a Diplo check, but he didn't express any of the words that were exchanged. It could have been anything from "nice weather we're having" to "Halt, hammerziet!". It bothered me a little that the OP glossed over that bit of imformation.
I got the impression that he was one of those players that only does the bare minimum of roleplaying. Where a diplomacy check is just a roll and not actually an exchange of information. Where a bluff is just a stat that you either maxed or ignored.
It would explain why the DM is out to get this guy. I'd be a little peeved to see a guy who barely roleplays, take a feat that reqires so much of it for mechanical reasons.
Note: Nope it was on that same post level 5. Although that would be -2 on AC:19.
Just curious - where does one draw the line when it comes to being exalted? Yes, you are supposed to be a paragon of virtue, but even that should have reasonable limits.
Good question. In this situation a verbal warning and reading an attack VS, approach, and shapeshifting would be solidly in line with the exalted status.
All kidding aside, any one seen the OP? He has not posted in ether thread for a while.
I´m still alive!
Well, although I read and re-read the Book of Exalted Deeds several times because I always enjoyed playing good characters, the way I see what most of the folks in here think that exalted means foolish and pacifist.
That´s weird because the book says that D&D is a game of violence. Fighting a bad person isn´t considered non-exalted but not letting it surrender, or at least not trying to reason with he before fighting should be non-exalted.
But most folks in here believe that someone who takes vow of poverty should give all it´s gold to bandits.
What?!
A group of armed men that comes in the direction of young unarmed woman and that are clearly bad people should be treated nice (in other words, I should have let them hurt me so that then I could do something).
They must have murdered, raped, sacked, hurted many innocent people before and to them, one unarmed elf girl was probably a poor commoner who got lost. But even son, I should have gave to them my gold and just run alway.
No, no and NO.
Someone who has done a bad thing must pay for it. To me, they deserved to be punished being defeated and taken into custody.
And the gold should (and will) be delivered to people who really need it.
And being exalted doesn´t mean I have to deal non-lethal damage. Five bandits who murdered, attacked, raped and stealed from innocent people shouldn´t be treated nice unless they´ve asked for (or if I gave them the chance to which I DID when I made a diplomacy checkbut they refused).
Treat equally the equals and unnequaly the unequal.
I´m still alive!
Well, although I read and re-read the Book of Exalted Deeds several times because I always enjoyed playing good characters, the way I see what most of the folks in here think that exalted means foolish and pacifist.
Nah, it means you're good first, practical second... if being good and being practical come into conflict (which they did here), you pick good. You failed to do so.
That´s weird because the book says that D&D is a game of violence. Fighting a bad person isn´t considered non-exalted but not letting it surrender, or at least not trying to reason with he before fighting should be non-exalted.
But most folks in here believe that someone who takes vow of poverty should give all it´s gold to bandits.
What?!
Giving all your gold to bandits, not so much. Jumping the gun and risking harm to people you might not have to, definitely not. If it comes down to a choice between giving up your gold or risking getting people hurt over a misunderstanding, drop the gold.
A group of armed men that comes in the direction of young unarmed woman and that are clearly bad people should be treated nice (in other words, I should have let them hurt me so that then I could do something).
They must have murdered, raped, sacked, hurted many innocent people before and to them, one unarmed elf girl was probably a poor commoner who got lost. But even son, I should have gave to them my gold and just run alway.
Inventing a sordid history for people to justify risking their lives is BS. And don't play the victim -- steadfastly approaching when outnumbered and when they had bared weapons just screams out that you've got significant concealed weapons (which you did) and intend to use them (which you did, and which you followed through on).
No, no and NO.
Someone who has done a bad thing must pay for it.
By losing their exalted status? ;)
To me, they deserved to be punished being defeated and taken into custody.
You don't get to make that judgement call, and you certainly don't get to risk people's health or even their lives with your arrogance. Now they're dead because of you.
And the gold should (and will) be delivered to people who really need it.
And being exalted doesn´t mean I have to deal non-lethal damage. Five bandits who murdered, attacked, raped and stealed from innocent people shouldn´t be treated nice unless they´ve asked for (or if I gave them the chance to which I DID when I made a diplomacy checkbut they refused).
When did they murder, attack, ****, and steal from the innocent? The only evidence we have is your claim that they "must have", which is unsupported, and is awfully convenient considering you're trying to claim you did nothing wrong when you're clearly guilty of aggravated assault, an accessory to murder, and possibly guilty of second degree manslaughter yourself.
Those men might have left widows and children that needed the gold. Perhaps you should look into that. As for Diplomacy, what did you say, specifically? Skill check or not, it'd have to be a damned good story given your behaviour. If one of my "friends" comes at me acting strange and looking like he's hiding a weapon, I'm ready to fight for my life even if I've known him for decades.
Treat equally the equals and unnequaly the unequal.
In other words, might makes right?
You don't belong anywhere near an exalted feat.I just finished saying that letting them hit you first is as dumb as it sounds and that you should have given them a warning.
(maekrix, a diplomacy check mechanically only alters the character's attitude toward you. You can't just assume that important parts of a conversation are glossed over with a roll.)
Nobody suggested you give them money and run. Ace was only pointing out in broken english that you shouldn't have been so concerned for your money.
Also, you had no proof that those people were murderers and rapists. You didn't even have legit proof they were bandits. You didn't investigate. They could have just been inbred mountain folk with no manners. Don't argue that they deserved death when you don't know what they've done.
You're starting to sound like a troll and I'm beginning to see why your DM was setting up traps like this.
(maekrix, a diplomacy check mechanically only alters the character's attitude toward you. You can't just assume that important parts of a conversation are glossed over with a roll.)
But you can't make a diplomacy check WITHOUT talking. Albeit, it should never be put IN PLACE OF talking, but talking is implied within the diplomacy check. I mean, some people like kicking in the door, killing everything, taking their gold/loot, then moving on to the next room. (I don't know why. I, at least, want a reason why we're kicking in the door, taking their gold/loot, and then moving on to the next room. :P ) If you bring one of those people into a different campaign style, you can't really expect them to start roleplaying right off-the-bat. In that case, making a diplomacy check INSTEAD of talking would be ACCEPTABLE; not encouraged, but acceptable for the first few sessions (this instance was in the first session). Now, if that's what happened here, I don't know. I would wager not, and would like to ask the OP, except for my next point.
To the OP: Stay off the boards. Seriously. The more you post, the less you seem like a victim in this instance. If I judged this purely by your last post, I would rate you as NE...maybe CE. I would also like to restate that your primary fault in this series of events is the you chose to be exalted in the first place. I know I would never let any of MY players be exalted because, eventually, they would do SOMETHING unarguably evil, then they'd get ****** when I stripped them of their exalted status, etc., etc. Your actions were arguably neutral, which is why you got off with a warning. However, the more I hear, the more I think you shouldn't be playing a NG character at all. Try CG/LN/TN/CN. They sound more in-line with who you are.
Edit: Corrected a grammar mistake.
That was a s***ty move by the DM. That said, the player acted in a way that wasn't consistent with his moral code. Leaving the situation alone, or attempting to resolve it without bloodshed would have been much more exalted. However this was a trap, and I likely would have fallen into it (One reason I don't play exalted PCs :P ) so I really don't think that the player should have their character screwed (Lose a feat, no gear, not much money) over it.
To the OP: Did you ever think that maybe the DM was giving you a way to give the gold away for a good cause. What if the "bandits" were going to help defeat the orcs for the money you had? That sounds like a really good cause, saving a whole town.
Note: I love how they quote the first sentence under violence, but then skip the first consideration for using it. Funny how that is.
I was all ready to fire off a rebuttal to your post quoting mine. I'm glad I waited. :D It seems as though we agree more than it first appeared. Upon reading your later posts, it seems that I saw something in the OP a little sooner than you did and that led to our apparent disagreement. Your last post (to the OP) pretty much summed up my opinion. We still see a couple of things differently, but nothing major enough to worry about, IMO, since the OPs latest rant. Thanks for saving me the time. ;)
@Maekrix_Waere:
I was all ready to fire off a rebuttal to your post quoting mine. I'm glad I waited. :D It seems as though we agree more than it first appeared. Upon reading your later posts, it seems that I saw something in the OP a little sooner than you did and that led to our apparent disagreement. Your last post (to the OP) pretty much summed up my opinion. We still see a couple of things differently, but nothing major enough to worry about, IMO, since the OPs latest rant. Thanks for saving me the time. ;)
You're quite welcome.
That is all.
The GM diddnt set him up to fall, the player chose to be agressive, when she coulda ran at any time.... an option PCs should always keep in their play books
the chance to run always existed.... the character chose not to walk the higher path.
the exalted character cant consider the what ifs the smae way a normal character. any argument of what if they intended to attack, or they could of been murderere/thieves is auto shot down because an exalted simply cant consider an uncertainty that leats to death, or even imprisonment for a day.
this is just bumped up, and you have no right to tell me what i can and can not post on, or have a conversation about, grow up no one cares if you want to talk about, or see this thread anymore.
im spiteful so im going to have to say that the thread has not been around long enough to necro, no ones digging up old threads and making them new.
this is just bumped up, and you have no right to tell me what i can and can not post on, or have a conversation about, grow up no one cares if you want to talk about, or see this thread anymore.
Spiteful, no kidding. No need to flame.
But if you insist on bumping, say why. Your first post said/implied nothing that had not been said/implied several times already. In fact, I doubt that anything can be said on the subject that has not been said already several times. So, unless anyone has anything at all to contribute, I ask(ed) that they refrain from making this thread take up space on the front page that could/should be given to another thread which has not been beaten to death.
I may have no right to TELL you what you can/cannot talk about, but I can inform you that there is nothing that anyone, including both you and I, can contribute to the thread and to just leave it alone and let it die.
I also never suspected than anyone cared what I wanted, but I believe that what they want is for exhausted threads, such as this one, to fade away and die.
Finally, there is a difference between the age of thread in days and the age of a thread in ideas. While, no, this thread is not ancient in days, it is ancient in terms of it's ideas. Even in days, the odds that anything on this thread would have any effect on the problem originally posed was low when it was first posted. Now, the odds are astronomically low.
In conclusion, you really only have three options with regards to this thread. You can leave it alone and let it die, as should have happened in the first place, you can flame me until either you give up or the moderators lock the thread, or you can attempt to begin the arguement again, ignoring the first 4.5 pages of this thread (except for the OP's posts) and the overwhelming evidence contained within to NOT restart this thread.
Perhaps I'm being cynical with my predictions; a very likely analysis. However, only time will tell.
and while i might of said things similar to what others have i certainly painted it in a different light and angle then had been previously done. and apparently your thinking very black and white.
also you didn't ask anyone to do anything, you told us to not post anymore, and then, turn around and told us what our options were as if it was impossible for someone to bring more light on the subject, acting somewhat know it all, you could of let it go with my act of spite, but alas you didn't, had to get the last word in. seriously how can you tell me that i'm so inferior mentally that i can not come up with a single thing to contribute the conversation? you just did that you know.
this and my last was out of spite, whats your excuse? right now it looks like some sort of narcissism or bad temper (and no im not mad at all... just spiteful)
i follow rightful authority, which on the forums is not you, but i wont less some random guy with an artificially inflated view of intelligence and self worth who obviously needs to get confronted on those issues in a healthy manner before reality slaps them in the face.
This thread demonstrates a few things, some of which I'll list:
If you find a large enough pool of opinions, someone is going to agree with you.
People's opinions don't change as a result of exhaustive debate in an anonymous setting.
People will argue the most minor points as though they were the foundation of the entire issue.
The more someone (OP) pleads their case, the more they reveal that they were never in the right to begin with.
Coming up next: A post by Maekrix Waere...
no see i did post the reason, it annoys you, and im spiteful
(Counter-arguement removed, see bottom of post for details why)
and while i might of said things similar to what others have i certainly painted it in a different light and angle then had been previously done. and apparently your thinking very black and white.
___
(Counter-arguement removed, see bottom of post for details why, but I will say that if you search through the first two pages for people who said the same things as you, you'll find them.)
also you didn't ask anyone to do anything, you told us to not post anymore,
, acting somewhat know it all,
I will give you that first one, simply because text does not transfer tone of voice, and I will give you the second one without excuse. I apologize.
and then, turn around and told us what our options were, as if it was impossible for someone to bring more light on the subject you could of let it go with my act of spite, but alas you didn't, had to get the last word in. seriously how can you tell me that i'm so inferior mentally that i can not come up with a single thing to contribute the conversation? you just did that you know.
I said that "there is nothing that anyone, including both you and I can contribute to the thread." I still believe that. However, I did not mean to imply that you were mentally inferior, just that (in this instance) you were wrong.
this and my last was out of spite, whats your excuse? right now it looks like some sort of narcissism or bad temper (and no im not mad at all... just spiteful)
Narcissism? Not likely. I'll be the first to tell you that I am extremely ignorant of a great many things, but when I see something I believe I do know, I like to remark on it. So I suppose that would be my excuse.
i follow rightful authority, which on the forums is not you,
I would never claim to be any sort of authority, rightful or not.
but i wont less some random guy with an artificially inflated view of intelligence and self worth who obviously needs to get confronted on those issues in a healthy manner before reality slaps them in the face.
The flaming is unnecessary. I'll acknowledge that I ran headlong into the proverbial lamp post, and have no problem with that being pointed out, but I ask that people refrain from attacking my character in the process (that goes out to you too, WilliamTanner [though I do agree with the four points in your post {except that second one, there is a miniscule chance they will change}]).
Now, in response to my own hypocrisy (and being a bit of a **** in the process) I am going to follow my own advice. I am going to retire from this thread, leaving it (and any forthcoming posts) to their well-deserved fate. I screwed up (big time). I'm sorry. If you have anything more to say to me, PM me.