Players are going to encounter a Satyr

[SangoProduction]

So, I'm not particularly versed in the lore of the fey, and I do need help to not just make it seem like a human.

Basically a young Satyr was abandoned after contracting a dangerous disease (particularly to fey). The party are tracking it down, and have incidentally already decided to produce anti-plague for it. Or at least a rough approximation of it. They've also picked up the satyr's dropped Darkwood short bow, which it no doubt highly treasured. The disease has already progressed quite far, dealing 7 cha and 6 con damage.

I'm wondering how it would respond to the group tracking it down with its equipment at the ready. And how it would respond to the inevitable "request" for it to give up its Darkleaf armor. It certainly wouldn't be looking to start anything in its deleterious state.
How would it change if / when they give it antiplague?

I heard that fey tend towards reciprocity - "you scratch my back, I scratch yours," and in saving its life, even if it's still damaged, it would probably give up its armor, and perhaps even help them with the upcoming final confrontation with the cult that started this mess. But I'm honestly not sure, especially not for satyrs in specific.

[Crake]

So, I'm not particularly versed in the lore of the fey, and I do need help to not just make it seem like a human.

Basically a young Satyr was abandoned after contracting a dangerous disease (particularly to fey). The party are tracking it down, and have incidentally already decided to produce anti-plague for it. Or at least a rough approximation of it. They've also picked up the satyr's dropped Darkwood short bow, which it no doubt highly treasured. The disease has already progressed quite far, dealing 7 cha and 6 con damage.

I'm wondering how it would respond to the group tracking it down with its equipment at the ready. And how it would respond to the inevitable "request" for it to give up its Darkleaf armor. It certainly wouldn't be looking to start anything in its deleterious state.
How would it change if / when they give it antiplague?

I heard that fey tend towards reciprocity - "you scratch my back, I scratch yours," and in saving its life, even if it's still damaged, it would probably give up its armor, and perhaps even help them with the upcoming final confrontation with the cult that started this mess. But I'm honestly not sure, especially not for satyrs in specific.

Wait, your players make a habit of asking for people's clothes in exchange for their services?

[SangoProduction]

Wait, your players make a habit of asking for people's clothes in exchange for their services?

Something of a habit, yes.

[hamishspence]

"We'll save your life from this disease if you give us your stuff"


is kind of a horrible thing to say, even if it isn't strictly evil.


And seeing as satyrs are Chaotic Neutral, they have no reason to abide by any agreement - especially not a coercive agreement of this kind:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/satyr.htm


Presumably, since the party vastly outguns the satyr, it would probably hand over its stuff - but afterwards, report the party's conduct to more powerful fey in the hope of getting the party's behaviour punished and getting compensated for its losses.

[NontheistCleric]

On the other hand, the satyr may not be that vindictive.

After all, even if the PCs do take its armor, they also saved its life. Perhaps it wouldn't exactly be in a helpful mood after the demand, but it might just be thankful to be alive and go on its way, rather than attempting to exact vengeance on people who are already attempting to combat this plague which is especially dangerous to fey.

In fact, considering the nature of the plague, it might still help the PCs even if it didn't like them.

[hamishspence]

Gratitude, a tendency to assume the best about people's motives, and so forth, are maybe more a Good thing than a Neutral one. Might depend on exactly how the PCs make their request, but if they do it wrong, I could see a:


"They have no intention of combating the plague as a whole, only of pressuring individual victims they come across into paying to be cured"

attitude being triggered in Neutral beings - with the players giving those beings the idea that the players are exploiting the plague purely to their own profit.

Good beings might not be resentful this way, but Neutral beings I could definitely see being resentful rather than grateful.

[NontheistCleric]

Well, of course, if they explain themselves badly, then the satyr will get the wrong idea.

Gratitude a Good trait, though? I would disagree. Anyone can feel gratitude for help rendered, even Evil people. It's just that a Good person would be more likely to let that gratitude induce a decision to forgive the PCs for the whole 'taking your armor' thing, whereas a Neutral person (like the satyr) would probably feel the gratitude but have that more balanced with the resentment for the armor-taking.

Thus, why I think the satyr would probably simply want to have nothing more to do with these people, except that if the PCs do manage to convey their intentions accurately, it might still help them because they are trying to stop a plague that is especially harmful to fey—since stopping that plague serves its own interests, especially if there are other fey it cares about.

In fact, as a Chaotic Neutral being, the satyr might even be more understanding than some others of the opportunistic nature of the PCs' actions.

It would take an Evil creature, I think, to be likely to weigh the taking of the armor so heavily over the life-saving that it would actively pursue vengeance.

[hamishspence]

In fact, as a Chaotic Neutral being, the satyr might even be more understanding than some others of the opportunistic nature of the PCs' actions.

It would take an Evil creature, I think, to be likely to weigh the taking of the armor so heavily over the life-saving that it would actively pursue vengeance.I could see Even Good people, who have been convinced that the players are greedy exploiters of the desperate situations of others, feeling that the players deserve some punishment rather than to be allowed to continue as they are.

"Opportunism" may be closer to "dark Neutral" than Evil - but even beings that would act exactly like the players, I suspect would be resentful at it being done to them.

So - if the players come across as exploiters, then Good, Neutral, and Evil exploitees are going to be more than a little upset.


"We see you are dying - but we won't save you unless you pay us what we want"


is, IMO, going to negate completely any gratitude that would otherwise be present and replace it with resentment,

as well as falling under the Leonine Contract (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LeonineContract)trope.



Requesting (not demanding) unspecified rewards (on a "you can decide how much you think saving your life was worth" basis), after curing the satyr, also with a strong emphasis on "remaining in plague-infested lands puts us at risk, and this warrants reward" - rather than demanding reward in advance,


is probably the only way to negate possible resentment and a "you're exploiters of others' troubles" attitude completely.

[NontheistCleric]

"Asking for remuneration in advance" does not necessarily equal "greedy exploiter", though. Even in the real world, there is charge for lifesaving treatments. I don't disagree that there would be some resentment, but I think you are overvaluing how much that satyr would think one suit of darkleaf armor was worth versus its very life.

Honestly, the attitude that the PCs should be obligated to simply give away their lifesaving treatment without first establishing what they want in return comes across to me as somewhat entitled, perhaps the kind of Good that tries to force everyone else to abide by its standards.

A Neutral creature, I think, would understand that few things in life are free, especially coming from total strangers. It's not like the PCs are asking for its firstborn child, after all. They just want one suit of used armor. Note that even under the Leonine Contract trope you linked, it is conceded that sometimes the contract is reasonable despite being leonine, and some armor for one's life would, at least in my view, fall under that umbrella.

Given that the PCs' intention, as stated in the OP, is expressly to stop the plague, all it would take is for this to be conveyed accurately to the satyr for it to not, at least, try and take revenge, and possibly even help, not for the PCs sake but for its own and that of other fey. Since the option is presented of the satyr possibly choosing to help them, it's also reasonable to assume this explanation has taken place, or that the PCs are planning to do it.

If the PCs were not planning to stop the plague and instead just make money off people who fall prey to it, then they would be a lot more likely to come off as exploiters, but that isn't what is happening here. If they explained themselves badly, perhaps, they might come off that way, but I don't think we should assume that is going to happen.

Moreover, if I were a powerful fey and this satyr came to me moaning about how the heroes who stopped the plague that could have decimated my people demanded from it one single set of darkleaf armor, I would personally just let it slide.

[hamishspence]

I don't disagree that there would be some resentment, but I think you are overvaluing how much that satyr would think one suit of darkleaf armor was worth versus its very life.

In a world as violent as D&D, one suit of armour can make the difference between life and death when running into a random monster in the woods. Though, to be fair, it may simply be a case of "increasing the number of things you have to run away from".




Given that the PCs' intention, as stated in the OP, is expressly to stop the plague, all it would take is for this to be conveyed accurately to the satyr for it to not, at least, try and take revenge, and possibly even help, not for the PCs sake but for its own and that of other fey. Since the option is presented of the satyr possibly choosing to help them, it's also reasonable to assume this explanation has taken place, or that the PCs are planning to do it.

If the PCs were not planning to stop the plague and instead just make money off people who fall prey to it, then they would be a lot more likely to come off as exploiters, but that isn't what is happening here.

I thought the OP's description was a bit ambiguous-




Basically a young Satyr was abandoned after contracting a dangerous disease (particularly to fey). The party are tracking it down, and have incidentally already decided to produce anti-plague for it. Or at least a rough approximation of it. They've also picked up the satyr's dropped Darkwood short bow, which it no doubt highly treasured. The disease has already progressed quite far, dealing 7 cha and 6 con damage.


it could be "fighting the plague as a whole" but it could also be "fighting just this satyr's infection, because they can profit from doing so".



Even in the real world, there is charge for lifesaving treatments.

And those who charge excessively, become hated.

[NontheistCleric]

In a world as violent as D&D, one suit of armour can make the difference between life and death when running into a random monster in the woods. Though, to be fair, it may simply be a case of "increasing the number of things you have to run away from".

At least the satyr would be alive to run away, though. Like I said, it's not that giving up the armor is no price at all—but it's definitely worth less than life itself.


I thought the OP's description was a bit ambiguous-it could be "fighting the plague as a whole" but it could also be "fighting just this satyr's infection, because they can profit from doing so.

I think


help them with the upcoming final confrontation with the cult that started this mess.

is pretty clear that they're intending to get to the root of the problem.

[hamishspence]

I think



help them with the upcoming final confrontation with the cult that started this mess.

is pretty clear that they're intending to get to the root of the problem.

Fair enough. Players should know though that trapping people into Leonine Contracts is going to make them disliked though - and put some degree of effort into avoiding the perception of this, if they don't want it to happen.

[NontheistCleric]

That's for sure. I don't think the charge of a suit of armor is excessive enough to prompt hate, as you put it, or even vengeance, especially considering the circumstances, but dislike, quite possibly, depending on the satyr's individual disposition.

[Zanos]

A scroll of remove disease is 375 gp. A darkwood shortbow is worth 30gp, and I assume armor isn't worth several orders of magnitude more.

Getting the service of adventurers to cure both your own life threatening disease and discover and combat the actively malevolent source of that disease for a few hundred GP worth of equipment is a steal, and I doubt anyone would 'hate' them for charging far under market value for their services, other than perhaps a local guild they had been undercutting.

That said Fey are notoriously shifty. I'd be hesitant to give one aid at all, considering what passes for Fey gratitude.

[hamishspence]

Darkleaf, not Darkwood.

It's in Arms & Equipment Guide. It replaces metal (only armour made primarily out of metal can be Darkleaf) Light Darkleaf armour cost 750 gp more than regular metal armour of the same type. The most expensive is Heavy Darkleaf (+3000 gp). And that's before masterwork property is included.

So, if the satyr is wearing Darkleaf Chain Shirt, nonmasterwork (the minimum cost Darkleaf armour there is) - it will have a market value of 850 gp.


So, yes, the players are charging more than twice market value for the cure. I'm presuming that "going after the source of the disease" is not included in the price.

[Zanos]

That's still pretty cheap for a delivered cure to your own life threatening disease + having a team of adventurers actively risk their life to put an end to a threat to your entire kind.

[hamishspence]

That's still pretty cheap for a delivered cure to your own life threatening disease + having a team of adventurers actively risk their life to put an end to a threat to your entire kind.

Making a young satyr pay for the entire quest is massively unfair to them. If the players are helping all the fey in the region, then all the fey should collaborate to pay (or the fey ruler can pay and then tax it out of their subjects).


A smart hero, when saving poor individuals from region-threatening monsters, does not charge them - they charge the ruler, who can afford this sort of thing.

IMO, you're only entitled to charge somebody full price for saving them alone - not for saving a huge group of people that happens to include them. If you save a huge group, then any charge should be distributed across the whole group.

A Satyr is a CR2 monster. A CR2 monster would normally be in possession of 600 gp of stuff. A CR3 monster would normally be in possession of 900 gp of stuff. This satyr appears a bit richer than a regular satyr (about twice as rich, with bow included), but it's still likely a case of "charging them everything they possess"


Not to mention that NPCs normally charge less than scroll price (scrolls are portable, hence the markup):
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spell

A 5th level cleric would charge 150gp, not 300 gp, to cast Remove Disease. Only a 13th level cleric or higher would charge more than 375 gp (13th level cleric would charge 390 gp).



A darkwood shortbow is worth 30gp.

Actually it's worth a lot more - Darkwood items are always masterwork:

To determine the price of a darkwood item, use the original weight but add 10 gp per pound to the price of a masterwork version of that item.

A masterwork Shortbow is worth 330 gp. A Darkwood Shortbow is worth 350 gp, since it weighs 2 lb.

Given how close to the price of Remove Disease scrolls it is - I'd say that bow, on its own, is sufficient reward for the cure. A player conscious of the whole "need to hunt to survive" thing would probably make sure that they get a regular bow to replace it.

"They dropped it so it's not theirs anymore" doesn't really apply when they dropped it because they were overcome with disease, and the party already know that's the case.

[NontheistCleric]

To be fair, given that this disease is apparently quest-centric material, and the PCs apparently had to produce some kind of special anti-poison to combat it, the prices in given in the rulebooks for traditional spell-based remedies may not apply.

[hamishspence]

To be fair, given that this disease is apparently quest-centric material, and the PCs apparently had to produce some kind of special anti-poison to combat it, the prices in given in the rulebooks for traditional spell-based remedies may not apply.
Curing individuals with the disease doesn't require a quest, but destroying the cult that triggered the disease, does.


A more interesting question is - How much should adventurers be charging the fey kingdom to quest on their behalf?

DMG2 provides a guideline of "level squared in GP, per day, plus a half share of treasure" for a party to hire an extra adventurer, lower level than them, to join the party.

However, if the hired adventurer is the same level as the party (or higher) they charge 10x this, and a full share of treasure.

I'd use the higher price, if the being hiring the party is either the same or lower level, or not going along with them.

If a powerful fey leader is going along to destroy the cult, and hiring the (slightly lower level than them) party members to help them, the lower price is more appropriate, and the leader gets twice as much loot as any individual player does.

A 1st level adventurer's time is not worth less than 1gp per day, and maybe as much as 10 gp per day.
A 10th level adventurer's time is not worth less than 100 gp per day, and maybe as much as 1000 gp per day.
A 20th level adventurer's time is not worth less than 400 gp per day, and maybe as much as 4000 gp per day.

[NontheistCleric]

Curing individuals with the disease doesn't require a quest, but destroying the cult that triggered the disease, does.

Of course, but my point is that this may be a special disease (since it appears to be directly related to an evil cult's plans and requires a special anti-plague) and thus potentially falls under the "Certain special diseases may not be countered by this spell" clause of remove disease, which might make reference to the established prices of that spell meaningless.

[hamishspence]

True. Still, calibrating one's expectations is important.

[SangoProduction]

Quite an interesting conversation.
And yes, this plague originates from an artifact, so the remove disease spell doesn't work.

[hamishspence]

Quite an interesting conversation.
And yes, this plague originates from an artifact, so the remove disease spell doesn't work.

Presumably, they've found the Satyr before they have a cure, are hoping to develop it, and are basically making the satyr an offer:

"Give us the armour and we'll try to save you and all the other fey"?

[NontheistCleric]

Presumably, they've found the Satyr before they have a cure, are hoping to develop it, and are basically making the satyr an offer:

"Give us the armour and we'll try to save you and all the other fey"?

From the OP, it seems as though they already have the ability to produce the anti-plague. Otherwise, they couldn't have decided to produce it as the OP describes, nor would the question be how the satyr's reaction would change when they give it the anti-plague.

Similarly, it doesn't sound like their decision to confront the cult is contingent on the satyr giving them its armor, as the event is already 'upcoming'.

[hamishspence]

From the OP, it seems as though they already have the ability to produce the anti-plague. Otherwise, they couldn't have decided to produce it as the OP describes, nor would the question be how the satyr's reaction would change when they give it the anti-plague.

Similarly, it doesn't sound like their decision to confront the cult is contingent on the satyr giving them its armor, as the event is already 'upcoming'.
So, the satyr only "owes them" for curing it.



"The price of confronting the cult" therefore, should only be requested from the ruling fey, after the event (since regardless of reward, they're already committed to it). Which is a whole separate thing.




They might be able to argue that the "market price" of curing an artifact-caused plague, is vastly more than the price of curing a regular plague (because they had to do lots of difficult stuff to get the antiplague) but I can't help feeling that demanding the armour as the price of the cure is going to fundamentally squander any goodwill that they could have gained.

[SangoProduction]

Presumably, they've found the Satyr before they have a cure, are hoping to develop it, and are basically making the satyr an offer:

"Give us the armour and we'll try to save you and all the other fey"?

Well, they've made a good antiplague, though a true cure would take more days of trial and error and getting the original artifact, even with their incredible checks.

I imagine that they'd be asking for the armor in exchange for the cure. I don't know for certain.

[hamishspence]

I imagine that they'd be asking for the armor in exchange for the cure. I don't know for certain.

I thought they were planning on demanding the armour, from the satyr, as the price of the antiplague specifically.

[NontheistCleric]

"The price of confronting the cult" therefore, should only be requested from the ruling fey, after the event (since regardless of reward, they're already committed to it). Which is a whole separate thing.

I agree with this, although Zanos has a point in that the satyr might be prepared to give the PCs more leeway due to the fact that they're already on a quest that will greatly benefit its people, though it of course would not be bearing, as you say, 'The price of confronting the cult' in anywhere near the same way as the ruling fey.


They might be able to argue that the "market price" of curing an artifact-caused plague, is vastly more than the price of curing a regular plague (because they had to do lots of difficult stuff to get the antiplague) but I can't help feeling that demanding the armour as the price of the cure is going to fundamentally squander any goodwill that they could have gained.

Well, that is sort of the entire reason one asks for a price in return for services—because the price requested is seen as more desirable than the beneficiary's goodwill.

[hamishspence]

Setting a price for saving their life, to someone who "will very soon die if not saved" triggers the whole Leonine Contract issue.

Yes, if the price is low enough, it might be "reasonable" - but it's problematic to do so at all.


"Asking for remuneration in advance" does not necessarily equal "greedy exploiter", though. Even in the real world, there is charge for lifesaving treatments.

The difference is that the doctors normally charge after they've saved your life, not before.

[NontheistCleric]

Yes, if the price is low enough, it might be "reasonable" - but it's problematic to do so at all.

Problematic, no doubt, but problematic enough to actually do anything about it when:

A. It's your life being saved and the price is your used suit of armor

and

B. The people involved are already on a quest to solve the underlying problem and thus benefit your entire community?

In my opinion, no. If I were this satyr, I might not like it, and I probably wouldn't have the highest opinion of the players. But I also wouldn't see much point in taking revenge, or imagine that the leaders of my community would be very interested in helping me take revenge, and I might even help these very questionable characters simply because their quest does benefit my entire community, regardless of what personal feelings I might have about them.


The difference is that the doctors normally charge after they've saved your life, not before.

Many people die from not being able to afford medical treatment.

[hamishspence]

If I were this satyr, I might not like it, and I probably wouldn't have the highest opinion of the players. But I also wouldn't see much point in taking revenge, or imagine that the leaders of my community would be very interested in helping me take revenge, and I might even help these very questionable characters simply because their quest does benefit my entire community, regardless of what personal feelings I might have about them.

Direct revenge I doubt would happen at all.

Indirect, maybe, of the "report coercive behaviour to superiors", after the quest is over, perhaps.


If the players cure lots of fey, on the way to the cult, always demanding huge rewards first, I could see a whole group of alienated, resentful fey, getting together to try and at least think of ways of putting the party off this sort of thing in future, and teaching them a "be more generous and less bullying" lesson.




Many people die from not being able to afford medical treatment.

Mostly long term things like cancer.


In the context of a plague outbreak, when there's a cure, "not treating the poor" means the outbreak will continue - with the poor infecting the rich before they die.

[NontheistCleric]

Direct revenge I doubt would happen at all.

Indirect, maybe, of the "report coercive behaviour to superiors", after the quest is over, perhaps.

Well, even if they did take the 'perhaps' option, it's doubtful that those superiors would actually do that much in retaliation to people who eliminated a cult that threatened their entire community.


If the players cure lots of fey, on the way to the cult, always demanding huge rewards first, I could see a whole group of alienated, resentful fey, getting together to try and at least think of ways of putting the party off this sort of thing in future, and teaching them a "be more generous and less bullying" lesson.

There's no indication that this is happening, though.


In the context of a plague outbreak, when there's a cure, "not treating the poor" means the outbreak will continue - with the poor infecting the rich before they die.

Nowhere is it said that this satyr is poor, and it's unlikely to infect anyone as it's already been abandoned by its friends and family for fear of just that. Not to mention that the PCs are intending to treat it, they just want to get paid for doing so with its armor. My point about charge for lifesaving services was merely to demonstrate that it happens, sometimes the charge is established prior to the actual treatment, and that there are actual people involved in such transactions who do not end up feeling the need to exact vengeance, even indirectly, on their physicians.

[hamishspence]

There's no indication that this is happening, though.

We're told at least that "demanding people's clothes in return for service" is something of a habit:



Wait, your players make a habit of asking for people's clothes in exchange for their services?
Something of a habit, yes.

If it goes as far as "demanding everything a person possesses in exchange for lifesaving" then it's going to be storing up trouble in future.




Nowhere is it said that this satyr is poor

darkleaf armour and a darkwood bow is double the satyr's Wealth By Level - I doubt it owns anything other than those 2 items.

[NontheistCleric]

We're told at least that "demanding people's clothes in return for service" is something of a habit:


Indeed, but it isn't stated that they have been consistently doing this to fey while on this particular quest, and furthermore, this is clearly the first time it is happening in this particular context, or SangoProduction wouldn't have made this thread to ask how the satyr might respond—he'd already have had to manage similar scenarios. It seems to me as though this is just a thing the party tends to do, across adventures.


If it goes as far as "demanding everything a person possesses in exchange for lifesaving" then it's going to be storing up trouble in future.

There is a vast difference between 'the clothes a person is wearing' and 'everything they possess'. If this suit of armor is in fact all the satyr possesses, he has far more pressing problems than whether or not he gets to keep his armor. And to be honest, it sounds like he already has those far more pressing problems, because he is dying of a deadly disease that has absolutely nothing to do with his armor.


darkleaf armour and a darkwood bow is double the satyr's Wealth By Level - I doubt it owns anything other than those 2 items.

Yet it is absurd that it should own these things alone. It must have food, a place to live, a supply of water, all those things, simply by virtue of being an actual character rather than a collection of numbers. Since its already well above the established WBL, why should it not be able to go a little higher? Or, if it really is some poverty-stricken hobo satyr, then all the more reason it would want to tag along with the party and presumably have its upkeep taken care of by them, and then the bow and armor are not just a price for saving its life from the disease, but also from homelessness and starvation.

[hamishspence]

Yet it is absurd that it should own these things alone. It must have food, a place to live, a supply of water, all those things, simply by virtue of being an actual character rather than a collection of numbers.

Satyrs live in tribal groupings - "bands" and "troops" in forests. They won't have much in the way of personal possessions.

Having the bow (and arrows, and armour) will help in in the task of surviving to return to his group (though he'll still need to make it clear that he's cured, for them to take him back in). They'll also help him "pull his weight" within the group when hunting, and against attackers.

[NontheistCleric]

Satyrs live in tribal groupings - "bands" and "troops" in forests. They won't have much in the way of personal possessions.

Having the bow (and arrows, and armour) will help in in the task of surviving to return to his group (though he'll still need to make it clear that he's cured, for them to take him back in). They'll also help him "pull his weight" within the group when hunting, and against attackers.

I see nothing in the Monster Manual that makes this the default, and the OP specifies little setting information, so I see no reason to assume satyrs work the way you say they do.

Moreover, while the bow and armor may help, a base satyr is far from incapable even without them. He can still survive, he can still hunt, just a little less proficiently than before. Yes, he may not be entirely happy about this, but it's not like the PCs crippled him, and they did save his life.

[hamishspence]

The listed environment is "Temperate forests" and the listed larger groupings are "Band" and "Troop"


https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/satyr.htm


He can still survive, he can still hunt, just a little less proficiently than before. Yes, he may not be entirely happy about this, but it's not like the PCs crippled him, and they did save his life.


IMO the party are morally safer if they request reward from the tribe as a whole, after returning him to them.

For that matter, if the tribe waited too long to flee from him after he got infected, the party may have the opportunity to cure others and gain extra goodwill, and better rewards.

[NontheistCleric]

Okay, but just because you live in forests, that doesn't mean you can't have no personal possessions or a home. It means little that their organizations are called bands and troops—elves and orcs and halflings are also listed as organizing into bands, and no one tries to suggest that these creatures should not have any property other than armor or weapons.

Just to be clear, I'm not disputing that satyrs organize into groups that can be described as 'bands' and 'troops', nor that they live in forests. I just don't see that this should preclude them having personal property other than armor and weapons.


IMO the party are morally safer if they request reward from the tribe as a whole, after returning him to them.

Yes, but considering the circumstances, even if it would be technically better for them to do that, it's unlikely that they would suffer any real repercussions for what OP is anticipating they will do, apart from getting no reward other than a used suit of armor.


For that matter, if the tribe waited too long to flee from him after he got infected, the party may have the opportunity to cure others and gain extra goodwill, and better rewards.

The question, though, is not whether this has happened or if the PCs should try and do that—the question is just about what would happen in this one interaction with this satyr.

[hamishspence]

I'm not disputing that satyrs organize into groups that can be described as 'bands' and 'troops', nor that they live in forests. I just don't see that this should preclude them having personal property other than armor and weapons.


True - I can easily see them carrying bags with "useful kit" in them.

With their low Survival scores for their level, they're likely to need all the edge they can get.


considering the circumstances, even if it would be technically better for them to do that, it's unlikely that they would suffer any real repercussions for what OP is anticipating they will do, apart from getting no reward other than a used suit of armor.

I'm thinking along the lines of

"What behaviours should Good characters avoid, if they wish to avoid eventually shifting to Neutral for doing them a lot"

and also (to a lesser extent).

"What behaviours should Neutral characters avoid, if they wish to avoid eventually shifting to Evil for doing them a lot"


"What behaviours should they avoid if they wish to avoid gaining a poor reputation with NPCs" is also relevant.

[NontheistCleric]

"What behaviours should Good characters avoid, if they wish to avoid eventually shifting to Neutral for doing them a lot"

and also (to a lesser extent).

"What behaviours should Neutral characters avoid, if they wish to avoid eventually shifting to Evil for doing them a lot"

"What behaviours should they avoid if they wish to avoid gaining a poor reputation with NPCs" is also relevant.

The points regarding alignment may not be that relevant, as we have little information on what alignment the PCs are or aspire to be.

As for poor reputation, it's possible. It's only that, considering what the PCs are currently engaged in doing, it seems unlikely that this would have a huge impact on their reputation, and even more unlikely that this satyr would try to get back at them by reporting them as you originally posited, both because the offense is ultimately not large and because it would be aware its superiors would probably not be very interested in punishing the saviors of the fey.

It might still recount the action, but in my view more as a part of telling an interesting story about how it got infected with the magic cult-plague and perhaps airing a small grievance, rather than as a genuine attempt to get the PCs punished.