Druid's Alignment

[noparlpf]

So I get the whole "nature is true neutral" idea, but it really doesn't quite make sense to me. Honestly, if anything, nature is chaotic neutral. There's that law of entropy thing going on. Further, the druidic avenger variant (which I like to use) has a much more chaotic feel to it than the normal druid. But what if I want to be a chaotic good druid? I really feel like the alignment restrictions on classes are sometimes too restraining. Would anybody here refuse to allow a chaotic good druid in their game, in the hypothetical situation where a player asked to be one?

[hamishspence]

I wouldn't. And at least one book (Champions of Ruin) has a Chaotic Evil druid- so there is precedent.

4E chucked out the "must have one neutral aspect" bit- so you can have Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil druids. (it merged some of the other alignments though).

[noparlpf]

I don't really like 4E though. So that option is out. But I see no reason for a chaotic good druid to not be allowed in 3.5 besides some silly clause about neutrality.

What's Champions of Ruin? I don't think I remember seeing it on the Wikipedia list of 3.5 rulebooks. Is it forgotten realms or something?

Haha, I like how badly phrased the last sentence of this paragraph is. I can't tell if the "two" was meant to be "too" or if they're trying to talk about two hypothetical druids and failing. If the latter, then either "just as" or "so" has to be taken out.
Alignment: Druids, in keeping with nature’s ultimate indifference, must maintain at least some measure of dispassion. As such, they must be neutral on at least one alignment axis (chaotic–lawful or good–evil), if not both. Just as nature encompasses such dichotomies as life and death, beauty and horror, and peace and violence, so two druids can manifest different or even opposite alignments (neutral good and neutral evil, for instance) and still be part of the druidic tradition.

Player's Handbook page 33ish.
(And yet, apparently nothing will happen if a druid becomes non-neutral at some point. There's no clause for losing their abilities or anything as far as I can see.)

[hamishspence]

What's Champions of Ruin? I don't think I remember seeing it on the Wikipedia list of 3.5 rulebooks. Is it forgotten realms or something?

It is- basically it's a continuation of BoVD- biased somewhat toward the Realms.

Its BoED counterpart is Champions of Valor.

At least one feat in it (Craven, a sneak attack boosting feat) gets quite a few mentions.


(And yet, apparently nothing will happen if a druid becomes non-neutral at some point. There's no clause for losing their abilities or anything as far as I can see.)

The SRD has it- and I think the PHB does:

Ex-Druids
A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).

[noparlpf]

Oh, I've heard of Craven before. I think I saw an argument about its fluff somewhere. I'll check out that book when I get the chance.

[graeylin]

nature (or life, or the universe) having no morals or ethics, cannot have or be an alignment. It just is.

Only creatures with a choice can have an alignment. Their alignment is where they "align" on the axis of choice with their decision (which ties in nicely with the "its your actions that determine alignment, not vice versa).

Druids are supposed to be moderate, so having one foot on the neutral part is supposed to keep them grounded. They can be good, but then, shouldn't favor order vs chaos. Or, they can favor chaos, but then shouldn't care about good vs evil.

In theory. If they lose their moderation, they get kicked out of the club.

[noparlpf]

In theory. If they lose their moderation, they get kicked out of the club.

Well, there's no clause saying that a druid who becomes non-neutral loses their existing abilities. There's also apparently published material with a CE druid build in it.

[hamishspence]

There is- but that might fall into the class of "we made a boo-boo".

The "Ex-Druids" section does mention "prohibited alignments."

[Telonius]

The SRD has it- and I think the PHB does:

It does. Page 37, bottom of the left column. "A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion..." etc etc.

[hamishspence]

After a quick look- she (Chazzar Ne, from CoR) is not the only druid who has a normally prohibited alignment.

The deity Malar, in Faiths & Pantheons, does too- and he's CE.

Possibly not coincidentally, she's an ally of the Malar-devoted lycanthrope cult The People of the Black Blood.

My guess is that in Faerun, druids can have different alignments from normal druids- especially if their deity is a nature deity with an atypical alignment, like Malar, Umberlee, Talos, Talona, etc.

[Honest Tiefling]

Malar is one of the reasons I don't like the druid's alignment restrictions. Nature is without morals. It probably isn't going to give a hairy flying rat's bottom on what your morals are, neutral or not.

And iconic characters and gods, including gods of savagery, predation, the awesome earth shattering destruction that nature can bring are a prohibited alignment for druids. In my opinion, if a nature god can have that alignment, so can a nature worshiper. As a DM, I would be willing to waive alignments if a player made a cool character.

As or Forgotten Realms, nope! Your druid still has to be neutral and one step from the god's alignment, even if most druid gods are chaotic. (Lurue, Malar, Talos, Umberlee and Auril) and Nobanion who is lawful. I can think of two from the Faerunain pantheon that are neutral in some fashion (Talona, Silvanus, and Mielikki), and even racial pantheons introduce more gods of alignments druids cannot take, such as the elven one. So most druid gods are of alignments druids cannot have. So a chaotic neutral follower of Malar is more legal then a chaotic evil one.

[hamishspence]

Talona's another CE one. Auril is in fact NE.

The point I was making is, by strictest rules, Malar himself having druid powers (he has 10 levels of druid) is illegal.

So- if Malar can break the rules, and that druid in CoR can break the rules (neither are listed as ex-druids- and they have spells prepared)

then the "must have one neutral aspect to their alignment" might arguably (based on these examples) be said to have been waived for Faerun.

[Honest Tiefling]

No where in the rules does it say it was waived for PCs, however, no matter how illegal Malar is the problem for Forgotten Realms.

And even if I got the alignments confused on those two, my point still stands that most druid gods aren't of druid alignments despite being masters and embodiments of elemental and natural forces.

I'm not saying its logical, I actually think it's a funny rule.

[hamishspence]

The fact that, in both Faiths & Pantheons and Deities & Demigods, it implies that a deity needs paladin levels to grant paladin spells, or druid levels to grant druid spells (the "Grant Spells" section of the description of how deity stats work) is also a bit odd.

Given the number of non-paladin deities that have paladin orders.

The OP's question was "would people allow a CG druid in a game"- and I personally would, given the presence of CE druid NPCs in splatbooks.

[Anderlith]

Nature is inherently lawful, not chaotic. every tree grows according to the genetic blueprints in the acorn. The orderliness of the Food Chain & such. The laws of physics are all orderly & expressed in nature

[OracleofSilence]

while the laws of physics do follow nature, law in dnd does not necessarily mean that. when a tree can make the ethical descision to break or follow a human/elf/whosawhatsit law, then it can be lawful (treants therefore, could theoretically be lawful, but not an oak tree)

[Honest Tiefling]

That would mean all martial classes are lawful, and all arcane classes are nonlawful. Gods are nonlawful because they make the laws of physicals bend however they want.

EDIT: What OracleofSilence said. I think he put it better then I.

Also, nothing grows according to only its genetic blueprints as the environment can change how the plant grows. Which is sometimes decided by forgetful squirrels.

And I never knew that rule existed for paladins in forgotten Realms, Hamish. Maybe I need to read up more on the setting. I still find the druid's alignment rules pretty silly, however.

[hamishspence]

The normal rule for paladins is "one-step" (a paladin can be of any deity within one step of LG).

The oddity is the wording of "Grant Spells" which seems to contradict this- implying that for a deity to grant paladin spells, it must have the paladin class (or the druid class, for granting druid spells).

Which seems to be contradicted a lot by the deities known to have paladin worshippers but not the class (St Cuthbert, for example, or Wee Jas).

[Honest Tiefling]

...Um. Wow. I think the new rule for when I DM is that if any alignment restriction causes me to have a headache, I'm willing to waive it for a good concept.

[hamishspence]

As a "house-rule clarification" I'd probably go with

"a druid of a nature deity, can have the same alignment as the deity and not lose their powers- even if the deity is of an alignment with no neutral aspect".

This would account for atypical druids, while restricting them to atypical nature deities.

[Talya]

Nature is inherently lawful, not chaotic. every tree grows according to the genetic blueprints in the acorn. The orderliness of the Food Chain & such. The laws of physics are all orderly & expressed in nature

In some ways, it seems this way. In others - entropy certainly rules nature. In fact, it is a law of physics. Also, quantum physics are anything but orderly -- they seem ultimately random. We also have no evidence that the physical laws of the universe are constant across space or time. In fact, we have definitive evidence that the speed of light in a vacuum was faster in the first few moments after the Big Bang than it is now, and has varied throughout natural history. Nature is neutral.

[Honest Tiefling]

As a "house-rule clarification" I'd probably go with

"a druid of a nature deity, can have the same alignment as the deity and not lose their powers- even if the deity is of an alignment with no neutral aspect".

This would account for atypical druids, while restricting them to atypical nature deities.

While I think that is a good rule, many people I game with hate having gods for some reason.

[hamishspence]

Yes- in general, some of the alignment restrictions could be dropped without much hurting the theme.

I don't see much wrong with the idea of lawful bards, lawful barbarians, chaotic monks, and druids of any alignment.

Even if the druids don't have a deity to justify it.

[Lord Vampyre]

Alignment restrictions are purely based on the fluff of the character class. Fluff has always been a subjective quality, and purely based upon the whims of the DM.

I like the fluff of the Druid and would be more willing to restrict it back to being True Neutral (as it was in 2nd ed), then I would be to open it up to the extreme alignments.

[Ursus the Grim]

In some ways, it seems this way. In others - entropy certainly rules nature. In fact, it is a law of physics. Also, quantum physics are anything but orderly -- they seem ultimately random. We also have no evidence that the physical laws of the universe are constant across space or time. In fact, we have definitive evidence that the speed of light in a vacuum was faster in the first few moments after the Big Bang than it is now, and has varied throughout natural history. Nature is neutral.

Exactly this.

I also find it interesting that people aren't noting that Animals are always Neutral. Yes, this is due to their lack of alignment, but they also aren't inherently good/evil/lawful/chaotic. Bees, despite their social structure, are not lawful. Because they lack the capacity to actually have an alignment. They just are. The "but my god isn't Neutral" thing loses a bit of weight when you consider that both nature deities in Core are Neutral in some aspect.

Yondalla, your touchy-feely Bambi god.
Obad-Hai, the rough and tumble wild god.

I would not allow a CG Druid because that violates rules as RAW and the flavor of the class as it appears in every campaign I run. CG is a radical alignment. Druids are not a radical class, especially not in that respect.

[hamishspence]

Weren't the "Shadow Druids" in Baldur's Gate (2nd ed mechanics) Evil?

Some magical beasts strongly associated with nature were also quite extremely aligned-

unicorns, for example- LG in 1978 Basic D&D (Eric Holmes), CG in 3.0 and 3.5.

[Honest Tiefling]

The bard thing I think comes from the mythology of ancient bards, which...I uh, never read up on. I think it is related to Taliesin?

[hamishspence]

Not sure about why they "can't be lawful" though. Was that a rule in older editions?

[JBento]

Nature is inherently lawful, not chaotic. every tree grows according to the genetic blueprints in the acorn. The orderliness of the Food Chain & such. The laws of physics are all orderly & expressed in nature

This isn't exactly true: if you managed to plant the same acorn in two different places, the resulting trees would be different, if for no other reason than to account for light incidence. It's like saying that everyone is lawful because they all put their sock on one at a time.

The food chain isn't a chain - it's a complicated, convoluted network that doesn't always flow the same way. Sometimes, lions eat hyenas, and sometimes hyenas eat up lions. Yes, a deer won't ever eat a lion, but there's plenty of mutability in it.

The laws of physics are a funny thing: did you know that gravity doesn't apply to all bodies? Namely, it doesn't work once you reach a certain level of (microscopic) small. The law that DOES work at that level doesn't work in larger bodies. Meanwhile, there's magnetism, which is physic code for "it happens, but bugger me if I know why."

Either way, that's all irrelevant for D&D comparison - as nature is incapable of making decisions, it must, perforce, be Neutral.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think because Taliesin was a wanderer of sorts and the idea of bards is that they wander around the place. This isn't really a chaotic behavior, but like randomness, seems to get attributed to the alignment by silly people a lot.

And according to the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bard_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29#Advanced_Dungeons_ .26_Dragons_1st_edition_.281977-1988.29):


In this edition, bards had the same alignment restrictions of First Edition, meaning they could not be Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good or Chaotic Evil.

I assume there's some form of reasoning for this, but I guess that means that no, its not the reason that 3rd edition bards can't be lawful.

[Mastikator]

Weren't the "Shadow Druids" in Baldur's Gate (2nd ed mechanics) Evil?

Some magical beasts strongly associated with nature were also quite extremely aligned-

unicorns, for example- LG in 1978 Basic D&D (Eric Holmes), CG in 3.0 and 3.5.

Neutral evil.


Anyway, to the OP I'd say that I'd allow for the druid to behave like an animal, which may not necessarily be neutral by humanoid standard, but the druid is spiritually turning into an animal and therefore held to that standard instead.

[Ursus the Grim]

Weren't the "Shadow Druids" in Baldur's Gate (2nd ed mechanics) Evil?

Some magical beasts strongly associated with nature were also quite extremely aligned-

unicorns, for example- LG in 1978 Basic D&D (Eric Holmes), CG in 3.0 and 3.5.

Edit: Partially swordsaged.
Its entirely possible to be an Evil Druid in current editions. Not going to speak to older editions though. Neutral Evil.

Furthermore, yes, Unicorns are Chaotic Good. That doesn't make Nature 'Good' or 'Chaotic'. It's because they have an Intelligence score and can act with a consciousness that defines their alignment based on their choices. And Unicorns can be eaten by, say, a Dire Tiger. That doesn't make Nature 'Lawful' or 'Evil'.

[excruciarch]

Yes- in general, some of the alignment restrictions could be dropped without much hurting the theme.

I don't see much wrong with the idea of lawful bards, lawful barbarians, chaotic monks, and druids of any alignment.

Even if the druids don't have a deity to justify it.

A druid being a servant of nature seeks balance, therefore he must have one neutral axis.
A bard being a storyteller, artist, traveller is in constant motion and always seeks something new and fresh. He can't be bound by restrictions of lawfulness.
A barbarian is wild at heart. Being wild at heart makes him seek ultimate freedom. Laws, codes and morals are to restrict your freedom. (just remember what rage and frenzy abilities are). IMO all barbarians using Rage or Frenzy MUST be CHAOTIC.
Just keep in mind that there are no classes in Faerun. There are no Warblades, Pale Masters, Frenzied Berserkers- they are just mages or fighters of some kind. And they call a barbarian, crusader, druid or cleric someone who falls under some template (clerics revere gods, druids revere nature, barbarians are wild and asocial).

[noparlpf]

while the laws of physics do follow nature, law in dnd does not necessarily mean that. when a tree can make the ethical descision to break or follow a human/elf/whosawhatsit law, then it can be lawful (treants therefore, could theoretically be lawful, but not an oak tree)

Breaking and following governmental laws isn't always what lawful or chaotic means. Being lawful just mean to have a strong personal moral code.

[Ursus the Grim]

Breaking and following governmental laws isn't always what lawful or chaotic means. Being lawful just mean to have a strong personal moral code.

Of course, a personal moral code is a law set in place by oneself. Hence, the point still stands.

[noparlpf]

...Um. Wow. I think the new rule for when I DM is that if any alignment restriction causes me to have a headache, I'm willing to waive it for a good concept.

I like that rule.


Yes- in general, some of the alignment restrictions could be dropped without much hurting the theme.

I don't see much wrong with the idea of lawful bards, lawful barbarians, chaotic monks, and druids of any alignment.

Even if the druids don't have a deity to justify it.

There's a legit variant for chaotic monks somewhere. I don't think I've seen a published lawful barbarian, though.


Some magical beasts strongly associated with nature were also quite extremely aligned-

unicorns, for example- LG in 1978 Basic D&D (Eric Holmes), CG in 3.0 and 3.5.

With the unicorn in mind, it might make more sense to have a CG Druid if they either have Exalted Wild Shape (can turn into a unicorn), or I think there's a feat somewhere that lets them have a unicorn companion.


Anyway, to the OP I'd say that I'd allow for the druid to behave like an animal, which may not necessarily be neutral by humanoid standard, but the druid is spiritually turning into an animal and therefore held to that standard instead.

How about for a Druidic Avenger (swap animal companion for rage, Unearthed Arcana I believe)?

[Ravens_cry]

Breaking and following governmental laws isn't always what lawful or chaotic means. Being lawful just mean to have a strong personal moral code.
Replace 'moral' with 'ethical' and I would agree with that. I would also hesitate to add that law and chaos disagree on whether laws should be followed for their own sake.
***
Nature is also not good nor evil, the rain falls on the just and the unjust, floods sweep away an evil-doers home just as readily as a doer of good.
Morality and ethics have no meaning in it.
It just is.

[noparlpf]

Replace 'moral' with 'ethical' and I would agree with that. I would also hesitate to add that law and chaos disagree on whether laws should be followed for their own sake.
***
Nature is also not good nor evil, the rain falls on the just and the unjust, floods sweep away an evil-doers home just as readily as a doer of good.
Morality and ethics have no meaning in it.
It just is.

Right, this is the law-chaos axis. Ethical.
Moral is the good-evil axis. My bad.

{{scrubbed}}

[Tvtyrant]

Nature is inherently lawful, not chaotic. every tree grows according to the genetic blueprints in the acorn. The orderliness of the Food Chain & such. The laws of physics are all orderly & expressed in nature

Except for mutations, which are in fact chaotic. :P

[Honest Tiefling]

A druid being a servant of nature seeks balance, therefore he must have one neutral axis.

Balance of what, exactly?


A bard being a storyteller, artist, traveller is in constant motion and always seeks something new and fresh. He can't be bound by restrictions of lawfulness.

Not like the great artists of our culture were EVER bound by restrictions. (BTW, Michangelo was a hack.) Or...Er. Where does it even say that bards must seek out new and fresh things? Many storytellers traditionally told the same things in very traditional ways as they were oral historians.


A barbarian is wild at heart. Being wild at heart makes him seek ultimate freedom. Laws, codes and morale are to restrict your freedom. (just remember what rage and frenzy abilities are). IMO all barbarians using Rage or Frenzy MUST be CHAOTIC.

That is one interpretation of barbarians. But barbarians in Faerun are part of tribes, which typically have laws. Also, this would imply that Rage, the spell, is chaotic, but it isn't.


Just keep in mind that there are no classes in Faerun. There are no Warblades, Pale Masters, Frenzied Berserkers- they are just mages or fighters of some kind. And they call a barbarian, crusader, druid or cleric someone who falls under some template (clerics revere gods, druids revere nature, barbarians are wild and asocial).

Um...No. Illuskan barbarians form tribes, and Rasheman form lodges. They are social. All druids revere gods to receive their powers, unless they do evil shennigans, which are actually very hard to get a hold of since you sorta have to convince a powerful, hateful druid.

[Ravens_cry]

Right, this is the law-chaos axis. Ethical.
Moral is the good-evil axis. My bad.

No problem.


I can cite the Bible as evidence that floods sweep away evildoers' homes more than they sweep away good-doers' homes. And 'Gilgamesh'.
I can't respond to this without breaking the rules of this forum.

[Mastikator]

I like that rule.
How about for a Druidic Avenger (swap animal companion for rage, Unearthed Arcana I believe)?

Makes even more sense if the druidic avenger goes for the "become like a predator" route. If the druid shape shifts into a predator that preys on people it would tresspass overtly in the realm of chaotic evil without leaving the duridic ways.

I'd be cool with it rule-wise if I were your DM.

[Blisstake]

Honestly, the whole Law vs Chaos alignment is pretty inconsequential, so if you want a Chaotic Good druid, you could really just make them NG. I do agree that the druid restrictions are a bit silly, though.

[excruciarch]

Balance of what, exactly?
Nature requires balance.

Not like the great artists of our culture were EVER bound by restrictions. (BTW, Michangelo was a hack.) Or...Er. Where does it even say that bards must seek out new and fresh things? Many storytellers traditionally told the same things in very traditional ways as they were oral historians.
Bard is not just any storyteller.



That is one interpretation of barbarians. But barbarians in Faerun are part of tribes, which typically have laws. Also, this would imply that Rage, the spell, is chaotic, but it isn't.
A group of people can be asocial. Rage spell has nothing to do with Rage ability.


Um...No. Illuskan barbarians form tribes, and Rasheman form lodges. They are social. All druids revere gods to receive their powers, unless they do evil shennigans, which are actually very hard to get a hold of since you sorta have to convince a powerful, hateful druid.
Druids receive their spells from nature itself.
I'd like to remind you that a barbarian in Faerun is someone who falls under a template. Just like irl.

We all know that there are exceptions for any given rule. But exceptions tend to prove the rule and they are small in number. You can make a Chaotic Evil druid allright but his background is to show why he is an exception.

[Ursus the Grim]

Makes even more sense if the druidic avenger goes for the "become like a predator" route. If the druid shape shifts into a predator that preys on people it would tresspass overtly in the realm of chaotic evil without leaving the duridic ways.

I'd be cool with it rule-wise if I were your DM.

But doesn't that represent a choice on behalf of the individual as opposed to the alignment of the animal itself? A predator hunts because it needs to, because it is built to. A druid slaughtering people wantonly is making a decision out of preference, not necessity, and therefore is not really honoring the nature of the beast.

[Honest Tiefling]

Nature requires balance.

This is actually a pet peeve of mine. I never understood what druids were supposed to be balancing, so saying that druids balance balance is not really explanatory.

[noparlpf]

Makes even more sense if the druidic avenger goes for the "become like a predator" route. If the druid shape shifts into a predator that preys on people it would tresspass overtly in the realm of chaotic evil without leaving the duridic ways.

I'd be cool with it rule-wise if I were your DM.

I was thinking more of the Druidic Avenger wildshaping into a predator to hunt down evil creatures which harm nature, but embracing the wild aspect of wildshaping and raging more than the typical druid does. If you do that right it get more into CG than CN or NG. I wish you could be in-between alignments, the whole alignment system and alignment restrictions by class give me a headache.

[Ursus the Grim]

This is actually a pet peeve of mine. I never understood what druids were supposed to be balancing, so saying that druids balance balance is not really explanatory.

On an micro level? Homeostasis is an organism's ability to keep its chemicals, hormones, and other important stuff balanced.

On a macro level? The various elemental cycles that keep the ecosystem stable and balanced. An unbalanced system would be one, for instance, in which all the bacteria in the soil died and impeded nitrogen fixation, preventing the natural occurrence of the nitrogen cycle, thus harming the ecosystem.

Of course, more mystical and mysterious than that, but the concept is there.

[Psyren]

After a quick look- she (Chazzar Ne, from CoR) is not the only druid who has a normally prohibited alignment.

The deity Malar, in Faiths & Pantheons, does too- and he's CE.

Possibly not coincidentally, she's an ally of the Malar-devoted lycanthrope cult The People of the Black Blood.

My guess is that in Faerun, druids can have different alignments from normal druids- especially if their deity is a nature deity with an atypical alignment, like Malar, Umberlee, Talos, Talona, etc.

Faerun bends the rules like that all the time, because allegiance to the deity is more important in that setting than allegiance to the abstract principle. That's why "clerics of causes" are not possible in Faerun, or why you can be a paladin of a CG deity (Sune, Corellon) and other such oddities/violations.


This is actually a pet peeve of mine. I never understood what druids were supposed to be balancing, so saying that druids balance balance is not really explanatory.

Their job is to keep any one faction (civilization or nature) from growing too powerful. If the forest grows unchecked and begins to drain the land of resources, their job is to curtail it. If the neighboring city begins to overhunt the woods, they will either entreat with the citizens, or bolster the wildlife to resist/fight back.

[Honest Tiefling]

I believe that the Order of the Forgotten Flower was a fan made thing, and not a canon rule for paladins of Corellon.

[excruciarch]

This is actually a pet peeve of mine. I never understood what druids were supposed to be balancing, so saying that druids balance balance is not really explanatory.
Druids are servants of nature. Nature exists in harmony and balance of all things that form it. If you disrupt this harmony there are consequences to await. (Cutting all bamboo trees down => all pandas dying of hunger). Therefore a druid must guard this harmony by all means.

[Ravens_cry]

On an micro level? Homeostasis is an organism's ability to keep its chemicals, hormones, and other important stuff balanced.

On a macro level? The various elemental cycles that keep the ecosystem stable and balanced. An unbalanced system would be one, for instance, in which all the bacteria in the soil died and impeded nitrogen fixation, preventing the natural occurrence of the nitrogen cycle, thus harming the ecosystem.

Of course, more mystical and mysterious than that, but the concept is there.
It would be almost amusing to have a druid speak of it in these terms instead of breaking out the mystical "Circle of life and harmony" line.

[Ursus the Grim]

(Cutting all bamboo trees down => all pandas dying of hunger).

Off topic for a second, Pandas are bleeding stupid and would be extinct pretty soon anyway. Complete dependence on one type of plant in one location coupled with an extremely slow gestation is pretty much a recipe for the short branch in the tree of life.



It would be almost amusing to have a druid speak of it in these terms instead of breaking out the mystical "Circle of life and harmony" line.

Oh, I am so there with my next druid. Intelligence no longer the Druid's dump stat.

[Psyren]

I believe that the Order of the Forgotten Flower was a fan made thing, and not a canon rule for paladins of Corellon.

I'm seeing Demihuman Deities from TSR as the source for his paladin order, but I don't have that book. Can anyone confirm?

Sune definitely has paladins though, and she is CG. (In fact, wasn't she revealed to be an elven goddess in 4e, along with Akadi and Selune?)

[excruciarch]

Off topic for a second, Pandas are bleeding stupid and would be extinct pretty soon anyway. Complete dependence on one type of plant in one location coupled with an extremely slow gestation is pretty much a recipe for the short branch in the tree of life.
Pandas can be carnivorous when there are no bamboo trees around. But they are not good hunters and usually die of starvation.

[Honest Tiefling]

That really sounds more like the idea that druids are against humans (Or other races, let's be fair, and dwarves? I'm looking at you). destroying the wilderness. I don't really get why druids would artificially prevent change in natural areas. Species go extinct because they could not adapt throughout history, even without human/demihuman intervention.

Natural disasters destroy areas and kill off species (or a lot of animals and plants at the very least) a lot as well. Habitats change, such as a burnt area being populated by fast growing plants which are then replaced by slower growing plants, producing first growth, second growth and then old growth forests.

If anything, this idea of balance seems highly unnatural to me. Fun fact? Humans nearly got their collective behinds kicked by a natural disaster of some sort. Species dying off is a part of nature.

Maybe this is just a pet peeve of mine.

[Ursus the Grim]

That really sounds more like the idea that druids are against humans (Or other races, let's be fair, and dwarves? I'm looking at you). destroying the wilderness. I don't really get why druids would artificially prevent change in natural areas. Species go extinct because they could not adapt throughout history, even without human/demihuman intervention.

They shouldn't. I think this pretty much embodifies how I imagine the archetype to be. A true neutral Druid wouldn't keep Big Bad Wolf from eating Thumper, unless there was an unnatural reason for the Wolf's aggression.

A human farm expanding and cutting down the forest forces wolves to concentrate and quickly drive down the rabbit population. The druid should get involved by working to combat the spread of the farm.

A natural blight hits the flora of the fauna, causing a dramatic decrease in the rabbit population, causing hungry wolves to hunt more often for them and drive the population for them down further (until wolves die off from starvation/less pups). Druid shouldn't get involved.

That is why they're meant to be neutral.

[Honest Tiefling]

That does make sense, through I wouldn't call it balance when it can go to extremes (such as no more baby bunnies). Through, in your opinion, why neutral, and not other alignments?

[excruciarch]

2 Honest Tiefling
Being petty mortals druids are to balance things to their best locally. Gods are to balance things globally and in Faerun druid's mind a disaster is something a god wanted and you don't ask gods why and what for.

[Honest Tiefling]

Balancing things locally would assume that ecosystems are independent of each other. They are not, so it would be pretty hard unless different groups of druids were in communication with each other.

[Psyren]

I look at it more like this - druids defend wilderness from civilization and rarely the reverse for a couple of reasons.


1) Civilization doesn't really need druids' help. Many of the denizens of the wild aren't very smart, and those that are tend to be pretty slow to act. Nature in general goes through only gradual shifts. Compare to civilization: have a war, or have a new regime rise to power, and you can end up with a very radical change in a very short time. That nimbleness means that civilization can react and adapt very fast to outside threats. Druids are nature's way of trying to address the outside without fundamentally changing its way of life; a "natural response" to invasion, if you will.

2) Nature only has the druids (and rangers, those with the default fluff) to rely on. Civilization has all kinds of representatives: clerics caring about the people's souls, arcanists/artificers advancing their technology, various NPC and martial classes keeping the wheels of commerce and industry turning etc. Druids championing civilization too would only skew the balance further.


To the extent that representing civilization to nature is required, that's the nature clerics' job. A cleric of Chauntea or Arawai is going to get along very well with druids, but ultimately each has his own field to till.

[excruciarch]

Balancing things locally would assume that ecosystems are independent of each other.
No, it won't. Anything is a part of everything. A system is a part of a system which is a part of another system and so on... Changing something can lead to a chain of events that changes everything. So balancing locally means balancing some system, sometimes without knowing how exactly it will affect other systems. Druids are petty mortals after all, so being neutral and not letting the balance shift is the best choice.
PS
So a druid won't try to stop natural changes but will try to stop unnatural ones.

[Ravens_cry]

Oh, I am so there with my next druid. Intelligence no longer the Druid's dump stat.
Your battle cry (http://guildedage.net/webcomic/chapter-1/chapter-1-page-2/)?
"I can always do Science to it."
(Yes, Syr’Nj is a medic, not a druid, but her peoples hat is basically, "We're druids.")

[Ursus the Grim]

That does make sense, through I wouldn't call it balance when it can go to extremes (such as no more baby bunnies). Through, in your opinion, why neutral, and not other alignments?

Here's the thing though. In an ideal ecosystem, when there are less prey, the predator population drops. When the predator population drops, the prey are allowed to recover. A blight is temporary. Eventually the rabbits will find a new food source, likely flora that are resistant to whatever killed off the rest of the food.

Species constantly die out and new ones evolve. It really does balance out, no matter how much you hate that word. Change does not mean imbalance in every case.

Explaining why Druids should be neutral has already been covered numerous times, so I guess I'll explain why they shouldn't be anything else.

Law
Honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, reliability, close-mindedness, adherence to tradition, judgmental, rigid
Nature works in cycles and patterns, many of which can be predicted. In this way you might think it is reliable, rigid, perhaps trustworthy. But variations exist. Mutations arise in the genetic code of a species. A thunderstorm sets fire to a forest. Nature is not trustworthy, obeys no authority, and makes no judgments. A tiger may back down if you show empty hands, but pounce on you the next second. Wolves don't track down law-breakers or arsonists on account of who they are.

Chaos
Freedom, adaptability, flexibility, recklessness, resentment towards authority, arbitrary actions, irresponsibility
Nature can bounce back from problems if they are alleviated, such as when a razed forest begins regrowth. It can also see interesting solutions to issues arise as well, such as life in the deep sea. In this way it is adaptable and flexible. But there are limits. Green plants from a rainforest will have little chance to survive in a dry tunnel without light. The deep-sea life is still obtaining the essentials it needs to drive the same processes that terrestrial life uses, its just obtaining them a different way. To call nature Irresponsible or Reckless implies that it has an obligation to anything, or that it has a collective 'better judgement'.

Good
Altruism, respect for life, concern for dignity of sentient beings.
No. . . just, no. Some individual species may display these, but they are the exception. Bees serve the hive, but not out of a moral obligation to do so. A new dominant lion will often begin his reign by killing off all the young from other fathers so that his 'superior' genes can be carried on without competition. Anyone who's had a dog hump their leg can tell you that a 'concern for dignity of sentient beings' is completely non-existent. "No bear, you can't eat me, I'm a person and I can think and my intelligence is 3 or greater!"

Evil
Hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
See, I would make the case that Nerull is a more likely deity of nature than Yondalla Ehlonna (thanks Kojiro). Animals don't care who they eat, generally. But they do so because they must. They may eat a skinny wanted murderer because they are hungry, but leave a fat cleric of Pelor alone because they have no need for sustenance. Natural disasters don't occur because there is a decision involved, they occur because they must, based on the laws of physics. The same storm that wipes out the town of Smellyport may bring rains to nourish the crops feeding the metropolis of Awesomesauce. There is normally an upside to anything down in nature.

Finally, a quote.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

I expect I've been severely swordsaged by now.

Edit:

Balancing things locally would assume that ecosystems are independent of each other. They are not, so it would be pretty hard unless different groups of druids were in communication with each other.

Often they are. The Druids presented in the PHB are all members of a society that spans nations. Eberron Gatekeepers protect the world from extraplanar horrors through co-operation. The Church of Elements in a module I'm running is aware of events all over the world. I think I've seen older editions mention Circles, the interactions between them, and Archdruids.

[noparlpf]

"No bear, you can't eat me, I'm a person and I can think and my intelligence is 3 or greater!"

Are you sure it's as high as 3 if you're saying that to a bear?

[Honest Tiefling]

Little tangential, but some animals are actually pretty capable of sadism, war and rape. They do tend to be the more intelligent ones, however.

Through I guess the difference between those who think druids must be neutral and those who don't is if the druids must emulate or embrace the morals of nature to truly be druids. I can definitely see arguments for it, and it would work nicely in some campaign worlds. However, I think I prefer the idea that upholding nature can be a means and an end, so someone could uphold nature because they believe it is right, or uphold nature to achieve certain ends.

Thanks, Ursus, for answering my question. I hope my response doesn't come as disrespectful, just as a different interpretation of what a druid is.

The idea of circles and such is fine, and many settings have them. My argument is that if druids mess around with a single area without any idea of what their actions do to other areas, they'll produce some interesting results for other druids. I sorta like the idea of druidic organizations and circles to prevent this.

[noparlpf]

Little tangential, but some animals are actually pretty capable of sadism, war and rape. They do tend to be the more intelligent ones, however.

Have you ever watched a cat play with a mouse?

[Honest Tiefling]

Have you ever watched a cat play with a mouse?

Cats are pretty dumb, so they might be doing that instinctively. I was more referring to dolphins.

[noparlpf]

It's the classical example of an animal being cruel, though.

[Ursus the Grim]

Little tangential, but some animals are actually pretty capable of sadism, war and rape. They do tend to be the more intelligent ones, however.

Through I guess the difference between those who think druids must be neutral and those who don't is if the druids must emulate or embrace the morals of nature to truly be druids. I can definitely see arguments for it, and it would work nicely in some campaign worlds. However, I think I prefer the idea that upholding nature can be a means and an end, so someone could uphold nature because they believe it is right, or uphold nature to achieve certain ends.

Thanks, Ursus, for answering my question. I hope my response doesn't come as disrespectful, just as a different interpretation of what a druid is.

The idea of circles and such is fine, and many settings have them. My argument is that if druids mess around with a single area without any idea of what their actions do to other areas, they'll produce some interesting results for other druids. I sorta like the idea of druidic organizations and circles to prevent this.

First. Dolphins should burn. I hate the blubbery little bastards. But those are the exception, not the rule and are often done in the interests of being 'dominant', which is of course driven by the instinctive need to ensure the survival of the fittest, which is at its core, whoever can get on top. Pun unintended.

I'm not saying all Druids need to be True Neutral. Just that certain ideas are too dramatic for my tastes. A CN Druid could embodify the freedom from the constraints of society and the whimsy for better or worse of the natural world. A CE would, however, be malicious for the sake of being malicious. He probably wouldn't take into account necessity when 'hunting', using his freedom from moral compunctions to justify acts that he knows to be 'immoral'.

Its your campaign and your right to do with as you please. No arrogance intended, and no disrespect perceived.



Have you ever watched a cat play with a mouse?

Cat isn't doing it for the sake of being cruel. Most animals, unlike humans, actually hunt for their food. Playing with a mouse has two benefits. First, practice for the hunt. Second, observing a mouse teaches the cat how a mouse behaves and how to hunt it better in the future.

[Kojiro]

Topic of Nerull, I think he just hates all life; it's not being uncaring, it's being outright malevolent in his case. As nature is rather made up of things that are alive, or at least start out that way, he'd be a pretty bad nature god. Also, he's a jerk.

(Also, you forgot Elhonna, I think, unless she's who you meant instead of Yondalla, who is a goddess of halflings.)

But yeah. While, as sentient, thinking beings, there can be some variability among druids and expecting them all to be perfectly homogenous is ridiculous, there's a point where their own goals and feelings get too far away from nature's... "Intentions" isn't the right word, but, yeah. Of course the easiest way to put this in game terms was to limit the extreme alignments, although it does work. A druid can care about innocent people and animals and such, but they can't let that compassion affect their judgment or make them try to save every poor little animal. An evil druid can be a sadist, but destroying everything is out of reach too. Going into concepts like freedom or honor differ far too much from the nature of, well, nature, meanwhile, at least for most animals (who are the exception rather than the rule anyway), and...

Wait, Ursus pretty much covered this already, I can just stop here. I think the point's made anyway.

Edit: Yeah, cats have reasons for behaving as they do, other than simply "fun". Although, dolphins are pretty terrible at times. As are various primates. Another interesting animal, though, is the mantis shrimp; they have ritualized battles, and can even remember their rivals for a long time. Also, they can punch with the force of a bullet. That's just awesome. Unrelated to the whole nature thing, but come on, that's badass.

[excruciarch]

2 Honest Tiefling
Consider nature a big living organism. Druids are byproducts of its immune system. When there is an infestation (people cutting down an ancient grove) immune system tries to stop the parasites from doing it. When immune cells try to attack something endogenous (a druid tries to stop a natural occurrence) it leads to autoimmune condition. So non-neutral druids are abominations.
You can play an abomination if you want to. =)

[noparlpf]

2 Honest Tiefling
Consider nature a big living organism. Druids are byproducts of its immune system. When there is an infestation (people cutting down an ancient grove) immune system tries to stop the parasites from doing it. When immune cells try to attack something endogenous (a druid tries to stop a natural occurrence) it leads to autoimmune condition. So non-neutral druids are abominations.
You can play an abomination if you want to. =)

Just become a Master of Many Forms and only ever Wildshape into aberrations.

[excruciarch]

Just become a Master of Many Forms and only ever Wildshape into aberrations.

Wildshaping into an aberration doesn't make you think and behave like one. =)))

[Anderlith]

Sorry I'm a page or so late on responding.

Chaos is an illusion. The more knowledgeable you are the less chaos you perceive. Everything has an order to it, we just can't understand it all. Alignments based on "chaos" are automatically crude & generalistic.

[Kojiro]

Chaotic as an alignment does not necessarily imply actual chaos any more than Lawful does following every written law regardless of justness, immorality, or outright inanity. I have no idea what that post is here for other than to say "Chaotic folk are stupid".

And of course if you go into really heady subjects like theoretical physics and such, topics that require a good amount of intelligence...

[noparlpf]

Because every lawful person in Boston refuses to take a bath without a prescription, won't bathe on Sundays, and won't go to bed without bathing first (also only two baths may be taken at a time in Boston), but every chaotic evil person in Massachusetts sleeps with the woman on top.

(I like inane laws. They're the only ones I follow.)

[Fox Box Socks]

In general, I've found that alignment restrictions on classes to be stupid and unnecessary.

[hamishspence]

Sune definitely has paladins though, and she is CG. (In fact, wasn't she revealed to be an elven goddess in 4e, along with Akadi and Selune?)

It's more that the elven goddess was revealed to be Sune under a different "identity".

A bit like Blind Io in Discworld, the gods market themselves differently to different factions.