Role Play Issue With a Druid

[Warren Peace]

Hey war here again with another question.

So just yesterday I was playing with my normal group of friends in a brand new campaign one of my players started. He always wanted to be a DM of his own campaign and so I let him (besides I needed a break :smalltongue:)

Anyway my fellow party members are a rather odd assortment of players a Bard, a Rogue, a Monk, a Scout, and lastly me a Druid.

I haven't had the chance to play a Druid before and I was very excited to start one and even more awesome the DM let me be a shifter / were touched and so I had this amazing back story and awesome character persona going on and then the problems started.

Not long into the story my DM has us on a wagon train headed towards a new settlement that is our "home town" that we are all starting to found in the middle of nowhere. (the story ties into another campaign we did some years ago and this takes place in the past)

Well I am a big role player and right away I had a problem with being on a wagon train I don't see being a Druid sitting on a wagon like some ordinary player I see them running through the woods but I digress. As we approached the new settlement we entered a huge clearing where they were logging and cutting down the forest to build the settlement (you can see where this is going) I told the DM I was going to jump off the wagon and attack the nearest logger. He replied "Seriously? are you going to do this my entire campaign?" I let him off with a warning that my character wouldn't like them cutting down the forest but I will ignore it for now.

When the night came we all settled down in our bed rolls and guess what attacked the group of unsuspecting travelers? Wolves. I got up and started killing the people attacking the wolves while trying to communicate with them to run away before more of them died. My DM was ticked.

After a few more various encounters and role playing problems I pulled him aside and asked him if he wanted me to roll up a new character because obviously he didn't like how mine was being played and he said sure and now I am a barbarian. Simple and effective.

My question is posed to you role players out there, how do you play a Druid in a adventuring party? How do you deal with the various things that could count as offensive towards a druid like character (i.e. logging, living in or around a town, everyday dealings with townsfolk etc.) I found it to be way more of a challenge than I expected. So how do you act as a Druid in your parties I would really like to know :smallsmile:

Thanks again for listening to my babble :smalltongue:

EDIT TO THE ABOVE: I am a neutral evil druid. My character was designed, built, and rolled up with the DM's permission way before the other players were. My character was supposed to be the way I played him and the DM new this well beforehand.

EDIT TO THE ABOVE AGAIN: After many awesome responses I decided the easiest way to post to all who read this post is here on the main topic. I agree with what all of you said. I had the wrong impression of a Druid in my head and it left me role playing a little skewed. Thanks for all the posts I think I got it now lol :smalltongue:

[Barsoom]

Druid or not, attempting to murder someone for cutting down a tree is something only a psychopath would do.

[Fates]

Well, for starters, what alignment was your Druid? Because no good Druid, and most neutral Druids, would not react to every infraction on Nature with violence. If that's how you're roleplaying your character, I can see why your DM would be ticked off at you. Violence should not be a druid's go-to whenever they see something they don't like- a big part of roleplaying a Druid is dealing with such matters in a civil manner- like, say, talking before you start killing people, and other basic reasonable decisions.

Hope this helps.

[Warren Peace]

Druid or not, attempting to murder someone for cutting down a tree is something only a psychopath would do.

NE Weretouched Druid... I have a short temper lol and they were destroying a forest so call it what you want but I did what my character would feel like doing. It was up to my party or the DM to stop me.

[georgie_leech]

It sounded like you had a concept and character in mind, but then you got lost in what you saw as "druid-ness." Perhaps you could remember that most humanoids are mammals and part of the natural order as well? Unless they're being played as an exagerated Eco-Warrior thing, Druids shouldn't have a problem with reasonable logging unless they also have a problem with beavers. They might also scare off the wolves or use Wild Empathy checks, or flat out charm rather than siding with said wolves in a fight. For that matter, the wolves attacked the travellers first, yes? Why should they get any special assistance for attacking something that can fight back. You could also take inspiration from the original Celtic druids, who were the lorekeepers and guides of fledgling society at the time; less Forest Revenge and more of a teacher on how to live in harmony with nature.

EDIT: That last post suggests it's not so much the druid-ness as creating a character opposed to the rest of your party without any qualities or features that would make him want to regin it in or otherwise control himself. Generally, attacking random civillian/NPC's is not a particularly interesting plot hook, just a disruption.

[Fyermind]

I ask them nicely to stop. I will engage in various forms of civil disobedience if chaotic, petition lords if lawful, attempt to negotiate with loggers if good, and sabotage if evil. I have as a higher level druid awakened the trees and had them leave. I have also cast plant growth to make the briars and undergrowth harder to get trees back through and generally slowed down the progress of loggers. I would try to contact local fey and rally some sort of leverage. Something like charming the town council.

Of course, I also will just let it slide a lot. The fact is, I am not a steward of every forest by necessity just because I am a druid. I'm not a dryad. I'm capable of seeing natural things die. Natural things die all the time. Stron animals kill weak animals. Plants compete and shade each other out. Infestations of insects kill crops and trees. These are all natural things that as a druid, I can embrace. I am willing to say humans cut down trees occasionally. So long as they either plant new trees, or maintain the land for agriculture, I'd be simply willing to let it slide.

The law of character creation is unless you have talked to the DM, play a character who will not sabotage common attempts at plot due to every day circumstances.

Edit: extension of the above, I would never make an evil character without clearing it with the DM explicitly and telling him about my personality. That is the sort of thing that can wreck campaigns. You have to be clear about it. You could have saved everyone a lot of grief by finding out that you needed to tone down the I HATE CIVILIZATION IN GENERAL deal.

[Warren Peace]

Well, for starters, what alignment was your Druid? Because no good Druid, and most neutral Druids, would not react to every infraction on Nature with violence. If that's how you're roleplaying your character, I can see why your DM would be ticked off at you. Violence should not be a druid's go-to whenever they see something they don't like- a big part of roleplaying a Druid is dealing with such matters in a civil manner- like, say, talking before you start killing people, and other basic reasonable decisions.

Hope this helps.
Neutral Evil. I explained to my DM before we even started I am pretty much "Feral" and was raised to in the wild and that's how I became a Druid. Honestly I think I played it correctly based on my nature my alignment and my back story. But thanks anyway.

[eggynack]

I think I'll actually side with the OP on this one. Killing random loggers is definitely not a trait of most druids, but I can definitely see it being a trait of neutral evil druids. The problem seems to be less that you're role playing a druid, and more that you're role playing an evil character who's willing to kill at the first sign of an attack on nature. If your DM approved of an evil character, then he should expect some amount of random NPC killing as part of the territory. The fact of the matter is, that what's separating your druid and most druids, is that your druid is especially fond of murder. You might want to change your druid up to true neutral, if an evil character doesn't fit.

[Warren Peace]

It sounded like you had a concept and character in mind, but then you got lost in what you saw as "druid-ness." Perhaps you could remember that most humanoids are mammals and part of the natural order as well? Unless they're being played as an exagerated Eco-Warrior thing, Druids shouldn't have a problem with reasonable logging unless they also have a problem with beavers. They might also scare off the wolves or use Wild Empathy checks, or flat out charm rather than siding with said wolves in a fight. For that matter, the wolves attacked the travellers first, yes? Why should they get any special assistance for attacking something that can fight back. You could also take inspiration from the original Celtic druids, who were the lorekeepers and guides of fledgling society at the time; less Forest Revenge and more of a teacher on how to live in harmony with nature.

EDIT: That last post suggests it's not so much the druid-ness as creating a character opposed to the rest of your party without any qualities or features that would make him want to regin it in or otherwise control himself. Generally, attacking random civillian/NPC's is not a particularly interesting plot hook, just a disruption.

Hmm interesting ideas on it and I will certainly take it to heart and try a different approach next time. But in my defense my character, back story and everything about me was created first before all the other players. I didn't make a character to "break apart" the others, they made characters that wouldn't stop me since most of them are just as evil. So it all kinda backfired on all of us.

[Fyermind]

Don't kill what you won't eat unless it is in self defense. It sends a much better message to tell them to leave. Them kill one of them and eat him.

Also gives the DM a chance to write up a new plot that writes itself. The town attacking you and the forest.

Of course, as a high wisdom character (you are a druid) you should realize simply attacking isn't the best long term plan. You can do better. Attack first think later is a job for barbarians.

[Vauron]

First thought: the idea that mankind is not a part of nature is madness and should be burnt from your mind. Would you character have a similar problem with beavers? Ants? Various burrowing creatures? The idea that the thinking races are above nature is at best hubris.

Second thought: Did you know what the campaign was going to be about beforehand? If so, you come off as a bit obtuse with your decision to play a character you consider inimical to the story concept. Although, the DM probably should have noted how the character was better suited as an enemy NPC for the party to overcome.

Third thought: As far as nature is concerned, the settler's had every right to do what they were doing. The only law nature acknowledges is 'The strong may do as they wish with the weak"*. You could have played up this angle with thoughts like 'if we manage to make the town stick, its perfectly natural'. Perhaps you could have strove to make sure that there was as little waste as possible, like eating the meat from the wolfs, making coats of their hides, and tools from their bones. Or you could have gone ahead of the group and scouted out a location where there would be less need to clear things out.




*Nature is amoral, not moral.


Edit: so many ninjas

[TaiLiu]

If your DM approved of an evil character, then he should expect some amount of random NPC killing as part of the territory.
To be fair to the DM, he seems to be rather inexperienced with his job:

He always wanted to be a DM of his own campaign and so I let him...

[Warren Peace]

To be fair to the DM, he seems to be rather inexperienced with his job:

Well I made some mistakes as others have pointed out I was a bit extreme into my "druid-ness" lol but yes the DM had fair warning and knew exactly who and what I was and when I tested him with the situation of my feral side kicking in he kinda failed at it. We all learn with time I guess.

[Warren Peace]

First thought: the idea that mankind is not a part of nature is madness and should be burnt from your mind. Would you character have a similar problem with beavers? Ants? Various burrowing creatures? The idea that the thinking races are above nature is at best hubris.

Second thought: Did you know what the campaign was going to be about beforehand? If so, you come off as a bit obtuse with your decision to play a character you consider inimical to the story concept. Although, the DM probably should have noted how the character was better suited as an enemy NPC for the party to overcome.

Third thought: As far as nature is concerned, the settler's had every right to do what they were doing. The only law nature acknowledges is 'The strong may do as they wish with the weak"*. You could have played up this angle with thoughts like 'if we manage to make the town stick, its perfectly natural'. Perhaps you could have strove to make sure that there was as little waste as possible, like eating the meat from the wolfs, making coats of their hides, and tools from their bones. Or you could have gone ahead of the group and scouted out a location where there would be less need to clear things out.




*Nature is amoral, not moral.


Edit: so many ninjas

Hmmm I like this. Well put and a lot of good ideas I am really starting to understand that nature flows in two ways growth and destruction. Ill keep that in mind

[Warren Peace]

Don't kill what you won't eat unless it is in self defense. It sends a much better message to tell them to leave. Them kill one of them and eat him.

Also gives the DM a chance to write up a new plot that writes itself. The town attacking you and the forest.

Of course, as a high wisdom character (you are a druid) you should realize simply attacking isn't the best long term plan. You can do better. Attack first think later is a job for barbarians.

Thanks ill do that.

[Warren Peace]

I think I'll actually side with the OP on this one. Killing random loggers is definitely not a trait of most druids, but I can definitely see it being a trait of neutral evil druids. The problem seems to be less that you're role playing a druid, and more that you're role playing an evil character who's willing to kill at the first sign of an attack on nature. If your DM approved of an evil character, then he should expect some amount of random NPC killing as part of the territory. The fact of the matter is, that what's separating your druid and most druids, is that your druid is especially fond of murder. You might want to change your druid up to true neutral, if an evil character doesn't fit.

Thanks I wish I had been more clear in the original post so others could see that I was actually indeed playing the character by his true nature. That being said my being new to druids and how they play left me making some mistakes that I won't make again. The DM and I have decided a new path for my druid to come into play after level 5 when he has wild shape and to be a good aligned player that will protect the forests around the town. But for now I am playing the NE Barbarian to get my blood lust out of my system lol

[eggynack]

It is possible that you're playing this character a bit closer to chaotic evil than to neutral evil. You're fighting for a cause, which sways you a bit closer to neutral, but the hasty killing seems like it's pushing it too much towards chaotic. You should kill them, but do so sparsely over a long period of time. Kill some loggers in the middle of the night, and mount their skulls on pikes as a warning to all who would attack the forest. Instead of overtly attacking those who attack wolves, do so subtly. Shoot an entangle that "accidentally" gives the wolves an advantage, and laugh about it later. Tear down the thin veneer of their civilization, while making it look like you're not doing so. What you're doing now might be in character, but it's not nearly as effective for your long term goals as it could be. You don't need to plan things out a million moves in advance; that's more lawful evil's style. Just think things through, and act in a manner that's actually going to advance your goals, rather than what feels immediately satisfying. You get to keep your character, and you gain cool points rather than annoyance to the new DM points. They're much better points to have.

[KillingAScarab]

I ask them nicely to stop. I will engage in various forms of civil disobedience if chaotic, petition lords if lawful, attempt to negotiate with loggers if good, and sabotage if evil. I have as a higher level druid awakened the trees and had them leave. I have also cast plant growth to make the briars and undergrowth harder to get trees back through and generally slowed down the progress of loggers. I would try to contact local fey and rally some sort of leverage. Something like charming the town council.

Of course, I also will just let it slide a lot. The fact is, I am not a steward of every forest by necessity just because I am a druid. I'm not a dryad. I'm capable of seeing natural things die. Natural things die all the time. Stron animals kill weak animals. Plants compete and shade each other out. Infestations of insects kill crops and trees. These are all natural things that as a druid, I can embrace. I am willing to say humans cut down trees occasionally. So long as they either plant new trees, or maintain the land for agriculture, I'd be simply willing to let it slide.

The law of character creation is unless you have talked to the DM, play a character who will not sabotage common attempts at plot due to every day circumstances.Thanks for posting all of this, Fyermind. I avoided playing druids because, frankly, I have no idea how druids think. They obviously aren't Werewolf: the Apocalypse's big furry eco-terrorists, but they also aren't the physically powerless tree-hugging hippies. Trying to find middle ground while also keeping in mind what their day-to-day lives are like and how their spells and such might affect that has been too alien to me. Got any other druid tips, or a collection of them to point others towards?

[Warren Peace]

It is possible that you're playing this character a bit closer to chaotic evil than to neutral evil. You're fighting for a cause, which sways you a bit closer to neutral, but the hasty killing seems like it's pushing it too much towards chaotic. You should kill them, but do so sparsely over a long period of time. Kill some loggers in the middle of the night, and mount their skulls on pikes as a warning to all who would attack the forest. Instead of overtly attacking those who attack wolves, do so subtly. Shoot an entangle that "accidentally" gives the wolves an advantage, and laugh about it later. Tear down the thin veneer of their civilization, while making it look like you're not doing so. What you're doing now might be in character, but it's not nearly as effective for your long term goals as it could be. You don't need to plan things out a million moves in advance; that's more lawful evil's style. Just think things through, and act in a manner that's actually going to advance your goals, rather than what feels immediately satisfying. You get to keep your character, and you gain cool points rather than annoyance to the new DM points. They're much better points to have.

Awesome I suppose I was rather "rash" in my attacks and I will change how I play from now on I have learned a lot from all the posts here and I can't wait to play again and try a different approach.

[prufock]

You've created a character that doesn't work with the party. It happens. The DM should not have approved of an NE, attack-anyone-hurting-nature nutjob in the first place, but maybe he's more lax than I am. As DM, I give the players an idea of what to expect from a campaign and make sure they know that all characters need to work together (unless we're playing Paranoia!). They don't need to like each other, but they do need to have some reason to stick together.

So, options:
1. Tweak your character concept. You might not like it, but you should be working with the party. You and your DM can rule this however you like - ignore what you've already done, have your character decide to use more insidious tactics, have your character actually have a change of heart, have your character have been under the effect of some spell, etc.
2. Make a new character. If you don't want to play this druid without the concept you've crafted, just make a new one. Introduce the new one when your party realizes your current character is a sociopath and has him arrested/committed.
3. Keep going as you're going and let the chips fall where they may. Your DM and party mates might get fed up with this. Discuss with your party what you can do to make the concept work while still maintaining party and plot cohesion.

[Spuddles]

I think I'll actually side with the OP on this one. Killing random loggers is definitely not a trait of most druids, but I can definitely see it being a trait of neutral evil druids. The problem seems to be less that you're role playing a druid, and more that you're role playing an evil character who's willing to kill at the first sign of an attack on nature. If your DM approved of an evil character, then he should expect some amount of random NPC killing as part of the territory. The fact of the matter is, that what's separating your druid and most druids, is that your druid is especially fond of murder. You might want to change your druid up to true neutral, if an evil character doesn't fit.

Spot on analysis.

Druid is one of my favorite classes but I have a bugger of a time roleplaying them properly.