PDA

View Full Version : Do druid roleplayers exist, or it will just mean always one style of roleplaying?



Sergio
2017-10-22, 09:12 AM
I'm currently facing an issue with the roleplaying of a druid.

I can't envision how the class is supposed to be roleplayed. All the players that have played druid in the sessions I joined, play and envision the class as some kind of pseudo-medieval conservationist or animal rights activist.

Is it all there is of it? Because it seems so weird to me that that's the only way to play druid.

BWR
2017-10-22, 09:15 AM
Get hold of a copy of the "Complete Druid's Handbook" for 2e. Also, read Elizabeth Moon's "The Deed of Paksenarrion" to see how a druid (and primarily a paladin) should act.

Vinyadan
2017-10-22, 09:31 AM
Get a copy of Asterix, roleplay as Getafix (aka Panoramix).

JNAProductions
2017-10-22, 09:43 AM
Make a character. Then, add druid to it.

Don't think "[Character] is a druid, so they should act like X."

Think "[Character] is this kind of person, so that's how they should act. Also, they're a druid."

Fri
2017-10-22, 09:46 AM
http://goblinpunch.blogspot.co.id/2014/09/7-myths-everyone-believes-about-druids.html

Koo Rehtorb
2017-10-22, 09:51 AM
Druids have never fit thematically with the entire rest of the game. I hate them.

Berenger
2017-10-22, 09:52 AM
That may be because D&D made an animal-loving holy hippy forest wizard class and grabbed a cool name from history that didn't fit the concept at all. You could try to play an actual druid, a combination of judge, lorekeeper, priest, healer, magician and advisor of the king or tribal chief. Think Merlin. A person deeply connected to the culture, wellbeing and day-to-day politics of their society as opposed to a reclusive hermit that strolls through the hills and keeps a pet bear for company. This probably works best with the bard character class and a ton of ranks in Diplomacy, Sense Motive and several Knowledge skills, as the druid character class has few features useful for an actual druid. Use the druid character class for another concept. Rename it Witch of the Forest or something.

Pleh
2017-10-22, 10:09 AM
Make a character. Then, add druid to it.

Don't think "[Character] is a druid, so they should act like X."

Think "[Character] is this kind of person, so that's how they should act. Also, they're a druid."

There is a limit to this. Druids, in many systems, can lose access to the class or features if they fail to "revere nature."

While your answer is good, it should be supplemented with, "talk to your DM about what requirements the setting places on druids."

In some settings, you really must be fanatical in environmental activism to become a druid. In others, it's a more flexible philosophy that comes in many forms.

Edit: not that this precludes your advice. If the character does not fit a strict adherence to druidic values, that can be a source of internal conflict for the character, which is fuel for roleplaying.

Cealocanth
2017-10-22, 11:24 AM
I've seen druids done a number of ways.


Medieval hippies that value the balance of the natural world above all else.
Baba Yaga-esque witches who use twisted natural magics to teach nasty lessons to those unfortunate to meet them.
Beaurocratic and aloof, living in what are essentially druidic conclaves carved into the heart of trees, using natural magic simply as a means to further the council's goals.
Animalistic and savage, the character being more of an extension of the harshness that is nature than an extension of man.
Extremely, deeply spiritual, worshipping nature and the natural world to the point that they fear to even step on the wrong insect.
Chaotic meddlers who twist nature to suit their dark purposes. Work closely with the fey.
Natural scientists who have taken to the art of natural magic in the same way many wizards take to the arcane arts.
Adventurers who are druids, but that has about as much to do with their personality as your university major has to do with what flavor of cheescake you like.

denthor
2017-10-22, 11:36 AM
Okay rarely does the opportunity present itself on this forum to be snarky and nasty. Thank you

Druids are outcast that like to get together in a circle and howl at the moon. Why else would they turn into wolves?


This happened in my game the druid went out and bought a bird cage for himself. Had my wizard carry it in town now there are two PC's in the encounter. One with spot and unoticed. He was able to heal me when the assassin shot me in the back. So the if type infiltration, disguise observation. Coordinate the attack. Have a mage cast zero level message spell.

At higher levels they can be primary front line fighter.

Mid levels they are decent healers.

Druids are freaky flavor text bards of casters that have more value then comedy.

Darth Ultron
2017-10-22, 11:39 AM
Is it all there is of it? Because it seems so weird to me that that's the only way to play druid.

It is true that ''most'' people play ''one way'', and this is true with everything, not just druids.

Of course, you can play a character however you want. So a ''druid'' can be anything.

Aliquid
2017-10-22, 11:51 AM
Druids have never fit thematically with the entire rest of the game. I hate them.I think nature worshipping pagans fit thematically in a medieval fantasy world just fine. Similar to witches and shamans.

Honest Tiefling
2017-10-22, 12:14 PM
Druid is a class that has some similarities across editions, but can be so different depending on your game.

It could be nature-priests, tending to the natural world and creating balance between civilization and the sacred wilderness. It could be a group of people who only seek power and mastery over nature to harness power to exert control over the world. It could be a person who practices rituals and magic to appease nature spirits, lest their wrath be turned towards the villages and towns. It could also be a person who sees that nature is falling to the axe and the flame of civilization, and seeks to emulate that which still survives in civilization, the vermin, but can never be conquered, adapting as all must do. It could also be someone who serves a capricious and fickle god of disease, who will cure or harm as suits their nature or their grand plan that will take millennia to develop. It could be someone who has turned to the old ways, using magic free of an uncaring god. It could be someone who believes that their ancestors return to the earth, and call upon them to help them in a great task.

When creating a druid, ask yourself: What is their relationship with nature? How do they view the relationship between civilization (where presumably other PCs are coming from) and nature coexisting? And then go from there.

Remember, nature is scary in DnD. Nature decided that wolves predating on humans wasn't enough, we need some dire wolves! No, no, still not enough. Maybe some plants who enslave creatures to their will? Nice, but not nasty enough. Maybe a giant murderous crab? That's a good one, but still not enough. Oh! A Tarrasque! Yes, that will fit in nicely with the environment.

Mother Nature is not a kind mother.

Seclora
2017-10-22, 12:14 PM
Yes, A druid can be Fluttershy or Radagast the brown. I think that sort of person is attracted to the class, and not that the class is inherently that sort of character.

A druid can also be a local Wise Woman who tells people when they are pregnant and when the seasons will change. A tribal Shaman who guides the Coming of Age rituals and passionately recites the story of how Trickster stole Sky God's Thunder. A druid could be the author of Almanacs and keeper of the royal gardens, who gets paid well for his skills. Perhaps a Druid is someone who has been blessed by the Fae with the ability to change his form using the skins of animals. Some Druids sit on the sides of volcanos meditating on the power of the fire within the earth.

A druid is someone who derives power from Nature, and Nature is a lot bigger than hugging Trees and Rhosgobel Rabbits.

I also know people who play Druid for the seeing-eye dog. Animal Companions are a pretty big draw.

Eldan
2017-10-22, 12:26 PM
I think nature worshipping pagans fit thematically in a medieval fantasy world just fine. Similar to witches and shamans.

Even more so if you go back to the roots and play a setting that isn't medieval,but anywhere from the pre-collapse bronze age to the migration era. Conan, Fafhrd, Lord of the Rings, all those classic and totally not medieval fantasy stories.

Nifft
2017-10-22, 12:32 PM
I've done a Druid as a nature-wizard, as in someone who researches how to get power from nature and makes bargains with spirits & fey.

I've done a Druid as an evil pack-leader type of predator, but wearing human skin. (He wanted to dominate a region by leading a pack of fellow predators. Basically a warlord-werewolf with wintry weather-wizardry.)

I've seen a Druid played as an urban planner.

I've seen a Druid played like an anime priest: the guy who knows all about spirits & minor gods and is good at punching them.


You can do a lot of stuff with a Druid.

Hellpyre
2017-10-22, 08:40 PM
My favorite druid was just a gnome who felt all worng in his humanoid form. His adventuring arc was trying to find a form that suited him properly (the answer, via Master of Many Forms, was all of them.)

If you want something distinct, decide on what drew the PC to follow the druidic class. If that happens to be a class feature, indulge in it.

Lord Raziere
2017-10-22, 08:49 PM
http://goblinpunch.blogspot.co.id/2014/09/7-myths-everyone-believes-about-druids.html

Yeah thats pretty much the druid I would go with.

nature is savage. and people in medieval times feared nature, it wasn't a garden to them. at best druids should be the scary savage guy you go to ward away the scary animal things surrounding your village because no one else knows how. at worst, they should be the person leading the scary animals.

Sergio
2017-10-23, 09:08 AM
I will read each one of your post as soon as I come back home tonight.

I will ask another questions: couldn't I play a druid as a barbarian more attuned to nature and with more in common than a barbarian itself with it?

MrConsideration
2017-10-23, 09:19 AM
I played a Druid who was from a viking-inspired culture and believed openly in violence, slavery and other 'evil' things. He adventured in order to master his powers and claim treasure to reclaim his homeland from a foe. His whole philosophy was Nietzschean, might-makes-right, justified as it being natural that the strong should prey on the weak.

He felt that living among civilisation's comforts made you physically and spiritually weak, and that only pitting yourself against the elements and mastering them made you sharp.

His feudal(ish) society encompassed more of the world that most people's definition: he simply thought everyone thought it was natural to make an alpha male sea-lion your vassal.

Historical druids, filtered through the Roman propaganda machine, were judges and leaders, philosophers and poets They practised human sacrifice and controlled the oral culture of a nation. No tree-hugging hippies here.

Necroticplague
2017-10-23, 09:39 AM
Is it all there is of it? Because it seems so weird to me that that's the only way to play druid.

It isn't. 'Nature', the thing the druid has to revere/worship, has many facets, and so to can a druid be varied by which facet they emphasize, just as a Cleric can be differentiated by how they worship their god, even if they worship the same one.

LibraryOgre
2017-10-23, 09:44 AM
Consider, if you will, the various druidic faiths of the Forgotten Realms. Silvanus reveres wild places. Eldath peace, calm, pools of water and rest. Chauntea is an agricultural deity, concerned with growing things. Malar is nature, red in tooth and claw. Talos is the power of nature unleashed in destruction. Umberlee is the nature of the sea, rolling in the deep.

All can be druids. All are very different approaches to the standard idea of a druid.

Keltest
2017-10-23, 09:45 AM
As was mentioned earlier, play your character first, and be a druid second. Your class is just a lens your character will view the world through, and its not even the only one a character has.

Its up to you to decide what being a druid means to your character, but in general they tend to be close cousins of clerics: spiritual leaders and fonts of wisdom.

But theres still a lot of room for your own personality. You could see yourself as a servant (or even slave!) of Nature, or you could guide others in interacting with it. You could be savage or peaceful, social or a loner, good or evil...

Unless your campaign has some specific constraint on druids, the only thing it really compels you to do in any way is to hang out in an area with good access to plants and animals, if at all possible, and that's mostly a matter of practicality.

Solaris
2017-10-23, 10:20 AM
Yeah thats pretty much the druid I would go with.

nature is savage. and people in medieval times feared nature, it wasn't a garden to them. at best druids should be the scary savage guy you go to ward away the scary animal things surrounding your village because no one else knows how. at worst, they should be the person leading the scary animals.

I was less than impressed with that post; it left completely blank the question of non-sociopathic druids. Those are not druids that could reasonably be expected to exist. The linked article's druids are pretty thoroughly neutral evil, chaotic evil, and chaotic neutral with a side order of edgelord. That's not nature; that's the stereotype of the medieval peasant's view of nature. Our ancestors feared predators, sure, and there's a reason the enchanted wood features in fairy tales, but I daresay they understood the natural world around them a good deal better than your average person today. After all, nature gave as much as it took, and those fairy tales featured reasons to go into those enchanted woods that didn't sound like "Evil things in there need killing."

kyoryu
2017-10-23, 11:12 AM
Make a character. Then, add druid to it.

Don't think "[Character] is a druid, so they should act like X."

Think "[Character] is this kind of person, so that's how they should act. Also, they're a druid."

This, but I'd say "think of a character that would think becoming a druid is a good thing".

Malimar
2017-10-23, 11:23 AM
I once played a druid who was super into bugs. He revered nature, but the "bugs" aspect of nature in particular. Especially the bugs that show up on dead things, maggots and stuff. To that end, he tried to transform as many alive things into dead things as he could manage.

He also was not particularly concerned about the man-made technical definition of "bug". Begone, pedants!

DigoDragon
2017-10-23, 01:28 PM
The druid player in our D&D group plays her PC like Leela from Futurama; passionate, no nonsense, loves animals, and is probably the real brains behind our adventuring group.

Nifft
2017-10-23, 01:33 PM
This, but I'd say "think of a character that would think becoming a druid is a good thing".

Divine power can be a calling, rather than a the result of a choice.

You might be a character who frankly dislikes all the dirt and bugs and lack of hot baths, but your mom was a Disney Princess so animals are compelled to heed you, and your dad was a champion of such great charisma that the elements themselves respond to your emotions.

You might have been a humble farmer who got struck by lightning and lived, so now you're the appointed Ambassador to the Wild.

Maybe every 10 years the town gives a child to the Hill Witch, and your family was poor that year, so you went to the witch. Maybe you were clever enough to pick up her magic so she trained you a bit instead of just working you to death & eating your bones.

Perhaps due to unfortunate circumstances you were raised by wild Dryads and Nixies and Treebrad, the awakened tree who is kind of a jerk.

Fri
2017-10-23, 09:10 PM
I was less than impressed with that post; it left completely blank the question of non-sociopathic druids. Those are not druids that could reasonably be expected to exist. The linked article's druids are pretty thoroughly neutral evil, chaotic evil, and chaotic neutral with a side order of edgelord. That's not nature; that's the stereotype of the medieval peasant's view of nature. Our ancestors feared predators, sure, and there's a reason the enchanted wood features in fairy tales, but I daresay they understood the natural world around them a good deal better than your average person today. After all, nature gave as much as it took, and those fairy tales featured reasons to go into those enchanted woods that didn't sound like "Evil things in there need killing."

That post wasn't actually about "all druids should act like this." The title is tongue in cheek, it's a specific druid for a specific setting, and I linked as example of different kind of druid than what's the op has in mind, and I believe that's the point of the druids in that setting as well, to make them different than typical druids and be villains of the setting.

Beowulf DW
2017-10-23, 09:13 PM
I once played as a Druid that just wanted to cuddle all the animals he could, starting with his fearsome wolf companion, Fluffytail.

In all seriousness, though, I'd suggest reading The Red Knight, in which a druid is the captain of a mercenary company and falls in love with a nun.

LibraryOgre
2017-10-24, 12:16 PM
I once played as a Druid that just wanted to cuddle all the animals he could, starting with his fearsome wolf companion, Fluffytail.

In all seriousness, though, I'd suggest reading The Red Knight, in which a druid is the captain of a mercenary company and falls in love with a nun.

Druid archetype. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxvzEfI0BFU)

dascarletm
2017-10-24, 03:10 PM
The one time I played a druid, I played them as a societal outcast viking with a deep connection to the Land Wights (land spirits in Norse mythology). He was gruff, but didn't really revere the animals and such, he just preferred living alone in the wild than with people and clan politics.

The point is, druids can be anything.

WarKitty
2017-10-24, 06:52 PM
I've had fun playing druids as essentially a cross between a village cleric and a witch doctor. Teaching people how to stay in tune with the land so their crops stay healthy and keeping their animals in good shape, while learning how to get along with the fey and various nature deities that affect the lives of the rural populace. The ethos is much more similar to a cleric of a natural or agricultural deity.

Bebbit
2017-10-25, 09:58 AM
The first Druid I played morphed from having an obsession with fire (burning things created new life from the ashes), to having an obsession with bears, and wanting to become the Bear God.
He's currently in epic levels now, Awakening bears all over and converting them to worshiping him and starting his own religion.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-25, 10:05 AM
That may be because D&D made an animal-loving holy hippy forest wizard class and grabbed a cool name from history that didn't fit the concept at all. You could try to play an actual druid, a combination of judge, lorekeeper, priest, healer, magician and advisor of the king or tribal chief. Think Merlin. A person deeply connected to the culture, wellbeing and day-to-day politics of their society as opposed to a reclusive hermit that strolls through the hills and keeps a pet bear for company. This probably works best with the bard character class and a ton of ranks in Diplomacy, Sense Motive and several Knowledge skills, as the druid character class has few features useful for an actual druid. Use the druid character class for another concept. Rename it Witch of the Forest or something.


Well said.

The D&D "druid" is an unintentional farce based on several layers of dubious fiction going back to ridiculous Victorian notions of English "history".

LibraryOgre
2017-10-25, 10:14 AM
That may be because D&D made an animal-loving holy hippy forest wizard class and grabbed a cool name from history that didn't fit the concept at all. You could try to play an actual druid, a combination of judge, lorekeeper, priest, healer, magician and advisor of the king or tribal chief. Think Merlin. A person deeply connected to the culture, wellbeing and day-to-day politics of their society as opposed to a reclusive hermit that strolls through the hills and keeps a pet bear for company. This probably works best with the bard character class and a ton of ranks in Diplomacy, Sense Motive and several Knowledge skills, as the druid character class has few features useful for an actual druid. Use the druid character class for another concept. Rename it Witch of the Forest or something.

To be fair, if you look at the earlier editions, that's what a druid was. 15 Charisma made them community leaders; Jaroo Ashstaff (from Hommlet) had a pet bear, yes, but he was the leader of the local druidic sect which comprised about half the town. Another druid in the town was the local blacksmith. 3.x divorced them from this, emphasizing their connection with animals and nature, rather than culture.

Joe the Rat
2017-10-25, 10:21 AM
The advent of Spheres/Domains/non-generic clerics was a contributing factor. Without some other niche, there really was no good distinction between a Nature Cleric and a Druid.

But that is one of many strange misnomers in the game.

Vogie
2017-10-25, 10:41 AM
Because it seems so weird to me that that's the only way to play druid.

This would only make sense if nature was only one way. If the world you're playing with has a binary "Nature" and "not nature", then, yes, there's only that one way to play a druid.

However, most settings are not that.

Swamp druids would look, act, and care about different things than arctic druids. Same goes for forest, desert, plains, rivers, mountains, coastline, islandic, bear, raven, bug, fish, dinosaur, gorilla, elephant, et cetera. A druid would attune to whatever nature was in the place of their birth or training. There's an interesting 5e thread about having Land Druids even have their domain spells change depending on the type of land that they're inhabiting.

I'm, personally, fascinated by the concept of an urban druid, attuned with the ecology of a city that is created by various sizes of organized society. That will b


That may be because D&D made an animal-loving holy hippy forest wizard class and grabbed a cool name from history that didn't fit the concept at all. You could try to play an actual druid, a combination of judge, lorekeeper, priest, healer, magician and advisor of the king or tribal chief. Think Merlin. A person deeply connected to the culture, wellbeing and day-to-day politics of their society as opposed to a reclusive hermit that strolls through the hills and keeps a pet bear for company. This probably works best with the bard character class and a ton of ranks in Diplomacy, Sense Motive and several Knowledge skills, as the druid character class has few features useful for an actual druid. Use the druid character class for another concept. Rename it Witch of the Forest or something.

Precisely. For the bulk of history, ALL magic was druidic magic. Pre-literate societies would worship various aspects of nature, possibly without giving it a proper name or specific rituals that would be required for being a "cleric".

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-25, 10:55 AM
Precisely. For the bulk of history, ALL magic was druidic magic. Pre-literate societies would worship various aspects of nature, possibly without giving it a proper name or specific rituals that would be required for being a "cleric".


A better term there would be "shamanic magic" or "animism".

As best we can tell, the actual real-world druids (by that name and others) were a specific social class (not a single job or role, an entire social class) including priests, scholars, lorekeepers, healers, political advisors, some types of artists, and various other "experts" and "intellectuals" in some of the "celtic" cultures including in pre-Roman Britain.

Malimar
2017-10-25, 11:08 AM
A better term there would be "shamanic magic" or "animism".

As best we can tell, the actual real-world druids (by that name and others) were a specific social class (not a single job or role, an entire social class) including priests, scholars, lorekeepers, healers, political advisors, some types of artists, and various other "experts" and "intellectuals" in some of the "celtic" cultures including in pre-Roman Britain.
I think Vogie's point is true if you take "druidic magic" to be referring to the game term "druid", not its real-life origin.

(Really, in this as in so many other cases, the real-world origins of the term are pretty much irrelevant and should be ignored. Somehow nobody complains that D&D Paladins aren't twelve warrior dudes in the court of Charlemagne...)

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-25, 11:14 AM
I think Vogie's point is true if you take "druidic magic" to be referring to the game term "druid", not its real-life origin.

(Really, in this as in so many other cases, the real-world origins of the term are pretty much irrelevant and should be ignored. Somehow nobody complains that D&D Paladins aren't twelve warrior dudes in the court of Charlemagne...)


If the word has a real-world meaning, and you're going to ignore it, it's better to make something up than to use the real word.

See also as a broader principle, 300, which is so outrageously ahistorical in every aspect that they should have filed the historical names off.

I have snarked about "paladin" previously... especially as it's become a vaguer and vaguer "warrior so dedicated to a cause it makes him magic" catchall.

Vogie
2017-10-25, 11:39 AM
If the word has a real-world meaning, and you're going to ignore it, it's better to make something up than to use the real word.

See also as a broader principle, 300, which is so outrageously ahistorical in every aspect that they should have filed the historical names off.

I have snarked about "paladin" previously... especially as it's become a vaguer and vaguer "warrior so dedicated to a cause it makes him magic" catchall.

Of course. That's why "barbarian" is should only to be used concerning uncivilized people that don't speak Greek (& later Roman) languages, and can only be called that by Greeks (and later Romans).

Also, only call them "fighters" while they're actively fighting.

Druids must also be at least vaguely Britannic or you're doing it WRONG.

Only use the word "awful" if you are literally filled with awe.

Also, You can't "snark", as a snark is an imaginary animal coined by Lewis Carroll in 1876, which predates the use of it as a verb meaning "make snide and sharply critical comments".

This is a roleplay forum, please don't be fastidious.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-25, 11:44 AM
Of course. That's why "barbarian" is should only to be used concerning uncivilized people that don't speak Greek (& later Roman) languages, and can only be called that by Greeks (and later Romans).

Also, only call them "fighters" while they're actively fighting.

Druids must also be at least vaguely Britannic or you're doing it WRONG.

Only use the word "awful" if you are literally filled with awe.

Also, You can't "snark", as a snark is an imaginary animal coined by Lewis Carroll in 1876, which predates the use of it as a verb meaning "make snide and sharply critical comments".

This is a roleplay forum, please don't be fastidious.


False equivalency is false, but thanks for trying I guess.

Honest Tiefling
2017-10-25, 01:28 PM
See also as a broader principle, 300, which is so outrageously ahistorical in every aspect that they should have filed the historical names off.

You stop that! 300 is a great movie! And removing it from the historical context would have made it less hilarious! No one is thinking of removing the historical names from Robin Hood Men in Tights...

I agree with you on principle (Samurai gets confusing because that's an actual noble title that would be used in any game with a Samurai character)...But I think it's too late for Druid and Paladin. I bet if you showed those terms to most gamers, you'll start getting rants on WoW lore and mutterings of 'For the Horde!'.

Malimar
2017-10-25, 02:12 PM
I agree with you on principle (Samurai gets confusing because that's an actual noble title that would be used in any game with a Samurai character)...But I think it's too late for Druid and Paladin. I bet if you showed those terms to most gamers, you'll start getting rants on WoW lore and mutterings of 'For the Horde!'.
Having a Samurai class is a bit like having a Knight class. A world can be full of knights who don't have levels in the Knight class, or samurai who don't have levels in the Samurai class (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html), and it just gets confusing.

And Monk gets confusing because what of religious dwellers in an abbey/monastery who don't know kung fu? I use "cenobite" to minimize confusion, but once I had a player think I was talking about the monsters from Hellraiser (and tried to attack them before getting clarification, it was a whole Dread Gazebo situation), so probably I should have picked "anchorite" or "friar" instead.

Honest Tiefling
2017-10-25, 03:18 PM
And Monk gets confusing because what of religious dwellers in an abbey/monastery who don't know kung fu? I use "cenobite" to minimize confusion, but once I had a player think I was talking about the monsters from Hellraiser (and tried to attack them before getting clarification, it was a whole Dread Gazebo situation), so probably I should have picked "anchorite" or "friar" instead.

You really need to type up that story. It could be the next Dread Gazebo, since I think most people nowadays know what a gazebo is, but not realize the actual meaning of the word cenobite. (I didn't!)

icefractal
2017-10-25, 04:34 PM
That may be because D&D made an animal-loving holy hippy forest wizard class and grabbed a cool name from history that didn't fit the concept at all. You could try to play an actual druid, a combination of judge, lorekeeper, priest, healer, magician and advisor of the king or tribal chief. Think Merlin. A person deeply connected to the culture, wellbeing and day-to-day politics of their society as opposed to a reclusive hermit that strolls through the hills and keeps a pet bear for company. This probably works best with the bard character class and a ton of ranks in Diplomacy, Sense Motive and several Knowledge skills, as the druid character class has few features useful for an actual druid. Use the druid character class for another concept. Rename it Witch of the Forest or something.Druid (the class) works decently for the actual Druid concept though - although I'd agree that so does Bard. They've got Diplomacy and Sense Motive (and are Wis based, so really good at the latter), they've got a number of spells useful for the role, and Wild Shape / 1000 Faces is great for spying.

Incidentally, they also make excellent assassins.

Zombimode
2017-10-25, 05:53 PM
False equivalency is false, but thanks for trying I guess.

I think the main point here is that getting worked up about the class' name is not particular helpful. "Druid" is a technical term in the context of D&D.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-25, 07:12 PM
I think the main point here is that getting worked up about the class' name is not particular helpful. "Druid" is a technical term in the context of D&D.

1) I generally loath hijacked words terms of art.

2) I've met too many people who think that druids are fictional because the only place they've heard of them is a game, or have heard of druids but think they're just like the druids in D&D -- or believe in similar nonsense they've picked up from badly-researched RPG materials.

Jerrykhor
2017-10-25, 10:06 PM
Y'all are talking out of your asses. Nobody can tell you what's wrong or right in a freaking make believe game. Call it what you want, RP how you like. If it makes sense to you, its fine. If you are having fun, its fine.

Also, there is no 'technical term' for class names, D&D class names don't have a strict meaning. For example, Wizard/Sorcerer are often used interchangeably in most fantasy lore, along with Mage/Cabalist/Warlock/Magician etc.

And what's with comparing the class name to real world counterparts? Real clerics can't raise dead or summon radiant light either. Stop being stupid and use some common sense.

Sexyshoeless
2017-10-25, 10:44 PM
There is something to be said for using the stereotypical fluff for other classes to make druids.

I'm playing my druid with a similar flavor to the fey warlocks - a hermit who has made a pact with a spirit of the land and calls upon it's power as needed.

I have also seen druids played as nerdy scholars who pull their spells and wild shapes out of the pages of a book.
I can also see a paladin-type protector of the forest with an oath and everything.

As someone said earlier this thread, make the character first, then slap druid on to it :3.

Honest Tiefling
2017-10-26, 12:16 AM
2) I've met too many people who think that druids are fictional because the only place they've heard of them is a game, or have heard of druids but think they're just like the druids in D&D -- or believe in similar nonsense they've picked up from badly-researched RPG materials.

Yeah, but not using the term might mean that they just don't hear it or think it came from the Asterix comics. People have different expertises, some are good at history and some aren't, and there's nothing wrong with that. Sure, RPGs are going to give them the wrong idea, but so is everything else. It's just plain going to happen, so I don't see the point in getting worked up about it when the term functions to establish some tone and plot elements.


Y'all are talking out of your asses. Nobody can tell you what's wrong or right in a freaking make believe game. Call it what you want, RP how you like. If it makes sense to you, its fine. If you are having fun, its fine.

I say not to follow this advice. Most RPG games are played with multiple people, and yes, that means compromising on the character. If everyone sat down and agreed on a setting and you show up with something completely and utterly inappropriate for that setting, you should really reconsider playing that character. Settings have themes and rules, so don't show up to a Ravenloft game with an over powered demigod who has divine instruction on a daily basis. Don't show up to Darksun with a character who carries a ton of metal. And don't show up to a very historical game with a half-demon!

Mechalich
2017-10-26, 12:41 AM
'Druid' is a reasonably acceptable label for a person filling a shaman-like role in a fantasy setting based on Medieval Europe, and despite some oddly specific powers - there's no real reason why all druids should have shapeshifting - it worked fine in this role for the first two editions. The name is less functional in non-European settings but it's still workable and less ridiculous than the Monk class, so it's hardly worth complaining about.

Unfortunately, 3e includes both the Adept NPC class - which fills the cultural role of a druid better than the druid does - and eventually produced an actual Shaman class (in both D&D and Pathfinder, and Pathfinder also includes the Witch to swallow up some druid-like concepts). That really reduced the conceptual zone the druid was best at occupying, putting much more emphasis on direct connections to nature and pushing them toward a hermit-based existence. This doubled-up the issue that the druid concept has always been a poor fit for actual D&D gameplay. Nature-worshippers who avoid society are a poor fit for a game about plundering ancient ruins for the purpose of acquiring wealth and power. The druid concept is ill-suited for dungeon-crawls. They function better as NPCs serving as custodians for some area or in a setting where environmental issues really do matter to everyone, such as Dark Sun.

Honest Tiefling
2017-10-26, 12:49 AM
This doubled-up the issue that the druid concept has always been a poor fit for actual D&D gameplay. Nature-worshippers who avoid society are a poor fit for a game about plundering ancient ruins for the purpose of acquiring wealth and power. The druid concept is ill-suited for dungeon-crawls. They function better as NPCs serving as custodians for some area or in a setting where environmental issues really do matter to everyone, such as Dark Sun.

I disagree again! Think of how much easier it would be to conduct political negations if the children of all other parties are in the clutches of a hungry bear! And unlike a real bear, the druid might actually wait before devouring said children. At the very least, you save some gold on honey.

As for dungeon crawls, I don't think it would be too difficult to find a reason. Put some druid loot that needs to be return to the circle of hugging trees. Put in an ancient oath that the druids would repay a favor someone did for them. Put the dungeon in the wilderness so the druid has to clear it out.

Snowy-
2017-10-26, 09:49 AM
I have played or like the following flavours of druid:
- Nature red in tooth and claw Druid. Very much about being in touch with savagery and emotions.
- Fey like troublemaker who was a little anti civilisation but mainly because it made people dull.
- Earth themed dwarven druid who was all about the rocks, earth themed spells and burrowing animals.

kivzirrum
2017-10-26, 11:01 AM
I disagree again! Think of how much easier it would be to conduct political negations if the children of all other parties are in the clutches of a hungry bear! And unlike a real bear, the druid might actually wait before devouring said children. At the very least, you save some gold on honey.

As for dungeon crawls, I don't think it would be too difficult to find a reason. Put some druid loot that needs to be return to the circle of hugging trees. Put in an ancient oath that the druids would repay a favor someone did for them. Put the dungeon in the wilderness so the druid has to clear it out.

Alternately, couldn't you justify dungeon crawls just because the druid is presumably pals with the rest of the party's characters, and wants to help them out?

Berenger
2017-10-26, 11:38 AM
Y'all are talking out of your asses.
Speak for your own ass. Thank you very much. :smallredface:



Nobody can tell you what's wrong or right in a freaking make believe game. Call it what you want, RP how you like. If it makes sense to you, its fine. If you are having fun, its fine.

Also, there is no 'technical term' for class names, D&D class names don't have a strict meaning. For example, Wizard/Sorcerer are often used interchangeably in most fantasy lore, along with Mage/Cabalist/Warlock/Magician etc.
If you don't care about the origin or meaning of words, I suggest you galabella dorunt mikawasi.



And what's with comparing the class name to real world counterparts? Real clerics can't raise dead or summon radiant light either. Stop being stupid and use some common sense.
Giving laser eyes to a duck makes it a duck with laser eyes, not a koala bear with laser eyes. Comparing non-laser-eye related characteristics of Cyberduck with real ducks and expecting it to have flat, orange feet instead of purple tentacles is neither stupid nor bereft of common sense.

Honest Tiefling
2017-10-26, 12:38 PM
Alternately, couldn't you justify dungeon crawls just because the druid is presumably pals with the rest of the party's characters, and wants to help them out?

Presumably, one cannot shirk their duties just to pal around in some long-forgotten dungeon. Of course, you could RP that the druid follows a god that is a relative, lover, friend or ally of someone else god who needs their followers to go into this dungeon. So the druid is being sent out due to the fact that that the druidic god owes some favors.

I believe that in both Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms the druid gods did actually have allies amongst the non-druid gods, so it's not that big of a stretch.

Nifft
2017-10-26, 01:23 PM
I believe that in both Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms the druid gods did actually have allies amongst the non-druid gods, so it's not that big of a stretch.

Greyhawk mostly has ethnic gods, but they're not specific to Druids or non-Druids.

Many of the older gods used by NPC Druids are Flan (e.g. Beory, Obad-Hai).

IIRC, for example the religious issues in the village of Homlet were about the tensions between the old Flan religion (of Beory, represented by a Druid) and the new Aerdi religion (represented by a church of St. Cuthbert, a relatively new god).

Obad-Hai is a Flan god who has Druid followers, but also has a significant number of Cleric followers.


I think FR is pretty much the same: a god can have Druid and Cleric (and Paladin and Ranger) worshipers.

kivzirrum
2017-10-26, 01:43 PM
Presumably, one cannot shirk their duties just to pal around in some long-forgotten dungeon.

A fair point, to be sure--but as you point out, there are ways to roleplay around this :smallsmile: Perhaps the druid need not be so stringent in their duties, or perhaps they simply have devotion to the people in their life that equals or perhaps supersedes the importance of their duties. I think there are plenty of ways to justify it that it need not interfere with the campaign.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-26, 05:12 PM
My take on druids (and the effect on roleplaying them) is somewhat different than most:


English is terminally polysemous. Words have multiple meanings, many of which are completely divorced from their etymology. That's normal and natural.


Note: this is all my personal canon, not setting canon for any published setting except my own. It's also specific to 5e D&D.

Druids have similarities to nature clerics, but differ in how they get their power. Where clerics channel the power of their god (or the domain they worship), druids make limited-term contracts with natural spirits. Basically, druids are animists that get results. They promise to feed their contracting party pieces of pre-digested magical energy (spell slots); in return the spirit promises to do an action (the spell). As the druid gets more proficient, she gets better at making these deals (can prepare more spells) and has more energy to spend (more spell slots).

Since the spirits of beasts and plants are more human-like (more intelligent and less alien of thought), many or most of a druid's spells involve plants and animals. In addition, druids learn to make contracts to clothe themselves in the spirit of a beast--their form is subsumed into that of the beast, and the beast takes any damage for the druid and interfaces with this new form (so there's no learning curve to fly once you have the strength to assume such a form).

What does this mean for behavior? A druid might be religious, or might not. He's not tied to the gods any more than any other non-cleric person is. Generally, a druid will act to keep the trust of the natural spirits. This means avoiding corruption above all. Destruction is fine--cleansing fire is part of nature and the spirits understand that. Twisting one thing into another (creating aberrations and mutant creatures)? That's a taboo because the spirits don't like that at all. A druid generally isn't at his happiest in a big city--there aren't as many plants around, although many can adapt just fine. A druid may adventure out of wanderlust--meet new spirits, see new things. Or, they may be connected to people and want to help them. Druids, to me, aren't servants of nature--they're simply exchanging services in a relationship of trust. Druids help nature, and nature helps druids.

But I certainly agree that character > class for roleplaying purposes.

Honest Tiefling
2017-10-26, 08:58 PM
PhoenixPhyre post is making me ask this question...Do RPGs in other languages have such invovled semantics debate? I love you English, but sometimes I worry about your kletpomania and hoarding.

As for the actual meat of their post, I quite like that explanation as it perserves the whole 'respect for nature' business without getting in the way of the adventuring party/plot. However, I must ask...What is a spell slot? What is the druid giving over, exactly?

And do druids not use metal in your games?

Mechalich
2017-10-26, 09:17 PM
A fair point, to be sure--but as you point out, there are ways to roleplay around this :smallsmile: Perhaps the druid need not be so stringent in their duties, or perhaps they simply have devotion to the people in their life that equals or perhaps supersedes the importance of their duties. I think there are plenty of ways to justify it that it need not interfere with the campaign.

There are certainly ways to justify it, but the issue is that you need a justification in the first place.

Most character classes, in D&D, have as their base motivations one of two things: acquire power and wealth, or smite evil/good. Going on murderhobo adventures suits both of these groups, albeit with the understanding that the places you conduct you murderhoboing need to be full of whatever you're trying to smite (this is rarely an issue).

There are three core classes that don't properly fit this pattern: bard, druid, and monk. Guess what, these are the three least popular character classes (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/) (I'm discounting the sorcerer, since it's really just a variant of the wizard and has no distinct concept of its own).

Druid, being saddled with a particular ethos - one that interacts poorly with the D&D alignment system - and opposition to most traditional societal structures arguably has it the worst. Bards can pall around with their friends no problem, and a monk can easily have a cause that aligns with the goals of their party, but it is a relatively rare situation in a D&D game where what a druid party member should be doing is the thing it makes most sense for a druid to be doing at any given time (and honestly, most of us have experienced this by playing BG with Jahiera. Maybe 1% of those games involves druid stuff in any way).

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-26, 09:17 PM
PhoenixPhyre post is making me ask this question...Do RPGs in other languages have such invovled semantics debate? I love you English, but sometimes I worry about your kletpomania and hoarding.


"(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." - James Nicoll (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Nicoll)

Honest Tiefling
2017-10-26, 09:19 PM
There are certainly ways to justify it, but the issue is that you need a justification in the first place.

If an explanation as simple as 'There is druid loot in there, go loot it' or 'Your god told you to do it' is too complex, I think your DM might have issues with making plot hooks. It just takes a bit of communication between DM and the player. Which is going to be true of most non-murder-hobo characters, who are going to need a reason to drop their duties and come to the Dungeon of Murder.

Vogie
2017-10-26, 09:52 PM
I think the discussion is being too tied to the word "duties". That attitude would certainly make the "why isn't this only a NPC class" debate happen. But in reality, nature doesn't assign "duties", there is no divinely mandated structure. What it does have is an understanding of what is required and what it takes to do that. That's clerical thinking, and if you're stuck there, then shovelling them into a "nature cleric" is all you really can see.

IRL, when they reintroduced wolves back into national parks here in the US, more trees started to appear. The reason is because a predator was introduced to an area without one, that changed both the number of and habits of certain prey animals, who were all over the place, chewing down what would be entire sections of the forest before it could grow.

Druids, in the view of nature, are just like that. They are movers and shakers in an ecosystem. Maybe they're like bees, crosspollenating various societies, just memetically rather than genetically. Maybe they're like hurricanes, that trap a bunch of hot air, and move it away from the equator (and also occasionally knock down buildings. When a druid acts, whether that be to explore a ruin or clear out a dungeon, they're making sure the ecosystem is in place. Nature abhors a vacuum, and is always tweaking things, letting them wax & wane.

If a druid is a warmonger, that's as natural a lightning striking a dead tree and setting it alight. If they're removing the scourge from the valley, it's no different from an new predator moving into the area. If they're restoring peace and making society flourish, that's nothing but regrowth from the previous storm, purge, or blaze. They should be able to migrate, to change, to adapt, to evolve, just as nature does.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb has a concept called "antifragility", discussed in his book by the same name, as being true opposite of Fragility. The opposite of fragility, or something that breaks when disorder is applied, is not robustness or steadfastness (which remains the same regardless of change), but rather something that gain or grow from disorder. This is what he deems "antifragile", and environments & ecosystems are one of the many concepts that he uses to show that such a thing exists. When an athlete is training, they're introducing disorder to their body - stretching muscles farthur than they want, introducing microfractures to bones on impact - but the body responds not by breaking, but by getting stronger. In the same manner, nature reacts to disorder placed on it from outside sources. Grass punches through concrete, wolves wander through neighborhoods, trees producing seeds that will only grow after everything burns.

Dragonexx
2017-10-27, 12:41 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nature and natural can have a lot of goddamn meanings. While people seem to like to paint the druid as just defending the forests from civilization, it can also do the opposite.

If they're about balance between nature and civilization, then you need to stop thinking of it from a modern perspective. Today we have to worry about things like pollution, sustainability, and global warming. However, most D&D settings are pre-industrial, usually pretty far, meaning mankind is basically at the mercy of nature. And even worse than in real life, because there's all sorts of nasty monsters that could depopulate villages if not stopped. So druids as defenders of civilization is totally a concept that has merit.


Also, it's important to remember: Progress is the natural state of human affairs. It's entirely natural for mankind to advance their civilization, developing new technology and social structures and government types. So it is entirely reasonable for druids to serve as both defenders and advisors of civilization, helping them to advance responsibly.

Also: A quote I like:



When the gnomes first built huts, there were those among the druids who declared that this assuredly meant the end of nature, that all the trees would be broken and bent into wooden shelters in defiance of the old ways. Now, most druids have a home in the wilderness to store their tools and scrolls.

When the elves first built boats, there were those among the druids who muttered that these boats presaged the ruination of the wild oceans, that every stream and sea would be choked by an endless flotilla of ships. Now, most druids have shaped wood into a canoe or boat and have at least a passing familiarity with sea-craft.

Now, man builds cities of stone and steel, and the druids frown and mutter. A few urban druids, however, have adapted to this new and strange land. The city is an ecosystem, and in its own way there is as much life here as there is in the forest. The urban druids have learned to look into the dark crevasses, to speak the language of rat and cockroach, of sewer beast and alley cat. Some of the urban druids even look to a time when they will know all the secrets of the grey realm of the city. They speak of the coming of a druid who has the same oneness with the city that other elder druids have with the desert or the wood.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-27, 06:24 AM
PhoenixPhyre post is making me ask this question...Do RPGs in other languages have such invovled semantics debate? I love you English, but sometimes I worry about your kletpomania and hoarding.

As for the actual meat of their post, I quite like that explanation as it perserves the whole 'respect for nature' business without getting in the way of the adventuring party/plot. However, I must ask...What is a spell slot? What is the druid giving over, exactly?

And do druids not use metal in your games?

A spell slot is a packet of ordered, pre-digested energy (in my setting this energy is called anima and is the foundational stuff of reality, matter, everything) that a spell caster learns to store in their spirit. It's refined slowly as you sleep/rest (although some have learned to do this faster). Different spell levels have different energies (in a discrete and non-integer-multiple fashion--can't have half a spell slot, and two Nth level slots are not equal to a 2Nth level slot), somewhat analogous to electronic energy levels in an atom. When you cast a spell, you expend one stored packet, using it to resonate with the ambient energy (this resonance is a spell). This is also why you can spend spell slots to do other things (Paladins can smite, moon druids can heal, etc.) You spend the energy without patterning it into a resonance--paladins just tack it onto the force of the blow, moon druids use it to repair the spirit whose shape they're wrapped in, etc.

And druids don't wear metal armor (which I understand to mean wearing armor dominantly composed of refined metal in sheets or rings). This is because they prefer to have the contracted spirits close to them, and refined metal, being dense and inert, makes this less pleasant/harder. Also, the main society that pursues druidic magic is a low-metal society (having learned ways of hardening wood, etc to have much the same effect), so they naturally don't wear metal because metal isn't common there. For PCs, I leave it as an expectation, but don't really care too much as long as they're not munchkining. Haven't had a druid want to wear metal armor yet, so haven't had to cross that bridge.


"(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." - James Nicoll (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Nicoll)

One of my favorite quotes. And that's not a bad thing, that rampant polysemy. Language, and linguistics, are descriptive. If you're talking to a group of historians about the pre-roman civilization of the British Isles, you use "druid" to mean one set of things. If you're talking to a bunch of gamers about WoW, you use it differently. If you're talking to a bunch of D&D players, you use it yet a third way. And they're all correct, as long as you don't cross the streams/use them in the wrong context. Same with the various types of armor/weapons--unless you're playing in an explicitly real-world-historical setting, the names are translations, mostly traditionally-motivated. They have a fixed meaning in the context of the game, and a different meaning (or possibly are meaningless) in historical contexts. They're local variables that have limited scope.

WarKitty
2017-10-27, 06:28 AM
If they're about balance between nature and civilization, then you need to stop thinking of it from a modern perspective. Today we have to worry about things like pollution, sustainability, and global warming. However, most D&D settings are pre-industrial, usually pretty far, meaning mankind is basically at the mercy of nature. And even worse than in real life, because there's all sorts of nasty monsters that could depopulate villages if not stopped. So druids as defenders of civilization is totally a concept that has merit.

Keep in mind this means that mankind also related quite differently to nature. The idea of "man over nature" is modern. Think of the old stories of the fey - alien creatures that might help or might harm as you followed their rules. You tried to get along with nature, you appeased nature, you prayed that it worked well for you.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-27, 06:29 AM
One of my favorite quotes. And that's not a bad thing, that rampant polysemy. Language, and linguistics, are descriptive. If you're talking to a group of historians about the pre-roman civilization of the British Isles, you use "druid" to mean one set of things. If you're talking to a bunch of gamers about WoW, you use it differently. If you're talking to a bunch of D&D players, you use it yet a third way. And they're all correct, as long as you don't cross the streams/use them in the wrong context. Same with the various types of armor/weapons--unless you're playing in an explicitly real-world-historical setting, the names are translations, mostly traditionally-motivated. They have a fixed meaning in the context of the game, and a different meaning (or possibly are meaningless) in historical contexts. They're local variables that have limited scope.


And yet I cringe inside every time someone calls an arming sword or other one-handed sword longer than a "short sword" a "long sword"... or insists that a "long sword" and a "bastard sword" are highly distinct things.

There's a special place in terminology heck for the Victorians and Gygax... :smallfrown:

English has a massive vocabulary and no problem borrowing or making up new words; there's really no need to keep reusing the same word for 15 things.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-27, 07:53 AM
And yet I cringe inside every time someone calls an arming sword or other one-handed sword longer than a "short sword" a "long sword"... or insists that a "long sword" and a "bastard sword" are highly distinct things.

There's a special place in terminology heck for the Victorians and Gygax... :smallfrown:

English has a massive vocabulary and no problem borrowing or making up new words; there's really no need to keep reusing the same word for 15 things.

I'm afraid you're swimming up-stream here. This is the norm for English (and for the other languages I know). Words get reused incessantly in all circumstances. "Nice" used to have other meanings that have atrophied, but the new meaning won out.

Those terms--"arming sword" etc--those are terms of art. The nominal, the normal meaning is the game-related one these days. Sorry. :smalltongue:

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-27, 08:16 AM
I'm afraid you're swimming up-stream here. This is the norm for English (and for the other languages I know). Words get reused incessantly in all circumstances. "Nice" used to have other meanings that have atrophied, but the new meaning won out.

Those terms--"arming sword" etc--those are terms of art. The nominal, the normal meaning is the game-related one these days. Sorry. :smalltongue:

I realize that even in this day of easy, fast, nearly-universal access to clarification, linguistic drift rot is going to happen.

Somehow accuracy and precision are seen as unmitigated good in other situations, but derided in language as "quaint" and "unrealistic".

That doesn't mean I have to like it, and it doesn't mean that I'm going forego pointing out that Gygax and crew were ignoramuses when it came to naming weapons.

Zombimode
2017-10-27, 08:31 AM
And yet I cringe inside every time someone calls an arming sword or other one-handed sword longer than a "short sword" a "long sword"... or insists that a "long sword" and a "bastard sword" are highly distinct things.

I mean I get where you're comming from. I get the same reaction whenever someone says "illogical" but doesn't mean "the proposition does not follow from a predefined set of premises under this particular set of rules".

But on the other Hand words can have multiple meanings and that is ok. The useage of one meaning does not invalidate the others. D&D calling its druids "Druids" is not inappropriate: the class does trace its roots back to the historical durids.
Also, D&D is usually not set in a pseudo-real-world and thus historical meanings of words don't have much relevance anyway.
I mean, do you get worked up about clerics not being clerics? :smalltongue: Because I can assure you that Anselm of Canterbury does not have a lot in common with Fzoul Chembryl, Hight Priest of Bane :smallamused:

Or, on the topic of druids: there is no reason why Eberron should include anything strictly conforming to historical druids, but to be the Setting it is it needs its specific Eberron druids.


On a side not, getting worked up about medieval weapons names in particular is a strange Habit indeed since you are trying to impose consistency where none is found in the first place. Yes, some armchair histrorians will try to convince you that "Poleaxe" and "Pollaxe" were historical terms that refered to different weapons, but I would not put high bets on that :smalltongue:
If you insist on a specific naming convention for a type of weapon, what you essentially do is to pick a certain place in a certain time and declare the usage of this frame as the truth.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-27, 08:33 AM
I realize that even in this day of easy, fast, nearly-universal access to clarification, linguistic drift rot is going to happen.

Somehow accuracy and precision are seen as unmitigated good in other situations, but derided in language as "quaint" and "unrealistic".

That doesn't mean I have to like it, and it doesn't mean that I'm going forego pointing out that Gygax and crew were ignoramuses when it came to naming weapons.

But accuracy and precision aren't unmitigated goods. They're goods, certainly, as they are in language. But there are tradeoffs. I'm a science teacher, and have a variety of instruments. Some are very sensitive (accurate and precise), but require special care and feeding. For things that don't require that accuracy (rough measurements), different, less precise but more robust instruments are better.

Same with language. Where it matters (comparing archaeological finds, for example, or classifying species), precision is important. Where it doesn't matter, it can cause jarring, just as with any overuse (or out-of-context use) of jargon. There's something called nerdview (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=276)--where experts frame things in terms that make sense to them, but ignore that by doing so they've made it more difficult for the actual users to use the product. Error messages in software are a key, common example of this.

Game players are laymen, not experts. The fine distinctions are not only not important (since the level of abstraction in the weapon sub-system is way higher than the relevant distinctions) but actively harmful because they require learning new, irrelevant facts. It's the same issue as with fantasy authors making up new words for things. It's a barrier to engagement if you can't mentally picture something easily when you see the word. It's better (generally) to have a quick mental picture than to have an accurate mental picture. Because the details don't really matter--that's handled by the mechanics.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-27, 08:49 AM
But accuracy and precision aren't unmitigated goods. They're goods, certainly, as they are in language. But there are tradeoffs. I'm a science teacher, and have a variety of instruments. Some are very sensitive (accurate and precise), but require special care and feeding. For things that don't require that accuracy (rough measurements), different, less precise but more robust instruments are better.

Same with language. Where it matters (comparing archaeological finds, for example, or classifying species), precision is important. Where it doesn't matter, it can cause jarring, just as with any overuse (or out-of-context use) of jargon. There's something called nerdview (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=276)--where experts frame things in terms that make sense to them, but ignore that by doing so they've made it more difficult for the actual users to use the product. Error messages in software are a key, common example of this.

Game players are laymen, not experts. The fine distinctions are not only not important (since the level of abstraction in the weapon sub-system is way higher than the relevant distinctions) but actively harmful because they require learning new, irrelevant facts. It's the same issue as with fantasy authors making up new words for things. It's a barrier to engagement if you can't mentally picture something easily when you see the word. It's better (generally) to have a quick mental picture than to have an accurate mental picture. Because the details don't really matter--that's handled by the mechanics.

On nerdview, don't get me wrong, I actually consider academic or technical obscurantism, and most terms of art, to be part of the problem, not part of the ideal.

And on weapons in games, I think that games tend to fall into two equally faulty extremes: ridiculous levels of meaningless detail that try to differentiate between two pole arms based on which direction a hook on the back faces... or clumping weapons into a handful of over-broad categories like "sword".

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-27, 09:03 AM
On nerdview, don't get me wrong, I actually consider academic or technical obscurantism, and most terms of art, to be part of the problem, not part of the ideal.

But that's just it. The terms we use for weapons, for druids, etc? Those are terms of art for the historians. By getting irritated by appropriation/misuse, you're prioritizing the term of art over the vernacular use. Which is classic nerdview.

Keltest
2017-10-27, 09:15 AM
And yet I cringe inside every time someone calls an arming sword or other one-handed sword longer than a "short sword" a "long sword"... or insists that a "long sword" and a "bastard sword" are highly distinct things.

There's a special place in terminology heck for the Victorians and Gygax... :smallfrown:

English has a massive vocabulary and no problem borrowing or making up new words; there's really no need to keep reusing the same word for 15 things.

"Long sword" isn't a technical term though. Its literally just any sword that could be described as long. Bastard Sword is slightly more technical in that it usually refers a sword who's hilt length is matched away from the norm given its blade length, but again, it doesn't and never had a specific meaning the way, say, gun names in the modern era always refer to a very specific form of gun.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-27, 09:18 AM
But that's just it. The terms we use for weapons, for druids, etc? Those are terms of art for the historians. By getting irritated by appropriation/misuse, you're prioritizing the term of art over the vernacular use. Which is classic nerdview.

And what of when the vernacular understanding is objectively wrong? Such as with "druid", for which the vernacular understanding is a mashup of Victorian nonsense and gamer jargon? (And in that case, I'd consider the gamer usage the term of art.)

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-27, 09:58 AM
And what of when the vernacular understanding is objectively wrong? Such as with "druid", for which the vernacular understanding is a mashup of Victorian nonsense and gamer jargon? (And in that case, I'd consider the gamer usage the term of art.)

Language is descriptive, not prescriptive. Whatever is commonly used is standard (correct or not is really meaningless in this context). Yes, when talking about historical druids, the vernacular is incorrect (carries wrong meanings and confuses the issue). But 90+% of the time (and almost without exception on this forum), the historical use is the incorrect one (presumes we're talking about a group that is limited to one particular time and place). And that's what the important point is. The "correct" usage depends on context, audience, and purpose.

For example, physicists use the word "work" in a way that is different than the vernacular. Using the physics definition (force applied over a distance of motion, a form of energy transfer) in other contexts is "wrong" (not useful). But using the vernacular meaning in a physics context is "wrong" (not useful). Both are true meanings, but which one is more useful depends on context.

Same goes for other things. There is an obsession with categorizing and siloing words that is in and of itself a-historical. People called the same thing by different names--names aren't nearly standardized until historians get their hands on things (which, for the times we're talking about, happened much later. Like centuries later). The same word was used for many different things in ways we find incongruous.

"Druid" in the historical sense only applies to one particular sub culture, in one narrow span of time. There were many similar cultural elements, but historians have (rather arbitrarily) decided to call them other things. There's no benefit in linguistic peevery here. It helps no one, and confuses lots of people.

Edit: Term of art has a meaning. And the vernacular is by definition not a term of art. The historical one is, by definition, a term of art--it's only used in a narrow field of study, for a particular purpose.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-27, 10:05 AM
Edit: Term of art has a meaning. And the vernacular is by definition not a term of art. The historical one is, by definition, a term of art--it's only used in a narrow field of study, for a particular purpose.


Which is why I said the gaming usage is the term of art. In other words, it's used in a narrow field of "study", for a particular purpose... and also objectively wrong.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-10-27, 10:15 AM
Which is why I said the gaming usage is the term of art. In other words, it's used in a narrow field of "study", for a particular purpose... and also objectively wrong.

You're still trying to make a context-dependent thing universal. It's objectively wrong...when talking about historical Britain. It's objectively right when talking about D&D (or, for that matter, most RPGs). And I'd expect the vernacular is closer to the gaming (specifically D&D) usage than the historical one, especially with the rise of neo-paganism and the appropriation of that word in a way that has little to do with history. My brother is associated with a group like that, and from what I gather from him it's much closer to D&D (without the wildshape, but with the nature magic and "oneness with nature" themes) than it is to historical druidism (which wasn't even really a religion per se in the same fashion as, say, Christianity).

Edit: for a linguistic professional's perspective on this, see Linguistics 001 (Penn State). (http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/ling001/prescription.html)

kivzirrum
2017-10-27, 10:16 AM
There are certainly ways to justify it, but the issue is that you need a justification in the first place.

Most character classes, in D&D, have as their base motivations one of two things: acquire power and wealth, or smite evil/good. Going on murderhobo adventures suits both of these groups, albeit with the understanding that the places you conduct you murderhoboing need to be full of whatever you're trying to smite (this is rarely an issue).

There are three core classes that don't properly fit this pattern: bard, druid, and monk. Guess what, these are the three least popular character classes (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/) (I'm discounting the sorcerer, since it's really just a variant of the wizard and has no distinct concept of its own).

Druid, being saddled with a particular ethos - one that interacts poorly with the D&D alignment system - and opposition to most traditional societal structures arguably has it the worst. Bards can pall around with their friends no problem, and a monk can easily have a cause that aligns with the goals of their party, but it is a relatively rare situation in a D&D game where what a druid party member should be doing is the thing it makes most sense for a druid to be doing at any given time (and honestly, most of us have experienced this by playing BG with Jahiera. Maybe 1% of those games involves druid stuff in any way).

Hmm. I feel like needing justification is not a problem, I always would expect justification for adventuring and stuff no matter the character class. Chalk it up to different play styles, I guess! Especially since two of the three classes you've listed as unpopular are among my favorites :smallwink: I just don't think it's that tough to have a druid fit into the party or story! An ethos need not be completely restrictive, in real life or in the game.


I think the discussion is being too tied to the word "duties". That attitude would certainly make the "why isn't this only a NPC class" debate happen. But in reality, nature doesn't assign "duties", there is no divinely mandated structure. What it does have is an understanding of what is required and what it takes to do that. That's clerical thinking, and if you're stuck there, then shovelling them into a "nature cleric" is all you really can see.

I largely agree with this.

D+1
2017-10-27, 03:36 PM
I'm currently facing an issue with the roleplaying of a druid.

I can't envision how the class is supposed to be roleplayed. All the players that have played druid in the sessions I joined, play and envision the class as some kind of pseudo-medieval conservationist or animal rights activist.

Is it all there is of it? Because it seems so weird to me that that's the only way to play druid.
Nope. That is not all there is of it. However, IME MOST players are simply not deep roleplayers committed to exploring the edges of what a character COULD be. That is not a crime. But it does mean that most players ARE going to approach their druid PC's (and most DM's from the opposite direction...) as conservationist activists for no other reason that it's simple and easy to do so. Accordingly, their characters are very likely going to be not-very-exciting and certainly quite unmemorable - even to themselves.

I'd say the advice of, "My character is like this - and happens to also be a druid," versus, "My character is a druid and therefore should be like this or else it is incorrect," is the best advice. But you're still going to find a LOT of games and a lot of players in those games are simply not going to go beyond the WELL-trodden "default" vision of what a druid is and should do.

WarKitty
2017-10-28, 12:00 AM
Nope. That is not all there is of it. However, IME MOST players are simply not deep roleplayers committed to exploring the edges of what a character COULD be. That is not a crime. But it does mean that most players ARE going to approach their druid PC's (and most DM's from the opposite direction...) as conservationist activists for no other reason that it's simple and easy to do so. Accordingly, their characters are very likely going to be not-very-exciting and certainly quite unmemorable - even to themselves.

I'd say the advice of, "My character is like this - and happens to also be a druid," versus, "My character is a druid and therefore should be like this or else it is incorrect," is the best advice. But you're still going to find a LOT of games and a lot of players in those games are simply not going to go beyond the WELL-trodden "default" vision of what a druid is and should do.

For what it's worth, that happens to a lot of classes. I have been driven nuts by a new roleplayer whose character amounted to "I'm an elf ranger so I like shooting things with my bow and hate cities." Or "I'm a barbarian and I don't like talking and all I care about is eating and drinking and smashing in doors."

Deepbluediver
2017-10-28, 01:44 PM
Also, read Elizabeth Moon's "The Deed of Paksenarrion" to see how a druid (and primarily a paladin) should act.
I always love it when someone else has read that book (series)- the Druid's comments on the nature of courage in the third act is probably one of my favorite scenes ever.


Anyway, as for roleplaying the druid there are a couple different shticks you could follow, I think.

The most obvious is "nature good, humanoids bad", and depending on what the rest of your group is like you could take any opportunity to drive back the encroaching civilization.
You could go for a more balanced approach where your character sees humanoids as part of nature and promotes conversation and sustainable use over preservation (i.e. never touch anything), protecting humanoids from wild animals but also educating them about a healthy ecosystem.
You could play a generic "might makes right" type of character, who simply thinks that the animal kingdom are paragons of strength, speed, endurance, etc. Maybe mix a little monk in there and emphasize your tiger-style-kung-fu by actually transforming into a tiger.
You could play as sort of like a wizard, just with a different flavor. Mechanically they have the same type of magic as Clerics, but thematically Wild magic has a really different flavor from Divine. You are basically a character seeking etheric knowledge and skill, who happens to base his abilities on nature.
Or you could play someone who's long term goal is to return to his native land and serve as the local community's mystic/healer/wise-man, and are currently on a journey of discovery and empowerment. You can even say that you mentor demanded you travel the world for a while, until you achieve something like slaying a certain type of creature or reaching a level of enlightenment, etc.
Depending on the setting you could describe the resident nature diety as more about agriculture and less about the wild, and you're just kind of another flavor of wandering cleric who specializes in curing mad-cow disease and potato blight. Introduce the concept of crop-rotation, if you want.




Some of these ideas aren't Druid-specific of course, they could be reflavored for a variety of characters, but I hope they give you some ideas or something to build off of. Another cool thing to do if you campaign is long and expansive enough is have your character undergo development- starting off as one thing and slowly morphing into something else. Tie it back into a Druid's understanding of adaptation, if you want.


Edit: I did not realize this thread was already 3 pages long, and I apologize if I'm just repeating things other people have already said. I'll go back and try to read through the rest of it now, too.

Deepbluediver
2017-10-28, 03:04 PM
OK, so there's apparently this big, long argument on the second page about how badly Druids (the class) line up with druids (the historical shamanistic priesthood & quasi-religion), and to me the whole thing seems kind of silly. I'm betting that the majority of players WON'T be experts in pre-medieval/roman-era European history, and even if they are, so what? Telling me that my game-class is bad because it's not "realistic" strikes me as the old "you're having fun in the wrong way!" issue. It's like saying I want to play a chivalrous knight who goes around rescuing young maidens and slaying dragons, and then someone feels the need to chime in with an "Actually..." followed by a 10 minute lecture on medieval European socio-economics and class structure that I really don't care about because I want to play a chivalrous knight straight out of Arthurian legend, not a historically accurate one.

When it comes to game design, real life should be used to INSPIRE, not to restrict.



Anywho, the more relevant issue that's raised is why your nature-themed animal lover would want to go messing about in a dungeon with a bunch of murder-hobos in the first place. I think this is a valid point for roleplaying that we can discuss.
First, the simplest and most basic reason for anyone to do anything is the acquisition of power. In my setting, the most powerful deity is in fact that god of power and ambition, because that desire is just so universal. Whatever your eventual goal is going to be though, whether it's to protect a patch of forest, or become a village's resident shaman, or because you were traumatized by watching Bambi when you were 5 years old and now want revenge on anyone who didn't swear to go totally vegan, it's extremely rare that having more wealth and power is a bad thing. This is also known as adventuring for adventuring's sake.

Second, you could have some agreement with a local noble or government. Turning into a bear and eating faces only gets you so far, so maybe you they agreed to reduce timber harvesting to a sustainable level and/or set aside park land, in exchange for you doing whatever, etc. In fact, you could even be in their direct employ. Even ancient people understood some concepts of resources overuse, which is why nobles where often the only ones allowed to hunt large game such as deer (and less often, boar)- several versions of the Robin Hood stories kick off with him illegally shooting one of the king's deer. So anyway, you're head of the local fantasy EPA, and because this is a tabletop game that means instead of sitting behind a desk filling out paperwork, you occasionally have to go down into a dungeon and chuck lightning bolts around.

Third, your character could be on any kind of a quest- whether it's to eliminate "unnatural" things, like Undead and Aberrations, and also maybe Outsiders, Constructs, or even possibly Magical Beasts depending on how you interpret it. Or you could have been sent off by the local nature deity, because even though you're not a Cleric you still venerate her/him/it. Or maybe a powerful fey had some task for you, that only you can accomplish because all the fey are linked to geographic features while you're free to come and go as you please. Or maybe you're on an open-ended quest to find some mythical artifact, and lacking any better leads you're willing to just keep bumbling around and see what turns up- this might be a good time to speak with your DM about working your personal sidequest into the main story, too, if you want.


Ultimately though, pretty much anything can serve as motivation. You should be looking for a reason to participate, not a reason to reject various plot hooks. If the only thing you can think to say is "no, my character wouldn't do that", then you are basically choosing to go sit in the corner while everyone else works together to have a good time. I seriously doubt anyone is going to question you- and if they do, if they feel the need to try and instruct you on how you should be roleplaying, you should feel free to ignore them.

Nifft
2017-10-28, 03:34 PM
OK, so there's apparently this big, long argument on the second page about how badly Druids (the class) line up with druids (the historical shamanistic priesthood & quasi-religion), and to me the whole thing seems kind of silly. I'm betting that the majority of players WON'T be experts in pre-medieval/roman-era European history, and even if they are, so what? Telling me that my game-class is bad because it's not "realistic" strikes me as the old "you're having fun in the wrong way!" issue. It's like saying I want to play a chivalrous knight who goes around rescuing young maidens and slaying dragons, and then someone feels the need to chime in with an "Actually..." followed by a 10 minute lecture on medieval European socio-economics and class structure that I really don't care about because I want to play a chivalrous knight straight out of Arthurian legend, not a historically accurate one.

When it comes to game design, real life should be used to INSPIRE, not to restrict.

D&D was always intended as a pure historical simulation.

For example, if a real-life Rogue couldn't shoot fire out of her fingers, how could a Thieve's Guild survive against mundane town guards who could historically shoot a heavy crossbow five times in 6 seconds?

Darth Tom
2017-10-28, 03:42 PM
I've played a druid based on Beorn from The Hobbit, a character I always loved. A friend played one as Tom Bombadil. Two of the most enjoyable characters we've ever had from a roleplaying perspective, and they made decent adventurers too.

Mechalich
2017-10-28, 07:17 PM
Ultimately though, pretty much anything can serve as motivation. You should be looking for a reason to participate, not a reason to reject various plot hooks. If the only thing you can think to say is "no, my character wouldn't do that", then you are basically choosing to go sit in the corner while everyone else works together to have a good time. I seriously doubt anyone is going to question you- and if they do, if they feel the need to try and instruct you on how you should be roleplaying, you should feel free to ignore them.

The issue with druids (and to a lesser extent bards, monks, and even a plurality of cleric concepts) is not that you can't find hooks for them - finding hooks for TTRPG characters is easy - it's that druids and the like don't default to the murderhobo life very well. The iconic representative of the class is not a standard adventurer type, which is not true of many of more common classes. A druid character can go on adventurers, but it always feels like they should be in the woods somewhere minding the sacred grove. The same is true of monks - shouldn't they be back at the temple meditating? Bards - why aren't you entertaining a nobleman somewhere? And something like a Cleric of the God of Healing, go heal the sick in the plague zone and stop murdering orcs.

Obviously there will be exceptions to this rule, and that's how you get adventurers from these classes, but that suffers in comparison to the three most common fantasy adventurer types: warriors, sneakers, and magic-users.

To make a non-D&D comparison, take the Wheel of Time as an example. The three central characters are a warrior (Perrin), a rogue (Mat), and a magic-user (Rand) and they all go on wild and crazy adventures throughout the series operating on fairly instinctual motives - Rand even manages to keep running around the world way past the point where he should be ruling full time. However, the Wheel of Time has a bunch of other viewpoint characters, most of whom are some variety of Aes Sedai - who are magic users with social responsibilities much like clerics. Those characters go on adventures, but for the most part its an exception to what they should be doing and they generally undertake their most significant actions by engaging in politics at some level. Noted example: when they go to get the Bowl of Winds and save the world from Dark One induced climate change Elayne and Nynaeve's most significant roles are political and it's Mat who gets to dominate the skullduggery parts.

Essentially, you have to types of adventure concepts: characters who are adventurers first, and characters who are something else first, but who happen to get into all kinds of adventures. In D&D there are certain classes that naturally support adventure-first concepts - like fighter, rogue, and wizard - and there are classes that are pretty much always something else first - like bard, druid, and monk. Druid just happens to be the one that is most tightly defined. If you read the old 2e Complete Druid's Handbook it is shockingly specific at points about what a druid is and what responsibilities they have.

This isn't a problem, but it does confine druid, as a class, to a more limited niche than that of the other classes. In some ways this is similar to Star Wars games, which often have a 'Jedi' character class that is much, much, more conceptually constrained than the 'Soldier' or 'Scoundrel' classes.

Deepbluediver
2017-10-28, 08:27 PM
The issue with druids (and to a lesser extent bards, monks, and even a plurality of cleric concepts) is not that you can't find hooks for them - finding hooks for TTRPG characters is easy - it's that druids and the like don't default to the murderhobo life very well. The iconic representative of the class is not a standard adventurer type, which is not true of many of more common classes. A druid character can go on adventurers, but it always feels like they should be in the woods somewhere minding the sacred grove. The same is true of monks - shouldn't they be back at the temple meditating? Bards - why aren't you entertaining a nobleman somewhere? And something like a Cleric of the God of Healing, go heal the sick in the plague zone and stop murdering orcs.
....
This isn't a problem, but it does confine druid, as a class, to a more limited niche than that of the other classes. In some ways this is similar to Star Wars games, which often have a 'Jedi' character class that is much, much, more conceptually constrained than the 'Soldier' or 'Scoundrel' classes.
I guess, but even in my homebrew setting which has a large "adventuring" social class, adventureres are still a minority of all people. After all, you could make a similar argument IMO for almost any class- why does a Fighter become an adventurer instead of acting as part of the town's law-enforcement, or a personal bodyguard, or even as part of mercenary fcompany? Why is a Wizard an adventurer instead of a scholar sitting around in a tower somewhere, studying books and artifacts? Why is rogue an adventurer instead of sticking around town where there are rich houses to rob and people to pickpocket? Whatever the penalty for thievery, it can't be as bad as being eaten by a Minotaur or having your soul ripped out by a necromancer.

I don't disagree with that you're saying, but to me it seems like being part of a group that does or does not lend itself to adventuring should not really be a major issue to anyone who wants to play that class. It might affect how you interact with NPCs and how the world at large views you, but it shouldn't be an obstacle to playing something mechanically. A standard like "you can only make playable classes for social/economic castes that are easy to explain their motivations for wanting to be adventurers" seems like an extremely restrictive penalty. If you live in a world where something like 80% of all Fighters (the class) are adventurers and only 5% of Druids are adventurers, why does that matter to any particular PC?


Edit: In my homebrewed setting I have various races that tend to have racial alignments, but any single individual (PC or NPC) can be of any alignment. In fact, one of the major reasons that people leave home and take up the suicidally dangerous life of an adventurer is that they don't get along with anyone back at home. The same logic can be applied to classes, IMO. Maybe you've been trained since childhood for a certain profession- the wise man read the stars and said that was your destiny. Or your father and your father's father and your father's father's father going back umpteen generations all filled the same role. Or you parents just couldn't afford to keep you and gave you up to the church or temple to be raised by the acolytes. Or you simply showed a particular talent as a youth and someone recruited you to be their apprentice. You may keep your class because that's all you know, but you take up adventuring because you aren't sure what you want to become.

The reason you became a wandering minstrel (Bard) is that the idea of sitting in some noble's living room or banquet hall, playing the same songs over and over again at the request of their spouse and children makes you want to vomit. Maybe you were raised in a monastery but the thought meditating for 8 hours a day and doing intense physical training for another 8 bores you to tears. Maybe you've been raised to worship or venerate a specific deity, but you know there are other gods out there and you don't feel the same effervescent joy that your fellow priests describe when they pray. Maybe you've been raised to spend your days in the woods, living off the land and communing with animals, but the thought of barely interacting with your fellow man, never experiencing true love or companionship, from now until the time of your death, terrifies you.

I don't feel like any social barriers should be a real issue when it comes to choosing a class- dealing with that is practically the definition of good roleplaying. If you aren't a roleplayer than don't worry about it, but if you are then at worst it's a challenge to overcome, not an impassable barrier.
And I also support GMs discussing character concepts with players before a game begins, and for players to cooperate with each other during character creation, ESPECIALLY for RP heavy classes. The one and only time I've done the "show up with a character ready and we'll just go from there" method, the group had 3 Rogues and a Wizard. It was fine for the one-shot dungeon crawl we were doing, but it's not the kind of thing I think I'd want to stretch out over an entire campaign. If you think this is going to be an issue, sit down with the people in question and hash it out BEFORE you're waist-deep in crypt of unending horrors.

Mechalich
2017-10-28, 09:44 PM
I don't disagree with that you're saying, but to me it seems like being part of a group that does or does not lend itself to adventuring should not really be a major issue to anyone who wants to play that class. It might affect how you interact with NPCs and how the world at large views you, but it shouldn't be an obstacle to playing something mechanically. A standard like "you can only make playable classes for social/economic castes that are easy to explain their motivations for wanting to be adventurers" seems like an extremely restrictive penalty. If you live in a world where something like 80% of all Fighters (the class) are adventurers and only 5% of Druids are adventurers, why does that matter to any particular PC?


The OP's question was about constraints on the roleplaying options of the druid. I've been pointing out that those do exist, and there are significant fluff-based reasons (and to a lesser extent mechanical reasons) why this is true for the druid where it is not true for some other classes. The conceptual space occupied by a character that is recognizably a 'druid' to a reasonable D&D playing observer is smaller than the conceptual space occupied by fighters or wizards. Druid is a niche class. It is played less than other core classes - in spite of being, arguably, one of the most powerful classes in the game at least in 3.X - because it is narrowly defined. There's nothing wrong with this, niche player options are fine so long as they don't wreck game balance - this has often been a problem with Jedi in Star Wars systems - but it's worth recognizing that something is confined to a tight operational space.


I don't feel like any social barriers should be a real issue when it comes to choosing a class- dealing with that is practically the definition of good roleplaying. If you aren't a roleplayer than don't worry about it, but if you are then at worst it's a challenge to overcome, not an impassable barrier.
And I also support GMs discussing character concepts with players before a game begins, and for players to cooperate with each other during character creation, ESPECIALLY for RP heavy classes. The one and only time I've done the "show up with a character ready and we'll just go from there" method, the group had 3 Rogues and a Wizard. It was fine for the one-shot dungeon crawl we were doing, but it's not the kind of thing I think I'd want to stretch out over an entire campaign. If you think this is going to be an issue, sit down with the people in question and hash it out BEFORE you're waist-deep in crypt of unending horrors.

The one problem that classes defined as something other than generic murderhobos in a game about murderhoboing have is that the party can only have some many agendas. The campaign has to be about something, and that something needs to fit the party composition. So, if you have a druid in the party, then there has to be a reason for the druid to be in the campaign - meaning they either have a druid-based motive for being in the campaign or they have to have a character-based motive that is strong enough to override the impulse to go off and do druid stuff (Jahiera is a good example here, she sticks with the Bhaalspawn to keep an eye on him, which keeps her in the party even though she's not doing anything druid related).

This isn't a problem if there's just one character in the party like this, but it is a problem if you have everyone show up dealing with class-based motives that run counter to whatever the party is actually doing, or if one character's class-related mission threatens to hijack the party's goals. Murderhoboing isn't a very logical career for a group that contains no murderhobos.

Max_Killjoy
2017-10-28, 10:27 PM
*sigh*

"Murderhobo" is not slang for "adventurer" and is not a neutral descriptive term.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?540085-quot-Adventuring-quot-is-not-synonymous-with-being-a-murder-hobo

Deepbluediver
2017-10-28, 11:08 PM
The OP's question was about constraints on the roleplaying options of the druid. I've been pointing out that those do exist, and there are significant fluff-based reasons (and to a lesser extent mechanical reasons) why this is true for the druid where it is not true for some other classes. The conceptual space occupied by a character that is recognizably a 'druid' to a reasonable D&D playing observer is smaller than the conceptual space occupied by fighters or wizards. Druid is a niche class. It is played less than other core classes - in spite of being, arguably, one of the most powerful classes in the game at least in 3.X - because it is narrowly defined. There's nothing wrong with this, niche player options are fine so long as they don't wreck game balance - this has often been a problem with Jedi in Star Wars systems - but it's worth recognizing that something is confined to a tight operational space.
I disagree- some classes, such as the Druid or Paladin, are given a lot of thematic background to start with, but that's by not the only thing you can do with those classes. And it also doesn't mean that a the lack of background written by the game-designers for the rest of the classes means that they should just default to adventuring.

When it comes to roleplaying, I think people who like RP pick classes with an established background (such as the Druid) and characters with no established background so they can make their own (like the Fighter) in relatively equal numbers. For players who don't care about RP though, they tend to shy away from the Druid because they don't want to have to deal with someone else trying to tell them how to RP. This doesn't mean, however, that someone who wants to play a Druid for the mechanical benefits should feel in anyway restricted by RP from playing that class.



The one problem that classes defined as something other than generic murderhobos in a game about murderhoboing have is that the party can only have some many agendas. The campaign has to be about something, and that something needs to fit the party composition. So, if you have a druid in the party, then there has to be a reason for the druid to be in the campaign - meaning they either have a druid-based motive for being in the campaign or they have to have a character-based motive that is strong enough to override the impulse to go off and do druid stuff (Jahiera is a good example here, she sticks with the Bhaalspawn to keep an eye on him, which keeps her in the party even though she's not doing anything druid related).

This isn't a problem if there's just one character in the party like this, but it is a problem if you have everyone show up dealing with class-based motives that run counter to whatever the party is actually doing, or if one character's class-related mission threatens to hijack the party's goals. Murderhoboing isn't a very logical career for a group that contains no murderhobos.
If your whole party is only about Murderhoboing, then why does the Druid need any more motivation for roleplaying than any other party member? I'm just a nature-wizard who transforms into animals, end of story.
And I can take a class with as little background as the Fighter and roleplay it badly, trying to force the whole campaign to be about me. For example, a generic "dark and broody/angsty" antihero (which I'm sure can be played well...eventually) and a bad RPer who refuses to get out of his funk or to go along with anything that doesn't advance whatever he's decided his individual character motivation is, and that one player can drag the whole campaign to a screeching halt.

This is bad RPing, but the fact that the PHB offers more starting options for some classes than for others doesn't really mean you are limited to ONLY those options. I suspect there's very few campaigns I couldn't form a rationale for a Druid helping out with, if I'm only willing to put a little effort into it.

Mechalich
2017-10-28, 11:45 PM
*sigh*

"Murderhobo" is not slang for "adventurer" and is not a neutral descriptive term.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?540085-quot-Adventuring-quot-is-not-synonymous-with-being-a-murder-hobo

I'm not being neutral. Murderhoboing - essentially being a bunch of largely faceless collections of combat statistics that go to place X, kill all creatures A, B, and C that live there and take back from it haul of loot Z - is what the core gameplay element of D&D actually is. Get quest, go somewhere - usually a conspicuously 'dungeon-like' place, gleefully slaughter everything that happens to be there, and then leave.

This whole debate about druids is only relevant when you reduce D&D to the barebones. If you're doing more complex things above and beyond the core mechanical thrust of the game then you've already moved well past a point where this sort of basic, baked-in setup matters.


If your whole party is only about Murderhoboing, then why does the Druid need any more motivation for roleplaying than any other party member? I'm just a nature-wizard who transforms into animals, end of story. And I can take a class with as little background as the Fighter and roleplay it badly, trying to force the whole campaign to be about me. For example, a generic "dark and broody/angsty" antohero (which I'm sure can be played well...eventually) and a bad RPer who refuses to get out of his funk or to go along with anything that doesn't advance whatever he's decided his individual character motivation is, and that one player can drag the whole campaign to a screeching halt.

Well, in 2e, at least, there were specific aspects of the Druid fluff that a character was forcibly obligated to interact with in order to advance in level past a certain point. 3e largely dumped this but there are still restrictions on just what a druid is allowed to do before they turn into a 'Ex-druid.' So a Druid is explicitly more than just a nature-wizard who transforms into animals, because adherence to the ethos is baked into the mechanics in the same fashion it is for a paladin, or a monk. The mechanics actually mandate that the GM monitor the behavior of all characters of these classes in order to enforce behavioral boundaries. There is a conceptual box that the classes are confined within.

Deepbluediver
2017-10-29, 12:09 AM
Well, in 2e, at least, there were specific aspects of the Druid fluff that a character was forcibly obligated to interact with in order to advance in level past a certain point. 3e largely dumped this but there are still restrictions on just what a druid is allowed to do before they turn into a 'Ex-druid.' So a Druid is explicitly more than just a nature-wizard who transforms into animals, because adherence to the ethos is baked into the mechanics in the same fashion it is for a paladin, or a monk. The mechanics actually mandate that the GM monitor the behavior of all characters of these classes in order to enforce behavioral boundaries. There is a conceptual box that the classes are confined within.
There are some limits on their ACTIONS, but not AFAICT, to their motivation- the only restriction that might change what your druid feels is the one on alignment. And frankly, IMO, the way it's done for the Druid seems far more slapdash than the restrictions on a Cleric or Paladin. Druids are specifically NOT Clerics, despite often worshiping the various nature deities, so who, in-story, is the one judging their actions? As you said, the GM is supposed to monitor and judge them, but for a Paladin or Cleric, the GM is acting as a stand-in for a god(s). There doesn't seem to be any such relationship for a Druid. The PHB says they "swear oaths", but it doesn't say to whom. Who exactly is watching a Druid and makes the final call on whether or not they "revere nature" and/or lose all their druidic powers because they told someone what the druidic word for "water" was?
Anyway, this isn't really about what a Druid DOES, it's more about WHY they do it. And on that, I think there are relatively few restrictions.


I'm willing to concede that, depending on how you define certain terms, a class with a higher barrier to entry can be considered more restrictive than one that isn't. Even if I believe those restrictions are minimal and the resource(s) required are relatively easy to obtain. Think of it like optimizing a class mechanically (for rollplay, if you will). Assume everything else is equal between class A and class B, except that class B requires more optimization to reach it's maximum potential (which is the same maximum potential as class A), and requires more effort to avoid falling into it's minimal potential. I wouldn't say class B is more restrictive, only that it requires more effort and more practice to play well.

Jay R
2017-10-30, 10:24 AM
Just because many aspects are constrained doesn't mean there's no room for role-playing individuals. Sheldon, Leonard, Rajesh, and Howard are all highly-intelligent, academic nerds with near-identical hobbies, but they are still four very different characters.

UristMcChoupon
2017-10-30, 05:21 PM
My favorite druid was just a gnome who felt all worng in his humanoid form. His adventuring arc was trying to find a form that suited him properly (the answer, via Master of Many Forms, was all of them.)

If you want something distinct, decide on what drew the PC to follow the druidic class. If that happens to be a class feature, indulge in it.

that reminds me of my favorite character i got to RP... Half orc druid, his backstory was that he was raised by halflings and they never told him he was an orc. the tribe thought it was way too funny to tell him he was just bewitched as a child...

Long story short, pc's get transmogrified into orcs do their orc city adventure (that was fun, considering i was the orc that couldnt speak orcish) and get transformed back. The look on the DM's face when my druid walks up and in his most exuberant halfling says 'Ok! now do me!' the look on the dms face followed by the gales of laughter... oh man i miss you LS

Balain
2017-11-01, 02:26 AM
In the current game I am playing the dm has a group of fire druids determined to burn down everything so the world can be restarted anew.

Nifft
2017-11-01, 02:45 AM
In the current game I am playing the dm has a group of fire druids determined to burn down everything so the world can be restarted anew.

"We call this project the Joint Urban & Rural Renewal Without Borers."

Agrippa
2017-11-01, 04:42 AM
You can always go the Lord Summerisle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzCSSvMesxA) route if you want.

Calthropstu
2017-11-01, 05:23 AM
Meet ludock the mad.
Ludock the mad is a chaotic neutral druid. He loves nature. If he had his way, he would lay and watch the trees grow. When he was young, however, he watched his family and friends get slaughtered by a group of werewolves and is now convinced agents of the puppy people are everywhere. When his mentor shapeshifted into a wolf, he became convinced he was a puppy person and murdered him in his sleep. Now, determined to root out the evil puppy people, he has decided to enter the gross entity that is civilization and mete out justice by tracking down the puppy people and ending them.
-Is convinced anyone who shapeshifts, polymorphs or otherwise changes form into or summons anything dog like is his enemy. This includes things like hound archons or hell hounds. But not having wolves or dogs as pets or companions.

Meet Shena the chaotic evil shadow druid. Convinced that human (and others) civilization has become completely parasitic, she will stop at nothing. Murder and destruction, she has become a true champion of nature determined to wipe out the human filth once and for all.

Meet Elena, the neutral good druid. Having come to a city for the first time, she is overwhelmed by the sites before her. Frightened by the sheer numbers of people, she is easily lost in the bustling city. Naive and perplexed, she soon comes to love it, and sees the city as a force of nature unto itself. Working to help people who are struggling to survive and make them stronger becomes her calling. She attempts to root and eliminate out corruption and excess that strains the natural order. She's the kind of person who adheres to the adage "give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach him to fish..."

Lots of ways to play druids.

JellyPooga
2017-11-01, 07:35 AM
Meet ludock the mad.
Ludock the mad is a chaotic neutral druid. He loves nature. If he had his way, he would lay and watch the trees grow. When he was young, however, he watched his family and friends get slaughtered by a group of werewolves and is now convinced agents of the puppy people are everywhere. When his mentor shapeshifted into a wolf, he became convinced he was a puppy person and murdered him in his sleep. Now, determined to root out the evil puppy people, he has decided to enter the gross entity that is civilization and mete out justice by tracking down the puppy people and ending them.
-Is convinced anyone who shapeshifts, polymorphs or otherwise changes form into or summons anything dog like is his enemy. This includes things like hound archons or hell hounds. But not having wolves or dogs as pets or companions.

Meet Shena the chaotic evil shadow druid. Convinced that human (and others) civilization has become completely parasitic, she will stop at nothing. Murder and destruction, she has become a true champion of nature determined to wipe out the human filth once and for all.

Meet Elena, the neutral good druid. Having come to a city for the first time, she is overwhelmed by the sites before her. Frightened by the sheer numbers of people, she is easily lost in the bustling city. Naive and perplexed, she soon comes to love it, and sees the city as a force of nature unto itself. Working to help people who are struggling to survive and make them stronger becomes her calling. She attempts to root and eliminate out corruption and excess that strains the natural order. She's the kind of person who adheres to the adage "give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach him to fish..."

Lots of ways to play druids.

Meet Korgoth the Destroyer, champion of the Bukka Clan. He likes drinking, arm-wrestling and more drinking. In his spare time he enjoys conversing with his ancestors, turning into a bear and calling down the righteous fury of Malar. His is a simple existence of proving his self-worth to all comers and so far, he's number one.

Meet Slim Jim, thief extraordinaire. He's learned a trick or two while growing up on the streets; he's cunning, agile and has an uncanny knack for infiltration and espionage. Some people say he can turn into a rat. Some people say, his movements are supernaturally silent. Some people say he can speak to the very stones themselves. All that is known is that he's the Guildmasters go-to guy for when a job needs doing and it needs doing well. No mess, no fuss; he's a perfect businessman who lives by the motto "I do the job. And then I get paid".

Calthropstu
2017-11-01, 08:17 AM
Meet Korgoth the Destroyer, champion of the Bukka Clan. He likes drinking, arm-wrestling and more drinking. In his spare time he enjoys conversing with his ancestors, turning into a bear and calling down the righteous fury of Malar. His is a simple existence of proving his self-worth to all comers and so far, he's number one.

Meet Slim Jim, thief extraordinaire. He's learned a trick or two while growing up on the streets; he's cunning, agile and has an uncanny knack for infiltration and espionage. Some people say he can turn into a rat. Some people say, his movements are supernaturally silent. Some people say he can speak to the very stones themselves. All that is known is that he's the Guildmasters go-to guy for when a job needs doing and it needs doing well. No mess, no fuss; he's a perfect businessman who lives by the motto "I do the job. And then I get paid".

Exactly my point. You play a character, not a class.
Edit: i really want to play Ludock in a full campaign. I have only played him in a couple one-offs.

JellyPooga
2017-11-01, 03:45 PM
Exactly my point. You play a character, not a class.
Edit: i really want to play Ludock in a full campaign. I have only played him in a couple one-offs.

I only came up with Slim Jim for the purpose of this thread, but now I really want to play him! The notion of a Druid "thief" really appeals to me; I'll have to give some thought to the origin of his class features...maybe some kind of deal with a "sewer fey" creature that's adapted to city-life; a Hag maybe?

Nifft
2017-11-01, 06:14 PM
Druid-Thief might go like Human Scout 1 / Druid 19, with Able Learner to retain Scout skills and a couple of Cityscape WE (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a) ACFs (Iron Constitution and Urban Sense; perhaps others too).

Calthropstu
2017-11-02, 01:30 AM
I only came up with Slim Jim for the purpose of this thread, but now I really want to play him! The notion of a Druid "thief" really appeals to me; I'll have to give some thought to the origin of his class features...maybe some kind of deal with a "sewer fey" creature that's adapted to city-life; a Hag maybe?

He charms animals and has them bring him the goods.