PDA

View Full Version : Neutral Evil Druids in (druidic) society



kamikasei
2007-08-21, 02:21 PM
I'm working on a concept for my home game, where druids in the setting have a major political role as, essentially, arbitrators for the various cities and nations - deciding who gets to farm this land, allocating rights over that river or mountain or forest, etc. I figure they're a natural mediator between "civilized" and "savage" races, given the latter's bias toward divine casters, and that given the right political climate the advantage of having resource conflicts resolved bloodlessly outweighs the inconvenience of having your expansion hobbled by treaties.

My issue is working out the factions and forces among the druids. I'm assuming there's roughly equal numbers of each alignment. Neutral Good druids are easy: do what's best for everyone, while protecting Nature. Lawful Neutral, put together an intricate system of rules and regulations, treaties and threats, to keep nature from being exploited. Chaotic Neutral, championing the wilderness and arguing against expansion, always in favour of smaller settlements and more ad-hoc arrangments. The True Neutral druids I suppose would be all about Nature itself, balancing these factors; the Archdruid is probably True Neutral, if not NG or LN.

But what about the Neutral Evil druids? What position do they take re: civilization vs. nature when the Great Conclave comes around? Burn the cities and force the civilized races back to a state of nature? Would personally self-interested individuals even be druids? Would ideologically anti-human (or however you would best characterize them) druids even have a place at council with other alignments?

It's particularly pressing for me because one player wants a CN druid, so I have to have a good idea of what separates a CN from a NE (trust me, with this player it'll be an issue).

What do you guys think?

kpenguin
2007-08-21, 02:28 PM
An NE druid commits atrocities in the name of nature. While any druid will lead an army to defend a natural area, an evil druid will lead an army in peace time and go on raids destroying cities and farmland. An evil druid will seek to destroy anything they consider "unnatural" and will be willing to do the darkest of deeds.

goat
2007-08-21, 02:31 PM
I'd agree that chaotic neutral would be opposed to expansion of farms and cities that impose "order" on the surrounding countryside, unless it's necessary for the survival of the community in question. They'd probably actively encourage interbreeding of races too.

Neutral evil on the other hand could be played as an over exaggeration of a Darwinist. They want the fittest species to survive, whatever that species may be. Perhaps they encourage conflict between species, urge wildlife to retaliate against sentient species encroaching on their land, travel around awakening dangerous animals because they think of them as "superior" to the races around them.

Lavidor
2007-08-21, 02:32 PM
Another, more passive option is create a "perfect" (for them) haven of nature, and kill everything that threatens the druid Ahem hem; nature.

tainsouvra
2007-08-21, 02:33 PM
Neutral evil on the other hand could be played as an over exaggeration of a Darwinist. They want the fittest species to survive, whatever that species may be. Perhaps they encourage conflict between species, urge wildlife to retaliate against sentient species encroaching on their land, travel around awakening dangerous animals because they think of them as "superior" to the races around them. That's a good approach. A NE Druid would emphasize the destructive and competitive aspects of nature. "Nature has no pity for those too weak to fight for survival."

Tormsskull
2007-08-21, 02:36 PM
Hmm, good question.

I'd say a Neutral Evil druid could be done in several ways. Perhaps the druid is very vengeful, wanting to seek injury and destruction upon people who wish to destroy nature.

Perhaps the druid isn't really concerned about protecting nature, but instead using it and its powers to further the druid's own power.

Would either type of druid seek to be on a council? Sure. Council represents power, becoming a voting member or leader on the council would mean more power for the druid, and power is a goal for most evil characters.

As far as differentiating CN from NE druids:

I would think CN druids would value their freedom, and would be less likely to want to have an official council. If there was some kind of wide-spread problem, a CN druid would probably prefer an informal meeting of druids to discuss options. They wouldn't want binding rules or policies that the council uses though.

A NE druid would prefer more rules/policies if they favor the druid's position. If the council was made up of mostly NG druids, a NE druid would probably preach for a non-binding council, or if a binding-type council already exisits, constantly complain about the pressure/edicts that the council hands down, and always try to show them in the most negative of light.

If the council was made up of mostly NE druids, then a NE druid would probably prefer rules/policies because that would place more power in the druid's hands.

Good luck with this.

The_Werebear
2007-08-21, 02:38 PM
I agree with the superdarwinistic view. They would probably be least likely to want to settle things peacefully. If required to make a peaceful treaty by Druidic Bonds, they might do things like have a champion from each side fight each other, and give the winning side the far better deal. Also, if someone breaks a treaty or does something they are banned from doing to nature, they would raze the problem to the ground first and then negotiate a rebuke.

Wehrkind
2007-08-21, 02:45 PM
Well, given the assumption that Evil=Selfish and unconcerned for others, you have a few ways to go.

I always figured NE druids made the most sense, as Nature is pretty definitely ruled by survival of the fittest, and as such the fates of beings not yours (eg. not you, your young or your species) are up for grabs. The wolf doesn't care if the doe just had young she needs to protect, she only cares that she is hungry or not. She might eat the young too. She also would protect her territory from other wolves not of her pack, no matter how hungry they might be, or how abundant food. To hell with those wolves, her young and her family need hunting land.
As such, as NE druid would be representing the side of nature we humans see as harsh. The hawk that swoops down and snatches up the duckling for it's dinner, the cougar that chases rivals away from it's territory, the wolves that prey on the sick and the weak.

Now, how that fits in a heirarchy (or not.)

Generally, I would figure not. I would guess most NE druids are seperate from society, finding the morals of civilization unpleasant. Perhaps leading packs of wolves to raid shepperds' herds. Chasing hunters or forresters, no matter how respectful of the land, from their territory. Perhaps hunting local villages to "cull the herd" and keep numbers down, reducing the "damage they do to nature."

Those that do join would do so in interest of bettering their existance, or for power. Simple power is always appealing. The druid likes being able to dictate terms and broker agreements between other powerful parties, and perhaps reap some benefits for himself. The important part is that "fair," "equitable" or "just" need not enter into the equation. Whoever pays him more or furthers his agenda (less forrestry/hunting, annoying rival druids, spiting someone) are reasons enough.

kamikasei
2007-08-21, 03:20 PM
An NE druid commits atrocities in the name of nature. While any druid will lead an army to defend a natural area, an evil druid will lead an army in peace time and go on raids destroying cities and farmland. An evil druid will seek to destroy anything they consider "unnatural" and will be willing to do the darkest of deeds.

Sounds like your vote would be "evil druids don't get to play with the others"?


Neutral evil on the other hand could be played as an over exaggeration of a Darwinist. They want the fittest species to survive, whatever that species may be. Perhaps they encourage conflict between species, urge wildlife to retaliate against sentient species encroaching on their land, travel around awakening dangerous animals because they think of them as "superior" to the races around them.

That sounds like a good idea, actually. Where most evil characters don't value sentient life, evil druids don't differentiate between sentient and animal life, so human settlements are to be shepherded or left untended to just the extent any other animal population is - and culled if they become pests...

That works very well, because it introduces a faction that is happy for humans to prosper at the expense of wildlife if they "earn" it; civilized rulers might have an interest in promoting their arguments so they get license to raze that forest or exterminate this orc tribe; and among the druids there would be plenty of tasks where being "nice" is totally unnecessary.


I always figured NE druids made the most sense, as Nature is pretty definitely ruled by survival of the fittest, and as such the fates of beings not yours (eg. not you, your young or your species) are up for grabs. The wolf doesn't care if the doe just had young she needs to protect, she only cares that she is hungry or not. She might eat the young too. She also would protect her territory from other wolves not of her pack, no matter how hungry they might be, or how abundant food. To hell with those wolves, her young and her family need hunting land.

I don't know how accurate this is - my understanding is that most inter- and intra-species relationships are at least somewhat restrained, because e.g. wolves who eat all the deer, young and all, in an area will starve the next year when the local deer are exterminated; the cost to a wolf of fighting off all other wolves outweighs the benefit of having exclusive access to more prey than you can hunt, etc.


Those that do join would do so in interest of bettering their existance, or for power. Simple power is always appealing. The druid likes being able to dictate terms and broker agreements between other powerful parties, and perhaps reap some benefits for himself. The important part is that "fair," "equitable" or "just" need not enter into the equation. Whoever pays him more or furthers his agenda (less forrestry/hunting, annoying rival druids, spiting someone) are reasons enough.

I have to wonder in that instance why such a person would be a druid in the first place; it hardly seems a quick and easy route to power (vs, say, worshiping an evil god if you have the same basic aptitudes). On the other hand, non-mainstream NE druids with a chip on their shoulder, or who value some particular piece of land or group of animals before all else, make sense...

nagora
2007-08-21, 03:24 PM
Evil is the harming of life. As such a NE Druid is a nonsense.

kamikasei
2007-08-21, 03:26 PM
Evil is the harming of life. As such a NE Druid is a nonsense.

Keith Baker would probably disagree.

goat
2007-08-21, 03:28 PM
After a bit of a think, I'm going to end up arguing against myself (yet again).

The problem with the Darwinist idea is that it's a bit... lawful.

Perhaps a neutral evil druid would be almost the same as a true neutral druid, only with less concern for the beings they watch over. Instead of keeping "balance" in a populated region by encouraging people to move to new areas or farm their current land more intensively, they just torch their crops so that a lot of the people starve. They stop the rise of one species through slaughter rather than management, or strengthen the rise of another through power rather than encouragement.

They'd not be concerned with the morals of how things are kept in balance, as long as they are.

tainsouvra
2007-08-21, 03:36 PM
Evil is the harming of life. As such a NE Druid is a nonsense. Other than the fact that it makes perfect sense to many of us and is permitted by the rules, you mean?

nagora
2007-08-21, 03:37 PM
After a bit of a think, I'm going to end up arguing against myself (yet again).

The problem with the Darwinist idea is that it's a bit... lawful.

Perhaps a neutral evil druid would be almost the same as a true neutral druid, only with less concern for the beings they watch over. Instead of keeping "balance" in a populated region by encouraging people to move to new areas or farm their current land more intensively, they just torch their crops so that a lot of the people starve. They stop the rise of one species through slaughter rather than management, or strengthen the rise of another through power rather than encouragement.

They'd not be concerned with the morals of how things are kept in balance, as long as they are.

The problem is that Evil (note capital letter) is not "not concerned with the morals" - in D&D terms Evil is specifically defined as a moral position, so it's like saying that someone is described as tall without meaning to imply anything about their height.

True Neutral really is the only logical alignment for druids, but I can at least get my head around the possibility of L, G, and C as well as the neutrals, but an Evil druid is simply insane as far as I can see. Which might be a route to take, I suppose.

tainsouvra
2007-08-21, 03:38 PM
The problem with the Darwinist idea is that it's a bit... lawful. It doesn't strike me as lawful at all, in fact if it weren't species-wide I'd think it was pretty chaotic on the alignment scale...unrestrained competition based on personal goals doesn't strike me as very lawful, alignment-wise, even if it's a "law of nature".

nagora
2007-08-21, 03:42 PM
Other than the fact that it makes perfect sense to many of us and is permitted by the rules, you mean?

A priest of nature who enjoys "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" as the rules say is a flat out logical contradiction.

DMs can always overrule bad rule design.

tainsouvra
2007-08-21, 03:51 PM
A priest of nature who enjoys "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" as the rules say is a flat out logical contradiction. Nature hurts, oppresses, and kills individuals--even whole species--on a daily basis. I don't know where you're getting your ideas, but if you think nature is kind or gentle, they're too idealistic.

kamikasei
2007-08-21, 03:54 PM
The problem is that Evil (note capital letter) is not "not concerned with the morals" - in D&D terms Evil is specifically defined as a moral position, so it's like saying that someone is described as tall without meaning to imply anything about their height.

From the SRD: "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient." Certainly you can take that as a moral position, but not in the sense of "I must hurt, oppress and kill wherever I can".


True Neutral really is the only logical alignment for druids, but I can at least get my head around the possibility of L, G, and C as well as the neutrals, but an Evil druid is simply insane as far as I can see. Which might be a route to take, I suppose.

"Insane" is very strong; could you explain in more detail what your reasoning is?

nagora
2007-08-21, 03:58 PM
Nature hurts, oppresses, and kills individuals--even whole species--on a daily basis. I don't know where you're getting your ideas, but if you think nature is kind or gentle, they're too idealistic.

Evil is a specific choice - unconscious or not - to hurt and harm when it is not needed; nature rarely does that (wolverines-I'm looking at you!). Good is the opposite: heal and nurture beyond the minimum. This too rarely happens in nature but is at least not going out of one's way to destroy. Neutrality on the moral axis is the obvious behaviour of the natural world - killing as needed, growing as needed.

An imbalance in Law/Chaos is one thing, but Nature that destroys more than it creates is on the rocky road to extinction, and I feel happy in assuming druids are not keen on extinction.

tainsouvra
2007-08-21, 04:03 PM
Evil is a specific choice - unconscious or not - to hurt and harm when it is not needed; nature rarely does that (wolverines-I'm looking at you!). Look at the effects of nature in the long term, though. You're looking at specific animals in specific situations, but that's missing the forest for the trees, if you'll pardon the pun. Nature regularly causes individuals unfit to live to suffer then die, and species that no longer match their environment must flee, adapt, or face a slow and painful extinction. That's hurting, oppressing, and killing based on a standard that has absolutely zero compassion for those crushed under its heel--nature as a whole encompasses elements of both good and evil, and it's simply not defensible to ignore the cold truth of personal or species extinction.

Nature isn't evil, but evil is a part of nature every bit as much as good.

kamikasei
2007-08-21, 04:03 PM
Evil is a specific choice - unconscious or not - to hurt and harm when it is not needed; nature rarely does that (wolverines-I'm looking at you!). Good is the opposite: heal and nurture beyond the minimum. This too rarely happens in nature but is at least not going out of one's way to destroy. Neutrality on the moral axis is the obvious behaviour of the natural world - killing as needed, growing as needed.

An imbalance in Law/Chaos is one thing, but Nature that destroys more than it creates is on the rocky road to extinction, and I feel happy in assuming druids are not keen on extinction.

Good/Evil values sentient life above animal or other. Thus a druid who simply doesn't care about killing people who are threatening some natural thing in his care is evil. He doesn't have to spend his days burning down every forest he comes across because it'd be eeeeeeeeeevil.

nagora
2007-08-21, 04:04 PM
From the SRD: "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient." Certainly you can take that as a moral position, but not in the sense of "I must hurt, oppress and kill wherever I can".

Firstly, someone who kills because it was convenient is taking a moral course which is the opposite of Good. If Evil is not a meaningless word then it implies enjoyment of the killing. As the rules say, some actively pursue it, while others engage in casual brutality when it suits them. Either way they are taking a stand against the natural world which is inherently creative. Such destruction as there is is part of the system, part of the balance. There is more evil in pulling the wings off flies than there is in a hurricane.




"Insane" is very strong; could you explain in more detail what your reasoning is?

A druid who favours destruction over creation is ultimately leading, however distantly, towards a desolation where everything is dead or at least where the quality of life is very low indeed. Such a destination for one who is supposed to be protecting nature is madness.

nagora
2007-08-21, 04:05 PM
Good/Evil values sentient life above animal or other. Thus a druid who simply doesn't care about killing people who are threatening some natural thing in his care is evil. He doesn't have to spend his days burning down every forest he comes across because it'd be eeeeeeeeeevil.

"Doesn't care" is not in this equasion - the neutral does not care about killing to protect their charge. The evil one prefers to. To prefer killing living things is not a normal state of mind for a druid.

tainsouvra
2007-08-21, 04:08 PM
Either way they are taking a stand against the natural world which is inherently creative. It is not inherently creative--it is exactly as creative as it is destructive. The system fails if too much of either side takes root, which means that nature must be just as evil as it is good.
A druid who favours destruction over creation is ultimately leading, however distantly, towards a desolation where everything is dead or at least where the quality of life is very low indeed. Such a destination for one who is supposed to be protecting nature is madness. It need not be total destruction, however, as several posters who explained the neutral-evil druid have explained. The survival of the strong at the expense of the weak is his goal, not wanton devastation.

nagora
2007-08-21, 04:10 PM
Look at the effects of nature in the long term, though. You're looking at specific animals in specific situations, but that's missing the forest for the trees, if you'll pardon the pun. Nature regularly causes individuals unfit to live to suffer then die, and species that no longer match their environment must flee, adapt, or face a slow and painful extinction.

But the suffering is not the end-goal, which it is for evil. Nature's suffering is neutral - the overall goal of growth is served by creation or destruction with no bias; whichever one serves at the time. That's neutrality.


Nature isn't evil, but evil is a part of nature every bit as much as good.

Yes, which is why a druid should be neutral as regards methods - the end justifies the means. Since the ultimate goal of nature is to create (specifically, more nature) a good druid is less strange than an evil one.

tainsouvra
2007-08-21, 04:13 PM
But the suffering is not the end-goal, which it is for evil. Nature's suffering is neutral - the overall goal of growth is served by creation or destruction with no bias; whichever one serves at the time. That's neutrality. When all is considered, nature is neutral, no question. It is, however, neutral by a balance of both good and evil. Nature includes evil, and those revering nature can do the same. As long as some aspect of neutrality remains, individuals may vary in their goals, just as with nature itself.
Yes, which is why a druid should be neutral as regards methods - the end justifies the means. Since the ultimate goal of nature is to create (specifically, more nature) a good druid is less strange than an evil one. What makes you believe the goal of nature is to create, rather than simply to continue? You're getting into philosophy here that D&D does not include.

nagora
2007-08-21, 04:15 PM
It is not inherently creative--it is exactly as creative as it is destructive.

No it's not. Nature colonises all the time. You can't do that without excess creation. Volcanic erruptions, overgrown ruins, bloody rabbits are all examples of nature creating more quickly when the oppertunity arises. Normally, of course, there is no new land to colonise and things find an equilibrium, but that goes out the window as soon as there's a Mt St Helen's or whatever. The bare rock will have moss on it before the day is out.


The system fails if too much of either side takes root, which means that nature must be just as evil as it is good. It need not be total destruction, however, as several posters who explained the neutral-evil druid have explained. The survival of the strong at the expense of the weak is his goal, not wanton devastation.

That's more of a LN/LE argument, IMO. Society or the group is strengthened by constant testing of individuals within it.

Rasumichin
2007-08-21, 04:41 PM
Blatantly ignoring the impending alignment discussion, here's another take on NE druids :

Some of them could be speciecists, seeking to improve the position of, say, orcs, goblinoids or gnolls (or whatever- probably humans?) while discriminating members of other races.

Generally, i'd consider NE druids to be an extremist minority and, given extremists' tendencies towards forming quarreling splinter groups, would combine this concept with the radical darwinist and ecofundamentalist groups, probably making one of those factions originate from another.

As far as their general acceptance is concerned, i'd say that they would be extremely unpopular among people outside of their own clientele, but if negotiating is still a better option than fighting (as seems to be the case in your setting), they might grudgingly try to sit it out.

Expect strained diplomatic relations and the scheming and backstabbing every political RPG campaign needs so badly.

hewhosaysfish
2007-08-21, 04:49 PM
Some people are arguing from definitions of Good/Neutral/Evil which are largely out of sync with my interpretations:


The consensus seems to be:
Good - I don't want to cause harm.
Neutral - I will cause harm if I have reason to.
Evil - I will kill everything even if I don't have to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even if it harms me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

What I see (in my PHB) is more along the lines of:
Good - I want to help people and not to harm them.
Neutral - I do not want to help people but will not harm them either.
Evil - I will harm people if I wish.


People are saying that, under this consensus definition of Evil then Neutral Evil druids make no sense. They are correct. the consensus definition of Neutral Evil is what is commonly known as Stupid Evil and makes no sense for any class/race/character (except perhaps for the most irredeemably insane demon).
Evil does not have to prefer killing (although some Evil can). Evil does not have to kill when there is no need (although some Evil will).
When everything is gravy, Evil does not necessarily go on a brutal rampage simply because it hasn't murdered anybody in the last ten minutes. But it may go on one if it doesn't get what it wants.

Fixer
2007-08-21, 04:54 PM
Neutral Evil Druids would care more about the hunting and killing aspects of nature. No nuturing, no healing (not even animals), no growing. They are purely interested in culling the weak so that the strongest may survive. They leave the wounded to die. Only nature on nature would be left alone in an Evil druid's eyes.

Anything NOT natural that hunted, hurt, or damaged nature would feel the self-righteous wrath of the Evil Druid. A farmer who cut down a tree for firewood? Dead. The farmer didn't need to cut down the tree and most certainly had other ways of staying warm that didn't require harming nature. Hunting deer? For food, sure. Survival of the fittest. For sport or hide? DEAD. BIG TIME DEAD. Such a blasphemy against the natural order can only be satisfied with the death of the offender and their skin being displayed to others of their kind as a warning against future transgressions.

Evil druids can be done quite easily. :)

Rowanomicon
2007-08-21, 04:59 PM
I find this idea very interesting and I quite like it.
I'm sorry if this has already been suggested (I didn't read the entire thread) but an idea I had was to throw some Urban Druids into the mix. Have them be more in favour of expansion and urbanisation. Then you can reall have 8 different Druidic sects dominated by (but not exclusively): 1.NG 2.NE 3.LN 4.CN 5.NG Urban 6.NE Urban 7. LNUrban 8.CN Urban

Of course you might not want to do this unless you plan on having the plot be heavy with Druidic politics and coming up with at least one prominent character in each sect.

AslanCross
2007-08-21, 05:01 PM
I'd go with the superdarwinist and hunter-killer mindsets, which are kinda related. If a neutral good druid works toward growth, a neutral evil druid might work toward decay and death. They might blight entire farms or slay farmers, hunting them down in the fields.

SurlySeraph
2007-08-21, 05:02 PM
NE Druids are all about destroying anything that threatens nature. A lot of them would probably be purity-obsessed, trying to kill everything "unnatural" - including not only the obvious things like abberations, but also extraplanar creatures, hybrid species (e.g. half-dragons), and overly civilized creatures.

They might also have a Darwinian views on top of this (if you aren't strong enough to protect yourself, you deserve to die).

Krellen
2007-08-21, 05:08 PM
I've always viewed Druids thusly:

The Lawful Neutral druids emphasise the harmony and community of nature; herd beasts are their model. They operate together and seek to spread a perfection of nature, seeing the natural state as that most conducive to life and well-being. The Lawful Druids don't see civilisation as bad, per se - in moderation. Civilisation has its place, and so long as it keeps it place and does not intrude into the wild spaces, they are content. In nature, they'd be the ones seeking to enforce a strict predator/prey balance; they'll hunt down grazing populations when they get too large, and conversely hunt the predators when it is they that have grown too widespread. Spring - with the flourishing of growth and creation of new families it brings - is their season.

The Neutral Good druids emphasise the beauty and bounty of nature; the mutually beneficial relationship between Plants and Insects is their model. Nature is the best tool for eternal bounty, for, used wisely, nature provides all our needs. They will never take more than they require to survive, and what they have - and know - they share with others to spread nature's bounty. The Good Druids see civilisation as stifling nature's bounty, robbing the land of its ability to provide for the people - but they seek to rectify this through diplomacy and education, showing the people of the cities how their land could better provide and protect them if only they'd let nature take root. Autumn - with the bounty it provides and the beauty it brings - is their Season.

The Neutral druids emphasise the cycle of nature; the changing seasons are their model. They will tend to reflect the season: focused and expansive in the Spring, wild and untamed in the Summer, warm and giving in the Autumn and cold and uncaring in the Winter. They tend to get along most with the Lawful druids in the Spring, the Chaotic druids in the Summer, the Good druids in the Autumn, and the Evil druids in the Winter. They embrace the cycle of life, extolling the virtues of both life and death and finding the positive return to nature in both violence and peace. They work with civilisation so long as it does not seek to alter nature's natural course; for most, agriculture is fine, so long as what is sown in the Spring is left to flourish in the Summer, is reaped in the Fall, and their fields are left fallow for the Winter.

The Chaotic Neutral druids emphasise the capriciousness of nature; the Weather, ever unpredictable, is their model. Like the rain, they can be giving - but also destructive. Like the sun, they can nurture - or burn. Like the wind, they provide comfort - or unrest. They tend to be the most hostile to civilisation, because civilisation is a thing of permanence, a blight to the ever changing conditions of nature. They prefer to allow nature to grow wild and free - with all the benefits and drawbacks that entails. Summer - when the animals rut and the weather grows strong - is their season.

The Neutral Evil druids emphasise the callousness of nature; predators and the carrion eaters are their model. They are those that cull the weak and feast upon ruin - bringing renewal with it. They care little for the value of individuals, for they know those that survive the predations of nature (and themselves) emerge stronger for it. The Evil druids know the value of death, for without death there can be no rebirth - and they shall be the ones to ensure there is enough death to bring the next season's rebirth. Winter - when the land lay fallow and the weak are most cruelly culled - is their season.

Sornjss Lichdom
2007-08-21, 05:17 PM
Ya he will destroy anything thats not natural, but not really seek it out. CN will just be whismical, and unfriendly towards nonnatural.

Fhaolan
2007-08-21, 05:26 PM
Okay, just as a note everyone seems to be defining 'Nature' as meaning animals and plants. I'd just like to bring up that 'Nature' also encompases weather like droughts, storms, and the like as well as disasters like flooding, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc.

Also, the Druid is just a priest of a nature religion. That doesn't mean that they perfectly conform to every aspect of druidism. They can make the wrong decisions, and go down the wrong paths. They can confuse and misinterpret the will of Nature as much as any priest can do so with any other god. Unless your gods are always right there and constantly meddling with the mortal world, priests will get things wrong.

Leon
2007-08-21, 05:44 PM
Evil is the harming of life. As such a NE Druid is a nonsense.

How so, why does a druid need to give a damm about life.

kamikasei
2007-08-21, 06:19 PM
There are some excellent ideas coming out here. Thanks all! I think I have a good general idea of how several of the alignments would approach druidism now.

NG would promote the interests and well-being of sentient beings and seek to further them in a way that doesn't damage or disrupt nature more than strictly necessary, vs NE who attach no special value to sentient lives and treat a human settlement as no more deserving of consideration than a flock of deer. The "social Darwinism" idea is also intriguing. That probably gives another dichotomy where NE leave civilization alone except to penalize it for encroachment or damage, while NG would be active helping get the most yield from the least land, etc. to avoid the problems in the first place.

LN would be all about management, rules, and systems, encouraging intervention to keep things running smoothly; CN would prefer to leave matters to look after themselves and primarily react when problems crop up. LN would require a long process of getting "planning permission" to make sure your new town wasn't going to divert too much of the river's water and cause a population crash in the forest; CN would intervene after you'd built and the problem had materialized. Like NG vs NE, LN probably deals more closely with civilization while CN only shows up in town to complain.

This gives everyone a valuable point of view to bring to councils and a place in the decision-making - I think it'll work nicely. I should note that the alignments are those of individual druids. I don't see there being entire groups defined by alignment.


I'm sorry if this has already been suggested (I didn't read the entire thread) but an idea I had was to throw some Urban Druids into the mix. Have them be more in favour of expansion and urbanisation. Then you can reall have 8 different Druidic sects dominated by (but not exclusively): 1.NG 2.NE 3.LN 4.CN 5.NG Urban 6.NE Urban 7. LNUrban 8.CN Urban

That's an idea, but I wouldn't see specialist urban druids or rangers as more than a small minority. I would see pro-settlement, pro-civilization feeling as likely concentrated on the LN and NG sides. LN because many there would value a pastoral model of culture and ecological management, with lots of intervention to keep populations stable, etc; NG because cities and settlement and expansion can be viewed as natural for humans, something to be worked around and cleaned up after. You wouldn't scatter herds or topple anthills, however destructive they may be to the land around them; you'd recognize that they'll revert eventually themselves. Similarly you let cities spring up and prosper and decay and fall, and just try to steer their development towards lower impact.


Of course you might not want to do this unless you plan on having the plot be heavy with Druidic politics and coming up with at least one prominent character in each sect.

Nah, not going into that kind of depth. It's just a part of the background of the setting.


Okay, just as a note everyone seems to be defining 'Nature' as meaning animals and plants. I'd just like to bring up that 'Nature' also encompases weather like droughts, storms, and the like as well as disasters like flooding, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc.

Well, weather and disasters aren't really anything you can care for or manage or protect. It's the animals and plants you have to keep from going extinct, etc. On the other hand, I do view protection of natural resources and beauty as an important part of the druids' role; hence my mention of adjudicating access to rivers, for example. Logging rights, crop rotation, all this sort of thing I would see them as having a hand in.


Also, the Druid is just a priest of a nature religion. That doesn't mean that they perfectly conform to every aspect of druidism. They can make the wrong decisions, and go down the wrong paths. They can confuse and misinterpret the will of Nature as much as any priest can do so with any other god. Unless your gods are always right there and constantly meddling with the mortal world, priests will get things wrong.

Is that really the case? I never got the impression the druids were a religion in D&D so much as a society loosely organized around the protection of nature in the abstract, not the will of any particular deity.

Krellen: your ideas are interesting but I actually want to specifically avoid linking death and evil.

tainsouvra
2007-08-21, 06:23 PM
No it's not. Nature colonises all the time. You can't do that without excess creation. Volcanic erruptions, overgrown ruins, bloody rabbits are all examples of nature creating more quickly when the oppertunity arises. Normally, of course, there is no new land to colonise and things find an equilibrium, but that goes out the window as soon as there's a Mt St Helen's or whatever. The bare rock will have moss on it before the day is out. And nature made the bare rock by destroying what was previously there--that volcano was a part of nature, just as much as the new moss is. There is balance between creation and destruction, that's the natural order. Imbalance is only apparent if you don't look at the whole picture.

Saph
2007-08-21, 06:55 PM
Yeah, as several people have said, Neutral Evil druids work just as well as Neutral Good ones. The Darwinist survival-of-the-fittest approach is the obvious model. Others are:

• NE druids try and emulate nature's most ruthless predators, like sharks - the aspect of nature they revere most is the amoral, destructive, uncaring side.

• NE druids revere nature and the natural balance, and pretty much nothing else. They don't see anything wrong with killing people who get in their way, because that doesn't harm nature.

• NE druids do all the normal things druids do, they just happen to be vicious SOBs as well.

- Saph

Krellen
2007-08-21, 07:18 PM
Krellen: your ideas are interesting but I actually want to specifically avoid linking death and evil.
Because death is part of nature, I can see that - but I didn't link death and evil. The Evil druids see death as the purest form of nature (as, after all, all life does come from death) and thus actively spread it - which makes them evil as the SRD definition of the alignment. But that doesn't mean it's always the Evil druid calling for or spreading death. I specifically mentioned that the Lawful druids espouse death as a tool for enforcing "balance" and harmony, such as when populations of predators or prey grow too large; this would apply to humans just as equally, after all. The Chaotic druids, conversely, are just as likely to bring death, destruction and strife as they are to bring joy, merriment and succour - just as weather can be unpredictable in its good and bad effects, even with the same weather type. The Neutral druids might not go around spreading death, but they do view it as wholly natural, and necessary - so they'd probably frown upon revivification magic as violating the natural order. Reincarnation is okay because it is building new life from death.

Only the Good druids particularly try to avoid and minimise death.

Remember, Evil isn't "selfish". It's Evil. "Look out for number one" is a Neutral attitude. Evil looks out for number one while crushing number two.

nagora
2007-08-22, 05:05 AM
And nature made the bare rock by destroying what was previously there--that volcano was a part of nature, just as much as the new moss is. There is balance between creation and destruction, that's the natural order. Imbalance is only apparent if you don't look at the whole picture.

Well, let me put it this way: if the DM told you that in the middle of a forest you find a mansion surrounded by a terrace of stone flags and the architecture is from about 300 years before, it's in perfect order, but the place is deserted you would assume that it had been deserted recently. Because you know nature colonises. If the DM then gave you some way to determine that the place was in fact deserted 200 years previously, you would start looking for clues as to what magic was holding back the forest. Because you know nature colonises.

Certainly the inanimate parts of a world - volcanoes etc - are in balance but that's not the whole picture. The whole picture includes living things - traditionally a primary concern of druids - and that part has a bias to growth.

Really, the truth is that any alignment other than TN is dubious at best, but NE is the furthest from the reality of nature. And this is not because it is about death or harm, it is because it is about the preference of death and harm as a means to the end. When the end is maintaining the natural world, a preference for death and harm is insanity. The evil druid in OotS certainly seemed mad :smallsmile:

If you allow such people to gain druid powers I think you need to look at where those powers are coming from because it's unlikely to be where the power of other druids come from.

Hecore
2007-08-22, 05:52 AM
When the end is maintaining the natural world, a preference for death and harm is insanity.

I can see the evil druid using this as part of their argument for why they are the way they are. Humans have been responsible for a very large number of extinctions, even in ancient times, and I think it's logical to assume that the senient races of D&D function much the same way. Why couldn't an evil druid take the viewpoint that civilized races destroy far too much and work towards creating smaller communties that harm the enviroment to a much smaller extent? They could reason the fastest way to do this is to physically work at killing those that cause the city to band together in the first place (taking out the farmers that support it, blacksmiths, city leaders). Perhaps they want to minimize the deaths -- yes, the farmer and his wife and children died. But how many wolves were killed for trying to eat the farmers chickens? How many gophers were slain for being a 'nuisance'? How many other species of plants were torn from the soil because they competed with the farmers crops?

I will agree that a neutral druid is the most logical druid, but there are always exceptions. I fail to see how a 'good' druid should result more frequently than an 'evil' druid as the natural world could be considered both equal parts good and evil. While nature has food, shelter, and medicine it also has disease, extinction, and natural disasters. Just as a good druid will take an extreme of nature, an evil druid will do the same. You could have them focus on survival of the fittest, on restoring the balance to what it once was, or even look into fostering new diseases. As long as it's an aspect of the wild it can work for the evil druid.

Stephen_E
2007-08-22, 06:17 AM
The problem is that Evil (note capital letter) is not "not concerned with the morals" - in D&D terms Evil is specifically defined as a moral position, so it's like saying that someone is described as tall without meaning to imply anything about their height.



The problem is that Evil is a "moral position" in DnD.
People of "Evil" alignment don't have to beleive they're "evil" or that "evil" must be promoted.

Thus a NE Druid can protect Nature "by any means possible" and will happily apply "the ends justify the means".

The local humans are encroaching on the local forest he considers sacrosant? Use a plague spell and some animal growthed animals to wipe out the settlement and make a mini forest of crucified men, women and children. If it stops further encroachment it's fine. Hey, anyone with some smarts knows that settlements need children to survive, so poison the well with a mutagenic or teratogenic poison. After 30 or 40 children a born horribly mutated the settlement will start to fall apart very quickly.

A NE Druid can even be self-righteous about it. "It's for their own good. I'm actually been kind in the long run."

Stephen

Saph
2007-08-22, 06:18 AM
Really, the truth is that any alignment other than TN is dubious at best, but NE is the furthest from the reality of nature. And this is not because it is about death or harm, it is because it is about the preference of death and harm as a means to the end. When the end is maintaining the natural world, a preference for death and harm is insanity. The evil druid in OotS certainly seemed mad.

Since everything that's born in nature has to die, a preference for death's no more insane than a preference for growth - both are needed. NG and NE druids balance each other out just fine.

Anyway, if you don't like that evil druid philosophy, there are plenty of others. What about the type of druid that does revere and respect nature, but just doesn't care about anything else? So they'd protect natural environments and species, but they wouldn't think twice about murdering a few travellers for their money and gear, since that doesn't harm the natural world.

- Saph

kamikasei
2007-08-22, 06:25 AM
Anyway, if you don't like that evil druid philosophy, there are plenty of others. What about the type of druid that does revere and respect nature, but just doesn't care about anything else? So they'd protect natural environments and species, but they wouldn't think twice about murdering a few travellers for their money and gear, since that doesn't harm the natural world.

I think some of the disagreement here is that nagora would interpret that as a Neutral druid. Disregard for the wellbeing as others, it seems, he classes as neutral; Evil requires some sort of actual commitment to harm and destruction in the general and abstract.

Am I right, nagora?

nagora
2007-08-22, 06:36 AM
I think some of the disagreement here is that nagora would interpret that as a Neutral druid. Disregard for the wellbeing as others, it seems, he classes as neutral; Evil requires some sort of actual commitment to harm and destruction in the general and abstract.

Am I right, nagora?

Yes. Either a casual preference or a committed pursuit. The logical end point of this for a druid is the destruction of, well, everything. The logical end point of a bias for Good is overpopulation. Neither is really a desirable thing for a druid, but when disaster strikes the latter at least encourages recovery and is slightly more defensible in that sense. But only slightly.

kamikasei
2007-08-22, 06:39 AM
Yes. Either a casual preference or a committed pursuit. The logical end point of this for a druid is the destruction of, well, everything. The logical end point of a bias for Good is overpopulation. Neither is really a desirable thing for a druid, but when disaster strikes the latter at least encourages recovery and is slightly more defensible in that sense. But only slightly.

Right. Well then it seems to me you're using a different definition of Evil than most here, and we're talking at cross purposes to no end.

Ashtar
2007-08-22, 06:56 AM
The loggers are going deeper into the forest to get more precious woods and at the same time, clearing the edges to make more farmland. In this, they are going further than what was agreed long ago with the druids. Druidic reaction:

Lawful Neutral druid: "I show them the binding stone on which the promise was engraved and the stone markers that we put up in the forest to show that they are going over the limits. As such, they have to make compensation as indicated in the agreement."

Neutral Good druid: "It is understandable that their comunity needs to expand, but I must balance the two. I will show them how to use their existing fields better (and cast plant growth spells maybe). Also, I will arrange for loggers to be able to cut down certain trees inside the forest, but only those marked. And they should plant a new border of trees."

True Neutral druid: "The use of the forest edge as farming land is acceptable, but going deeper into the forest to log is not. I will warn the loggers of consequences if they go further than the edge, and show them the way out if they come."

Chaotic Neutral druid: "Hehehe, squirrel told me that furless animals are cutting more trees. Squirrel is unhappy with that... Maybe squirrel and my friends can show that they should not come to do such things."

Neutral Evil druid: "Long ago, men declared and swore on the binding stone that they would not go deeper. If they go deeper into the forest and get lost (obscuring mist), they might awaken (awaken trees) the ancient spirits that protect it. These will be agry and summon their guardians (Summon Natural Ally), so that the blood of those defilers quenches the thirst of the forest...
Oh, and anyway, they will quickly learn that farm land taken from the forest is... barren (diminish plants) and cannot grow food for them!"

--
I'm still unhappy with CN and TN druid behavior, any comments appreciated.

Tower
2007-08-22, 06:57 AM
From the background in the PHB, evil druids (Gnolls in the Book) are tolerated as part of the Druidic tradition, not accepted.

So they are probably more like bandits, or outcasts pretending to be legitimate society members.
Plus that way you could get various people that are anti-druid due to these NE druids and a Druid focused inquistion or Druids patrolling to make sure they aren't causing trouble.
Probably make the society argue
NG They are EVIL
LN They are Druids
N They are part of the Plan
CN Who cares
and the rest of the people, especially leaders and farmers saying
Control them or we will reduce the number of druids ourselves

nagora
2007-08-22, 07:01 AM
Right. Well then it seems to me you're using a different definition of Evil than most here, and we're talking at cross purposes to no end.

Okay. As far as I'm aware the defintion I'm using has been the D&D definition since 1979 when the moral alignment axis was introduced.

From the d20SRD:

"Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."

""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

Not exactly David Attenbourgh, is it?

kamikasei
2007-08-22, 07:13 AM
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

This is sufficient to make you evil. It is not neutral behaviour. That's the point of contention.

A druid might revere nature and the natural world as much as any other but have no respect for human or other intelligent life. That druid would be evil. A sect of druids who want to wipe out the civilized races in order to undo the damage they cause and give the world over to wildlife would be clearly evil, but hardly devoted to destruction and creating a barren wasteland.

nagora
2007-08-22, 07:34 AM
This is sufficient to make you evil. It is not neutral behaviour. That's the point of contention.

A druid might revere nature and the natural world as much as any other but have no respect for human or other intelligent life. That druid would be evil. A sect of druids who want to wipe out the civilized races in order to undo the damage they cause and give the world over to wildlife would be clearly evil, but hardly devoted to destruction and creating a barren wasteland.

I interpret the "have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient" as in

Judge: Why did you kill the man in front of you at the supermarket? Had he said or done something to provoke you? Did you do it for some sadistic pleasure?

Evil person: No, I was just in a hurry to get home and see the match.

Convenient ~= expedient. Since destruction is proverbally easier than creation, those who seek the easy route are inevitably destructive; which brings me back to a destructive druid being a contradiction.

I shall leave it there. I think we've all covered all our arguments. For me TN is the logical choice for druids - and it used to be their only option in previous editions - other alignments can be wiggled in by strained arguments about perspective, but since alignment in D&D is objective that seems oddly out of place. Evil is all about destruction and lack of respect for life, and that seems doubly odd for a druid.

Fhaolan
2007-08-22, 09:34 AM
Is that really the case? I never got the impression the druids were a religion in D&D so much as a society loosely organized around the protection of nature in the abstract, not the will of any particular deity.


Even if it is a philosophy, it's still a 'religion'. :smallsmile: And if it's a loosely organized society there's even more room for individual druids to have different goals and still believe they're part of the society.

Now, here's the point of issue. If druids are there to manage and protect nature, that does in fact reduce them down to treehuggers and bearpetters. However, I would think that a druid reveres nature instead. It's a subtle difference, but it makes the druid a bit different.

"Oh, most high druid, the forest that our lives depend on is dying!"

"You managed to notice that did you?"

"The drought has gone on so long, it's killing everything!"

"Indeed."

"Uh, you're supposed to manage and protect the forest, aren't you?"

"I have checked, and the drought is not being caused by magic or outside influence. It is a perfectly natural thing. The land will adapt and become stronger for it. The trees and animals may die, but more resilient life will take it's place. That is the way of nature."

"But... what about the people who depend on the forest?"

"Very well, as you obviously wish to make some meaningless guesture."

*The druid casts a spell. Water pools around the petitioner's feet, quickly soaking into the ground as it drains out of her body leaving her a dry husk.*

"I shall do that to all your village. That small amount of water will do nothing to prevent the ways of nature, but you will have your guesture and I will be rid of a pack of whining busybodies who dare to order me against the flow of nature."

Benejeseret
2007-08-22, 09:51 AM
First off, choose whether the good/evil axis rotates on A) society or B) the cosmos. A society evil druid would as stated likely be a eugenesist, social darwinist, or feral hunter unable to grasp why eating unprotected children is wrong.

An evil acted out against the cosmos is slightly different. Options include one with perverse views on the beauty of the 'gods creations'. Have a druid who attempts to bring nature back to society/sentient races through vile breeding schemes leading to an island of dr. monroe type feel. He thinks he's saving the world, but really his experiments are brutalizing the subjects and creating a series of disenfranchized and angry lycantropy subraces.

Another option is a plant based druid grafter. Botanists graph plants all the time, so make a poison ivy (batman) type who seeks to overthrough consumers and consumerism and make a perfect society of autotrophs. Again, experiments and forces plant graphs upon the innocents to 'cleanse them'.


To me, being anti-society is more chaotic in any format. To be evil it must twist, pervert, desecrate and leave those he interacts with a nausious, self-loathing feeling rooting in their stomach and soul.

Just killing folks for the sake of evil plays as Stupid-Evil alignment just as Chaotic-Stupid labels those who act without thought IC and OOC.

Someone running around killing puppies and screaming, "I am evil!".......meh.

Someone enacting horrible evils upon the world all in the name of good, now there is a true villain.

nagora
2007-08-22, 10:07 AM
To me, being anti-society is more chaotic in any format.

Isn't that just the cannonical definition of Chaotic? What are you getting at?


Someone enacting horrible evils upon the world all in the name of good, now there is a true villain.

True, but in D&D you are judged by the system on the enacting, not your words or even thoughts. Miko is an example of someone who believed herself to be LG but the system just said "Nope." and took her paladin powers away. When she died, she apparently did not go to the plane she expected.

kamikasei
2007-08-22, 10:16 AM
True, but in D&D you are judged by the system on the enacting, not your words or even thoughts. Miko is an example of someone who believed herself to be LG but the system just said "Nope." and took her paladin powers away. When she died, she apparently did not go to the plane she expected.

Two things - I'm not sure where you're getting info about what plane she ended up on, and she was never shown to have become non-LG, just to have fallen from paladinhood, which has stricter requirements than the alignment itself.

nagora
2007-08-22, 10:33 AM
Two things - I'm not sure where you're getting info about what plane she ended up on, and she was never shown to have become non-LG, just to have fallen from paladinhood, which has stricter requirements than the alignment itself.

When Lord Soon said that he would usher Miko to her destination, as opposed her accompanying him or similar, I took that has meaning that she had drifted to at least a tendency - probably LG(N) IMO - and was going to a different plane. It is debatable, but either way she fell from paladinhood without ever realising why or intending to.

Benejeseret
2007-08-22, 11:34 AM
True, action defines your alignment in DnD. Very different than the current christian views which (was it luther?) recently moved strongly into the it's-what-you-think/believe realm.

But that is OK. Is he NE, yes...but he thinks himself NG and that is the key to character motivation, fluff, and three dimensionalism. To get deeper, I really do not like the fallen-from-grace stereotype of Miko...because I do not think they need to fall in order to enact evil. Miko WAS evil right from the get go as soon as she formed her attidute and outlook upon the world. The gods (being only semi-omnipient in DnD) simply did not realize it until her final act of killing.

To me, a really well writen villain should be indistinguishable from a paladin: self-righteous, determined, passionate, and out of touch with the every day citizen sporting a thick Holy-er-Than-Thou (or simple Better-Than-Thou) demeaner.

Likewise, to me the best protagonists are sanctified or risen scoundrels/dark characters. This takes them out of a static mould and makes them real, changing, individuals. Wolverine, Spawn, Ghost-Rider, these are the heroes that I grew up on and I always disliked the 'true' heroes like cyclops/superman.
Why was Herecles such a great heroe, because he started as a rapist and murderer. His punishment lead his way into eventual salvation. All of which has been lost in a post-disney world.

Bene

tainsouvra
2007-08-22, 11:58 AM
Well, let me put it this way: if the DM told you that in the middle of a forest you find a mansion surrounded by a terrace of stone flags and the architecture is from about 300 years before, it's in perfect order, but the place is deserted you would assume that it had been deserted recently. Because you know nature colonises. If the DM then gave you some way to determine that the place was in fact deserted 200 years previously, you would start looking for clues as to what magic was holding back the forest. Because you know nature colonises. And you're now assuming that humans are not a part of nature as well, otherwise you'd realize this is exactly the same situation as the volcano. We already know that Druids don't consider that to be the case, as they do not consider all of mankind's creations inherently unnatural like they do with, say, the undead.

You are, for the upteenth time, not looking at the whole of nature. Nature balances creation an destruction to reach an ever-changing but stable existance.
Really, the truth is that any alignment other than TN is dubious at best, but NE is the furthest from the reality of nature. A claim you keep making and failing utterly to prove.
And this is not because it is about death or harm, it is because it is about the preference of death and harm as a means to the end. When the end is maintaining the natural world, a preference for death and harm is insanity. The evil druid in OotS certainly seemed mad :smallsmile: The second claim you keep making and failing utterly to prove.
If you allow such people to gain druid powers I think you need to look at where those powers are coming from because it's unlikely to be where the power of other druids come from. ...and yet, the rules and everyone elses' games allow them. Are you sure you're not just expressing an unfounded opinion as fact yet again?

Okay. As far as I'm aware the defintion I'm using has been the D&D definition since 1979 when the moral alignment axis was introduced.

From the d20SRD:

"Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit."

""Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master." Please note the bolded portion. That's the neutral evil druid, right there. He has no compassion for those he kills if it furthers the balance of nature.

To use your format:

Judge: Why did you kill that man walking through the forest?
Evil Druid: His village's population is expanding beyond what their current food source can provide. For each new child that is born, a villager must die to preserve the balance.

He feels absolutely no remorse or compassion for the man he killed, and the man was chosen out of all the villagers simply because he was the most convenient target. This is an evil act, but completely viable for an evil druid, as it is done to preserve the balance of nature.

Koji
2007-08-22, 12:05 PM
Olbigatory:

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/9338/101675097000qt2.jpg

Now that that's over with--the DMG (or was it the PHB) mentions that some druids represent the predatory aspect of nature. While a predator in and of itself is not evil, a human who choses to prey on other humans certainly is.

I can easily see a druid who killed a human while wild shaped and basically became a man eater. Evil doesn't have to imply craziness, but it certainly can in this case.

You should also note that having equal numbers of good, evil, and neutral people is really over the top. Most people are neutral because they simply don't have what it takes to really be evil, or put their lives on the line to do good work.

Evil druids might also be evil people who happen to be druids. An evil character who is seeking to revive a long-dead evil deity is someone whose goals are not defined by his class. Make him a druid and give him some friends who are in the business, and you've suddenly got evil druids.

The_Werebear
2007-08-22, 01:36 PM
Here is an example of an evil druid

Evil Druid (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0344.html) and Evil Druid (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0345.html)

kamikasei
2007-08-22, 01:39 PM
Here is an example of an evil druid

To clarify, I'm not really after examples of specific individual evil druids. I'm thinking about how evil druids fit in to larger druidic society.

nagora
2007-08-22, 01:49 PM
And you're now assuming that humans are not a part of nature as well,

Actually, that's exactly the error I think you're making.

Anyway, as I said, there's no point discussing this further but perhaps it's given some ideas about the sort of debates non-evil druids would have about their evil counterparts.

nagora
2007-08-22, 01:52 PM
But that is OK. Is he NE, yes...but he thinks himself NG and that is the key to character motivation, fluff, and three dimensionalism.

Absolutely, I'm just saying that he'll still set of Detect Evil and wonder why.




To me, a really well writen villain should be indistinguishable from a paladin: self-righteous, determined, passionate, and out of touch with the every day citizen sporting a thick Holy-er-Than-Thou (or simple Better-Than-Thou) demeaner.

Herman Goering at the war-crime trial after WWII is a classic of this. The American prosecuter really struggled with his ability to justify his actions in terms of what he thought was Good. But he certainly was utterly Evil

SadisticFishing
2007-08-22, 01:59 PM
Perhaps the druid isn't really concerned about protecting nature, but instead using it and its powers to further the druid's own power.


Nope, they'd lose all their powers.

Hrm, Neutral Evil druid would probably be Darwinist, as said earlier, letting the weak die and favoring the strong. They would also want the Druid Enclave (or wtv) to gain power, and be willing to do more underhanded things to get it. They'd probably be the people who punished those who broke nature's law, whether or not they're supposed to - to them, life is not as important as the way nature's supposed to go.

MrNexx
2007-08-22, 02:37 PM
There's always the option of "kill all the people so nature can flourish." Humans may be a part of nature, but a druid might decide that nature would be better off without it.

tainsouvra
2007-08-22, 02:42 PM
Actually, that's exactly the error I think you're making. Exactly how can saying that the destruction caused by the human element in nature is a part of destruction caused by nature even remotely suggest that I believe that humans are not a part of nature? Are you being tongue-in-cheek here, or are you seriously trying to make those statements equivalent?

The_Werebear
2007-08-22, 03:29 PM
To clarify, I'm not really after examples of specific individual evil druids. I'm thinking about how evil druids fit in to larger druidic society.

What he is doing though, in that example, is a possible idea for outlooks. Read, specifically "Tear down this concrete abomination" and "But now who's advancing the cause of environmental preservation"

Benejeseret
2007-08-22, 03:51 PM
Within an Enclave:

I see the NE, as said earlier, as wanting power. He wants to empower nature, sure, but believe himself to be the rightful channel for that power.

He will likely try constantly to become the archdruid through not through a "limited" might makes right mentality, but a true Darwin approach of the survivor makes right mentality. Intimidation, disease, underhandedness and all else. Likely despises the david-suzuki-knockoff/lets-be-good-environmentalist sissies.

He will likely try to subvert the PC's into helping overthrow the local archdruid or even the whole enclave that he sees as too weak willed to enact the changes necessary to save the forest etc. And if the PC's do not help....then a Contagion upon your house and a dire bear at your heels.

An evil enclave would likely be an offshoot of Nurgle's Plague Marines from 40k. Spreading virus and contagion amongst settlements and cities. More ranger-like enclaves might sponsor hunts, or being more like eco-terrorist Greenpeace openly attacking hunters/miners/loggers.....and of course transmutationalist wizards (the genetic engineers of DnD).

Now that I said it....ya.....Greenpeace or A.L.F. The extremists in Greenpeace, or more recently Animal liberation front etc, are likely good examples of NE. They think their right, and if you get in their way they will firebomb your house, family, and casualties be damned. They are not totally chaotic either as they gravitate together is such organizations.

Many Greenpeace organizations are fine, semi-responsible 'enclaves' content with asking others to respect the environment and leading by example. But every few years a NE nut gets the others in the group under his control and someone gets hurt.

KillianHawkeye
2007-08-22, 06:48 PM
Yes. Either a casual preference or a committed pursuit. The logical end point of this for a druid is the destruction of, well, everything. The logical end point of a bias for Good is overpopulation. Neither is really a desirable thing for a druid, but when disaster strikes the latter at least encourages recovery and is slightly more defensible in that sense. But only slightly.

When viewing druid alignments vs the balance of nature, I don't think you can take either of these views seperately. Good and evil druids both exist within nature together, and in the long run the sum of their actions will probably balance out. Just as nature allows for some areas to be bountiful while others are devastated, some places will feel the affects of an evil druid for a time while others will be affected by good. Even a blighted land will one day heal, just as an evil druid will one day be replaced by a good one. Nature does not have to balance in the immediate sense, but does so in the long term.


Remember, Evil isn't "selfish". It's Evil. "Look out for number one" is a Neutral attitude. Evil looks out for number one while crushing number two.

Sig'd!

TheLogman
2007-08-22, 07:03 PM
Maybe the Evil Druid is the one that "Reveres Nature", but only the destructive parts. Evil Druid does not care for the creation of new life, only the destruction of what is not him. When he kills Nature, he simply states: "The things that were destroyed were too weak" That way, he can kill whole forests, as long as he can justify it, and he can still revere the destructiveness of it all.

JackShandy
2007-08-22, 07:13 PM
Neutral Evil druids might be the enforcers, sent to bring terror and death when the council deems it needed, and always pushing for it. This would make them allies of the LN faction when agreements had been broken, or allies of the CN faction if some part of civilization had grown too powerful and stifling.

puppyavenger
2007-08-22, 08:34 PM
my ideas

NG Two nations are going to war over a valley of valuable land, As this will cause unthinkable amounts of death, As such any atempt possible should be made to stop the fighting
N A long as they do not employ burned earth tatics or cause any unseemly damage to the land, they should be allowed to fight out there squabble, we will moniter and punish reasonibly (ie death for death) any damage to the wilderlands and aid the other side subtly so as to not raise undo agression.
LN they have a peice agreement so attemtps should be made at peice, if that fails then the agreements shaall be enforced through destabilazation of supply lines.
CN They hould be alowed to fight out the folly, sentenils should wander around the disputed area, fending off any attempt to destroy the woodlands and retaliating if a trend develops
NE The armie are not allowed to march, armies by their very nature harm the eviroment, as such acts of terrisim and sabotoge to prevent the aarmy marching.

Wolfwood2
2007-08-23, 11:43 AM
I tend to have a pretty loose interpretation of "revere nature". It's possible to revere nature while at the same time considering yourself its master. After all, you're a druid with all these spiffy powers. Doesn't that place you at the top of the food chain? Doesn't that mean that things should get out of your way or get eaten?

Animals are neutral not because of their behavior but because they lack the capacity to make moral choices in the first place. If an intelligent being were to act like an animal, taking whatever they wanted and dominating any who opposed them, they would be evil.

Anyway, I think the thing to remember is that evil druids are people first and druids second. What is an evil druid's place in society? It's right there alongside other druids. An evil druid and a good druid might have the exact same goals, disagreeing only on methodology.

Serenity
2007-08-23, 11:47 AM
I've got a sudden image of a NE druid dealing with poachers and sport hunters by subjecting them to a 'Most Dangerous Game' scenario...

Porthos
2007-08-23, 12:24 PM
I think some people are getting far too wrapped up in the Druid = Hippy Protector of the Forest meme. There are plenty of examples of Real Life "Evil Defenders of the Forest" out there for you to draw inspiration from.

Since I can't go really in depth into examples here due to board policies, I would simple suggest that you look at how the Environmental Movement thinks about "radical fringe" groups. I'm sure all of the names are familiar to us, and if they're not, I can easily supply the groups via PM. Look at how the more "respectable" Environmental Groups deal with these groups. Look at what they say, and don't say about them. Look at how they talk about their philosophies and their methods.

Then extrapolate that behavior to a situation where there is far less worry about the Law. How would these types of groups function in such a Nature Based Society. Would they thrive? Would they (no pun intended) find a ecological niche to inhabit? And would they find sympathizers for their cause (the old, "I don't agree with their methods, but...")?

So don't focus on the MWAWHAHAHA I'M SO EVIL trope, and instead focus on the "extreme times call for extreme measures" trope. Focus on what people have done throughout history when they feel that they have "no choice" but to do something. Sadly, history is not short on examples of people doing Evil Things in the Name of a Good Cause.

-----------

ETA::: The above example is, of course, just one type of NE Druid. Just as there are many different types of LG Paladin, so to are there many different types of NE Druid. Consider the famous phrase "Nature, red in tooth and claw". Think of what type of Druid would embrace that philosophy. What would he be like in the Druidic Society. Or perhaps you could turn your attention to the seminal The Lord of the Flies for inspiration. The whole, "There Are No Laws In The Jungle" idea.

If you are looking for specific niches, perhaps the NE Druids gravitate toward the Shocktooper/Stormtrooper parts of society. They're the ones who will go out and cause Wanton Destruction in the Name of Nature (i.e. buring villages, conducting raides on cities). The Stormtrooper NE Druid could be the Hardest Baddest Meanest weapons that the Druidic Council use against their enemies. Or perhaps they are the "fixers". I.e. the people who go into an area and "solve the situation with extreme prejudice". The "fixers" aren't concerned with the niceties of society, but Just Getting the Job Done.

After all, many socieites have seen the need for the Assassain/"Fixer" Type, even if they don't admit it pubically. Why would a Driudic Society be any different?

As noted by many people above, there is of course the Social Darwinist Druid, who would certainly be NE. Then there is the Defiler Type, which is more of the BWAWAHA I'M SO EVIL archetype. But they tend to be shunned in most societies, so that probably won't work here.

Heck, of you want a really out there look at a NE Druidic Society, look no further than The Others in Lost. In fact, that might even be a good example of NE Druids That are in the Process of Losing Their Ideals.

When it comes right down to it the common thread between most NE Druids is that they don't care if someone/something gets hurt in the pursuit of their goals. In fact, some might even really enjoy the suffering of others. :smallsmile:

Jakezor
2007-08-23, 04:14 PM
I think a -great- NE druid would be one that seems good.
He could be the Xenophobic type, say, against, Orcs.

Orcs are Evil, they destroy nature, yada yada.
In all his dealings, he could encourage persons to war with the Orcs, always favor anyone else over the Orcs in any disputes that arrise, and constantly "Strip" land away from them...

The Important thing is to make sure that the Druid is profiting from everything he does, and enjoys causing harm to the Orcs, otherwise he'll be too "Good"

Perhaps he's a member of another monsterous humanoid race... say, a Gnoll, or better yet, a Kobald. From each area Orcs are killed out of, the Kobalds/Gnolls/Whatevers move in.

Xenocide is evil after all, heck, the Druid could take it beyond Orcs, maybe to everything that "has green skin and fangs".

If nothing else, I'd be interesting satire on the "Average" PC party, not to mention an easy adventure hook: Mr Druid wants party X to clear out some Orcs who have been violating the forrest yada yada. I'm always a fan of using the PCs as pawns of a greater evil, especially when they're fufilling cliche plot lines.

Turcano
2007-08-23, 06:49 PM
I think some people are getting far too wrapped up in the Druid = Hippy Protector of the Forest meme.

That's what I'm talking about. In fact, I'd be willing to go so far as too say that only a culture that has become as disconnected from nature as ours could think of such a view as plausible. I mean, look at indigenous cultures; they're about as far from the hippie ethos as possible. I mean, how many vegan, rabbit-hugging Native American cultures do you know of?

puppyavenger
2007-08-23, 07:59 PM
Since I can't go really in depth into examples here due to board policies, I would simple suggest that you look at how the Environmental Movement thinks about "radical fringe" groups. I'm sure all of the names are familiar to us, and if they're not, I can easily supply the groups via PM. Look at how the more "respectable" Environmental Groups deal with these groups. Look at what they say, and don't say about them. Look at how they talk about their philosophies and their methods.


I'll take the PM.

Tower
2007-08-24, 05:45 AM
That's what I'm talking about. In fact, I'd be willing to go so far as too say that only a culture that has become as disconnected from nature as ours could think of such a view as plausible. I mean, look at indigenous cultures; they're about as far from the hippie ethos as possible. I mean, how many vegan, rabbit-hugging Native American cultures do you know of?

I agree, the Aborigines in Australia set fire to forests so as to thin out the bush for hunting.

That avatar of your is awesome incidentally

I can see some NE druids like the really militant PETA / Animal Activists.
Like those guys that dug up and stole a corpses of a person related to a worker or owner of a farm that breeds rats and animals for laboratories.

Koji
2007-08-24, 05:55 AM
Neutral evil people often tend to see themselves as threatened by the rest of the world (like the Drow), and go over the edge trying to protect themselves. Evil people are by nature selfish, so killing all humans in order to protect the forest is certainly evil, but it's not very convincing.

How about a group that believes that their way of life is being threatened by civilized society? Yes, they care about the environment, but what drives them to evil is that they also care about themselves. Something may have happened in their past that gives them the proper motivation to hurt others.

Maybe they were part of a religion or organization that came into conflict with a nation (or even another druid sect) and were nearly wiped out. The survivors were witness to terrible atrocities and what basically amounts to an attempt at genocide.

Evil begets evil, and the survivors banded together with steely resolve--to hurt a druid is to strike at nature herself--and agreed that they would never again let themselves be hurt. They began a campaign of expansion, control, and destruction. Those who would not submit would be destroyed.

In the end, their goals DO serve nature. They are druids, stewards of the land, and that is why they do what they do. The motivation for the manner in which they do it is explained by their past, and now it's become a zealous doctrine that they feel is the only way they can be strong--even if it's not.

nagora
2007-08-24, 06:25 AM
And this is not because it is about death or harm, it is because it is about the preference of death and harm as a means to the end. When the end is maintaining the natural world, a preference for death and harm is insanity. The evil druid in OotS certainly seemed mad

The second claim you keep making and failing utterly to prove


I don't need to prove a simple logical fact that reverence for the natural world and a bias for creating suffering, harm, and death are incompatable.

Saying that bare rock is just as natural as open veld, say, is empty semantics, it is clear to anyone with eyes that moving from the latter to the former is not going to be favoured by anyone with a reverence for nature. Maybe it would be favoured by someone with a reverence for rocks.

Preferring to kill or harm those who damage nature without attempting any other response implies that the druid sees the attackers as outside of nature. Fair enough in the case of demons or the undead, but indefensible in the case of humans/demi-humans who's motives are unknown to the druid.

Stephen_E
2007-08-24, 07:26 AM
I don't need to prove a simple logical fact that reverence for the natural world and a bias for creating suffering, harm, and death are incompatable.

Well since a number of people clearly disagree that your "simple logical fact" is a fact, I'd say you do need to provide some proof.


Saying that bare rock is just as natural as open veld, say, is empty semantics, it is clear to anyone with eyes that moving from the latter to the former is not going to be favoured by anyone with a reverence for nature. Maybe it would be favoured by someone with a reverence for rocks.

If that bare rock is covered in micro-organism can it be favoured over open veld by someone with a reverence for nature. For that matter can someone with a reverence for nature consider both equally valid.


Preferring to kill or harm those who damage nature without attempting any other response implies that the druid sees the attackers as outside of nature. Fair enough in the case of demons or the undead, but indefensible in the case of humans/demi-humans who's motives are unknown to the druid.

Why? I know people who don't consider people and their artifacts part of nature, and I'm not talking about just enviorimentally focued people either. Any humanlike sentient race is more than capable of beleiving that there is a clear differentiation between "humans" and "nature".

In short I get the impression you're confusing what you beleive with what is "right" or "the only sensible way things can be".

Stephen

tainsouvra
2007-08-24, 12:44 PM
I don't need to prove a simple logical fact that reverence for the natural world and a bias for creating suffering, harm, and death are incompatable. You do if you want your entire argument to carry more weight than "because I said so", which is all you're managing to muster by not backing up your so-called facts :smallamused:
Saying that bare rock is just as natural as open veld, say, is empty semantics, it is clear to anyone with eyes that moving from the latter to the former is not going to be favoured by anyone with a reverence for nature. Maybe it would be favoured by someone with a reverence for rocks. Or someone who understands that the process of converting new stone into soil is an essential part of how plant life, and thus the majority of multicellular life on this planet, survive. That lava flow that wipes out the current flora and replaces it with bare rock is an essential part of that region's ecosystem, in fact it's a major reason why such areas tend to have so much lush vegetation. Look it up sometime.
Preferring to kill or harm those who damage nature without attempting any other response implies that the druid sees the attackers as outside of nature. Fair enough in the case of demons or the undead, but indefensible in the case of humans/demi-humans who's motives are unknown to the druid. It does not imply any such thing, it implies that the druid's preferred response to a perceived threat to the balance within nature is to prune the heaviest side. It's what nature itself does in many cases--that's why forest fires are such an important part of a forest ecosystem, for example. Sometimes what the cycle of life needs is for something to die, and a preference for that response to an imbalance is not in any way a lack of reverence for the cycle itself.

Benejeseret
2007-08-24, 01:23 PM
I don't need to prove a simple logical fact that reverence for the natural world and a bias for creating suffering, harm, and death are incompatable.


I totally, totally, totally disagree.

Death is at the core of natural cycles, natural lifecycles, natural selection, speciation, and balance.

Nature is not in some abstract state of balance opposed to death. Nature is balanced by death.

And harm, even plants do harm. Plants are selfish bast@rds. They grow where they want, their roots strangle and kill off competing plants, and they will resort to chemical warfare at a moments notice to outgrow other plants and harm, poison, animals who munch on them.

Death and harm cause suffering. I'm sorry, but 'going to the farm' is not an option for wild animals. They are brutally killed, sometimes eaten before even dead, or wasted away by parasites and disease.

Picture a fluffy world of druid, nature revelling mentality shall we. Restore the balance of nature, aid nature, be one with the natural cycles and try to keep artificial (funny term but lets assume sentient alteration to environment in a way that nature cannot easily adapt to) influence out.

Now, if nature is a cycle then speeding up or helping out ANY part of a cycle in turns speeds/helps the WHOLE cycle.

So, a druid could be a generalists helping animals find mates, seeing fledgling have enough food, and then as winter comes sees to it that the weak are taken by wolves.

On the flip side a druid could 'specialize' in birth. Assisting animal pregnancies and acting as an animal midwife = more animals and speeds the cycle along. All NG, friendly and huggable.

EQUALLY-likewise, a druid specializing in death will make sure diseases are present in a population, that the injured squirrels are indeed eaten by owls and that in a natural drought animals parish. Death is part of the cycle and in an area that is overpopulated a death druid would in fact be necessary to help move the cycle along. A death druid would in all actions and function be NE by definition. He knows death is part of nature and so embrases nature by embrasing death.

nagora
2007-08-24, 01:32 PM
I totally, totally, totally disagree.

Death is at the core of natural cycles, natural lifecycles, natural selection, speciation, and balance.


My point was that it's not the dominant part of the natural cycles. Otherwise, obviously, we'd not be here. Therefore a bias to that side for a druid is a sign of madness.

tainsouvra
2007-08-24, 01:45 PM
My point was that it's not the dominant part of the natural cycles. Otherwise, obviously, we'd not be here. Therefore a bias to that side for a druid is a sign of madness. There is no dominant part of natural cycles, but that doesn't mean that someone who reveres nature can't focus on upholding or encouraging one part of the cycle. In fact, it's not really feasible for a single mortal to grasp every part of nature's intricate balance, and it's physically impossible to uphold them all at once since you can only be in one place doing one thing at a time. Druids find their place in nature and in druidic society, and do their mortal-best to make sure their part goes according to natural laws.

An evil Druid is no more mad than any other Druid, you simply appear to reject the aspects of nature he champions. That doesn't make him a bad Druid, it just means you don't understand him.

Benejeseret
2007-08-24, 01:47 PM
You are not here a lot longer than are here. Humans have not been here at lot longer than humans have been here. As far as nature (whose timescale nears geologic) is concerned human kind, even elven kind, will be dead and gone for infinately more time than it even existed.

Your point is than death is a lesser function because there is currently more life?!?

Death = life, as everything alive must die

Besides, if you want ultimate balance for all things then

NG life druids = NE death druids

Ultimately I would even call Death (anthromorphic Discworld Death) a druid.

**As a biologist, geneticist, and scoutmaster I am really enjoying this thread.
Nagora, I can see that whatever your views, they fundamentally contradict my understanding of nature. Could you explain your reasonings in depth a bit? Not about the druid/NE bit, but on what nature is and how it functions.

nagora
2007-08-24, 02:55 PM
You are not here a lot longer than are here.

Reincarnation, anyone?



Your point is than death is a lesser function because there is currently more life?!?

Well, it can't be the greater function because otherwise there'd be no life.



Death = life, as everything alive must die


No major argument, although fantasy worlds with immortals might confuse the issue slightly.


Besides, if you want ultimate balance for all things then

NG life druids = NE death druids

That's a fair point when viewed from afar, but I don't think it makes much sense from the point of view of the individual druids.

"Hey, Bob, I'm joining up as a NG druid so I need an Evil buddy to keep the balance. Wanna sign up too?"
"Yesssss, Bobby kill things. Bobby like to kill things. Bwahhhahaha"
"Okay. Cool. See you at the YMCA 10am sharp. Bring a brown robe."
"Ohhh, yrs. I'll bring a brown robe alright. Ohhhh Yesss. Brown. Hohoho! Sharp? Ha!"
"Ah. Right. Great."


Ultimately I would even call Death (anthromorphic Discworld Death) a druid.

If death is part of the cycle, then Death is too. But Death is not charged with looking after nature generally, he's charged with looking after his bit of the cycle.



**As a biologist, geneticist, and scoutmaster I am really enjoying this thread.
Nagora, I can see that whatever your views, they fundamentally contradict my understanding of nature. Could you explain your reasonings in depth a bit? Not about the druid/NE bit, but on what nature is and how it functions.

I'm taking "Nature", as in "Mother Nature" to be the reversal of entropy; the increasing of complexity. Life is a prime mover for this process. To me, creation is what D&D Good is fundamentally about; Destruction what Evil is about.

I'm specifically saying that "Nature" is a superset of "Natural". Weathering, erosion, comet strikes, volcanoes, etc are natural and mostly entropic forces. Nature includes them but also introduces anti-entropic processes which balance - and often more than balance - the forces which are moving the world and the universe to its ultimate heat-death.

A druid that looks at the moon and says "That's a beautiful, natural environment in perfect balance" is mostly correct (in actuality the moon is not in balance and is undergoing weathering which would eventually reduce it to a smooth object in about 10^1700 years). It's when they add "I think this place should be like the moon" that I think the problems start.

Obviously I'm taking an extreme example there, but the point remains that preferring destructive means of doing things over other methods seems to me to obviously be working against nature. Nature is not primarily destructive and anyone who wishes to revere it and emulate its processes would not prefer it. Someone who reveres just tigers or fire or lightning might, but the druid should be taking a broader view than that.

And someone who only takes the Evil route against sentients is implying that sentients are not natural ("What was that noise?" "That was your druid powers leaving") which is usually wrong in regard at least to humans and demo-humans in D&D.

tainsouvra
2007-08-24, 03:12 PM
Well, it can't be the greater function because otherwise there'd be no life. The point is that neither is a greater function, they are halves of a whole. Balance only exists when no more is created than is destroyed, and balance is central to the druidic view of nature.

nagora
2007-08-24, 03:19 PM
The point is that neither is a greater function, they are halves of a whole. Balance only exists when no more is created than is destroyed, and balance is central to the druidic view of nature.

In which case TN - an alignment 3ed bans for druids - is the logical one. In the absence of the correct alignment being available I do think it's possible to say that there are less-worse ones in the list LN NE NG CN. Specifically, NG is the best of a bad bunch, IMO.

tainsouvra
2007-08-24, 03:24 PM
In which case TN - an alignment 3ed bans for druids - is the logical one. In the absence of the correct alignment being available I do think it's possible to say that there are less-worse ones in the list LN NE NG CN. Specifically, NG is the best of a bad bunch, IMO. It is not banned, where on earth did you get that idea? "True Neutral" is from second edition, it's referred to as simply "Neutral" in sourcebooks now, and it printed right there as an option for Druids.
Read the first line (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm):
Alignment
Neutral good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, or neutral evil.

I think you need to do a lot more background reading on the Druid class, your facts are all over the place.

Krellen
2007-08-24, 03:24 PM
Uh. Druids most definitely can be TN. What the heck are you smoking?

Ninja attack! I was replying to nagora.

Porthos
2007-08-24, 03:28 PM
In which case TN - an alignment 3ed bans for druids - is the logical one.

You might want to re-read your SRD....

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm

Alignment
Neutral good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, or neutral evil.

And I don't think you have really addressed the other variants of the NE Druid. Okay, so you've established that the Defiler Druid is a whacked-out idea. I agree with you.* But what about the By Any Means Necessary Druid or the I Don't Give A Darn About Who I Kill As Long As I Protect Nature Druid or the Social Darwinism Druid?

NE is not a straight-jacket toward a worldview, anymore than LG is. There are many types of NE people out there, and I can, quite easily, see many of them becoming Druids.

* Then again, Defiler Druids are supposed to be whacked-out in the head, so there you are. :smallwink:


EDIT::: Yay for Ninja-ing! :smalltongue:

nagora
2007-08-24, 03:32 PM
Uh. Druids most definitely can be TN. What the heck are you smoking?


I don't know. It must be good stuff. I was mixing this conversation up with another about the change from TN being a distinct alignment from the "Blah-neutral", which obviously revolved around the fact that it was something that made druids stand out in the previous editions.

Deary, deary me. Talk about rolling a 1 on your debate skill!

Porthos
2007-08-24, 03:52 PM
Speaking of the SRD.....

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm


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

Notice the bit I underlined. It mentions that a Druid that no longer reveres nature becomes an ex-Druid. That kinda, by definition, leaves out the "I Must Destroy Everything!! MWAWAHAHAAH!!!" types, don'tcha think? :smallwink:

So we are left with a logical conundrum: Druids, by RAW, can be NE.
Druids who no longer revere nature stop being Druids.
You claim that a NE Druid would/should want to (on some level, even subconsciously) Destroy Nature*

(* If I am misinterpreting this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3073765&postcount=47) [and others like it], please let me know. :smallsmile: )

One of those three statements must logically be incorrect on some level, as they cannot all be true. Since two of them are facts put out by WotC, and one of them is an opinion, I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that your interpretation of what a NE Druid would be like is wrong for baseline DnD. You are, of course, free to modify the rules/use your interpetation of the rules to suit your own fancies in whatever campaign you might happen to run. But that goes without saying, or at least it should. :smallwink:

Now it is certainly what a Defiler (which is an ex-Druid) would be like. And you would be correct that a NE Druid would be far more likely to become a Defiler than most other types of Druids. But most NE Druids going down the Defiler/Destruction path? Sorry. Just don't see it, if only because of all of the different types of NE Druid that we have listed on this thread. :smallsmile:

Krellen
2007-08-24, 03:54 PM
You know, what Druids represented with their "True Neutral" still exists too. It specifically says in the alignment description that some "Neutral" people are dedicated to a balance between all the extremes. I like to call that alignment "Balance", and hold it as the "Tenth Alignment".

nagora
2007-08-24, 03:57 PM
And I don't think you have really addressed the other variants of the NE Druid. Okay, so you've established that the Defiler Druid is a whacked-out idea. I agree with you.* But what about the By Any Means Necessary Druid

That's TN.


or the I Don't Give A Darn About Who I Kill As Long As I Protect Nature Druid

Again, TN but with the proviso that if they think that the people they kill are not part of the nature they protect, then they'd probably lose their powers.


or the Social Darwinism Druid?

I always think Social Darwinism is a very lawful notion - the group gets stronger by weeding out the weak individuals. So LN.


Then again, Defiler Druids are supposed to be whacked-out in the head, so there you are. :smallwink:

I'm open to them being insane, although as cleric-type who gains spells through atunement and meditation I'd wonder how they got their power.

Well, anyway. I think I'm back at the "TN is the only sensible alignment for druids" position I was at all those years ago when I hijacked this thread.

If you allow them, I think NE druids would have to be something other druids watched very carefully. I think it would be only a matter of time before the NE druid's ideas of what needs protected and what can be done away with would cross purposes with the other druids'.

Jayabalard
2007-08-24, 03:58 PM
there are lots of different types of druids that could be Neutral evil; the prime ones in my opinion:
-Has a subset of nature that he focuses on preserving, healing and nurturing.
-uses evil methods to do that; ex: humanoid bodies make good fertilizer.
-focuses on the death, decay and destruction portions of the circle of life.
-venerates the destructive fury of nature: Fires, storms, etc


That's TN.Nope, evil.

tainsouvra
2007-08-24, 03:58 PM
So we are left with a logical conundrum: I do like that simplified approach. Nice thought there.

nagora
2007-08-24, 04:08 PM
there are lots of different types of druids that could be Neutral evil; the prime ones in my opinion:
-Has a subset of nature that he focuses on preserving, healing and nurturing.
-uses evil methods to do that; ex: humanoid bodies make good fertilizer.
-focuses on the death, decay and destruction portions of the circle of life.
-venerates the destructive fury of nature: Fires, storms, etc

All those examples involve not viewing the whole picture, which I think is the core to druid thought.


Nope, evil.

Using whatever means are necessary is not evil if the intent is a balance rather than the dominance of evil. Unnecessary harm and destruction is evil.

tainsouvra
2007-08-24, 04:11 PM
the I Don't Give A Darn About Who I Kill As Long As I Protect Nature Druid Again, TN but with the proviso that if they think that the people they kill are not part of the nature they protect, then they'd probably lose their powers. No, I'm afraid that's clearly Neutral Evil, not Neutral. It directly matches the definition of Evil and directly conflicts with the definition of Neutral, which you can see if you re-read the alignment descriptors:
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
The lack of compassion, the lack of any qualms about killing when it suits his goals, is a by-definition Evil approach--not Neutral. A Neutral Druid would fit the Neutral alignment description:
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
"I Don't Give A Darn About Who I Kill As Long As I Protect Nature" does not even remotely fit "have compunctions against killing the innocent". He is very clearly Evil, by the definition the rules give us.

Your interpretation runs 100% counter to the published alignment rules, and is thus mistaken.

the Social Darwinism DruidI always think Social Darwinism is a very lawful notion - the group gets stronger by weeding out the weak individuals. So LN. The "Social Darwinism" Druid presented earlier in this thread focused on the destruction of the weak to ensure the survival of the strong, with no compassion for the weak, which is an Evil approach by definition. A "Social Darwinism" Druid who simply allowed natural conflict to occur, but did nothing to encourage or discourage it, would be Lawful Neutral...but that's not the same Druid as was being discussed.

nagora
2007-08-24, 04:21 PM
"I Don't Give A Darn About Who I Kill As Long As I Protect Nature" does not even remotely fit "have compunctions against killing the innocent". He is very clearly Evil, by the definition the rules give us.

So, viewing death as part of life is suddenly out now? Make up your mind.

Druids don't care about who they kill as long as they protect nature precisely because maintaining nature involves death. If they cared they'd have a hard time doing their jobs. There's a difference between seeing deaths as a price to pay for protecting nature and actually looking for excuses to kill.


A "Social Darwinism" Druid who simply allowed natural conflict to occur, but did nothing to encourage or discourage it, would be Lawful Neutral...but that's not the same Druid as was being discussed.

But a druid who culls a population is evil unless he cries his eyes out while doing it? Whatever happened to professional detachment?

Porthos
2007-08-24, 04:23 PM
or the I Don't Give A Darn About Who I Kill As Long As I Protect Nature Druid

Again, TN but with the proviso that if they think that the people they kill are not part of the nature they protect, then they'd probably lose their powers.

I will open by saying that you and I have very different interpretations of TN, but I will set that aside for the moment. Instead I only want to focus in on this one example I gave. What I was going for was a Druidic Assassin. Assassins, by rule (and yes I realize it is a highly controversial rule) are evil. What I was trying to say is even if someone didn't pickup the Assassin PrC, there is every reason to believe that a Druid might pick up a Assassin Mindset.

This Druid has decided that his job is to go out and Kill The Enemies of Nature. Sure, in a perfect world, everyone would be lying along the campfire singing Kumbaya. Unfortunately, there are just too many people who are destroying nature. So they must be culled so Nature can get back into balance. So this Druid takes it upon himself to go out and start killing woodsmen that are hunting in the forest (or other people he feels are "harming" Nature). He doesn't have a Consistent Plan of Attack or a Meticulous Way of Going About His Plan (so not Lawful) but he's not living by the Spur of the Moment nor is he Open to Any Idea That Enters His Head (so, not Chaotic).

Instead he is ambivalent to the Rules and Traditions around him. If they make it easier to do His Holy Mission, so be it. If they hinder it, he really doesn't care. If he can use the Tools of Society Against Itself, fine. If not, also fine. He just cares about bringing the Enemies of Nature Down A Few Notches.

This person is classic Neutral Evil. While he might think he is doing "Good" or something to promote "Balance", the way he is doing it is completely Evil. And he doesn't care about planning or spontaneity. But he does care, passionately, about Nature. And if someone says something about, "But Humans/Orc/Dwarves/Whatever are a part of Nature," he would coldly reply, "Nature always thins the herd when it grows too big. Either that the the herd will destroy all that is around itself in it's ignorance. I'm saving Nature by making sure you don't destroy it."

That's of course, if he even bothered to reply in the first place. :smallwink:

Now if he wanted to "wipe Humanity/What-Have-You off the face of the Earth," then we are in a bit more murky territory. But, thankfully, I'm not arguing about those types of Druids. :smallwink:

Finally, if you really want me to give a How A Nature Loving Person Can Be Evil Speech, here's one:

Innocent Farmer That Lives A bit Too Close To The Forest (on his knees as he is about to die): But Mr. Druid... How can you kill me? I am a part of Nature too!!
Druidic Assassin: Just as we must occasionally cut down a tree to stop overgrowth from happening, so too must we kill some humans. A single spark in an overgrown forest would consume all in deadly fire. So too can humanity, if it is not culled to a manageable level, consume all in it's path.
<PAUSE>
Druidic Assassin (delivering the killing strike): The principle is exactly the same. I don't want to kill all of you. But I will stop you from endangering us all.

Is the above person Evil to the Core? Yeppers. Does he still revere Nature? Yep. Probably to an extremely unhealthy degree. :smallwink:

tainsouvra
2007-08-24, 04:36 PM
"I Don't Give A Darn About Who I Kill As Long As I Protect Nature" does not even remotely fit "have compunctions against killing the innocent". He is very clearly Evil, by the definition the rules give us.So, viewing death as part of life is suddenly out now? Make up your mind. My mind, and my argument, has been clear from the beginning. You've been trying to turn it into something it isn't, and it hasn't been working, but that's not really my concern.

Viewing death as a part of life is normal for a Druid, and does not have an alignment effect. Not caring who dies in the process of protecting nature is something completely different. One is an understanding of the cycle of life, the other is an utter lack of compassion for others. The lack of compassion for innocents that you kill is a hallmark, by definition, indisputable sign of Evil. That's how Evil is defined, you can't seriously claim it's anything but Evil and still claim to be using the D&D alignment system. They directly define it as such, that's what makes something Evil in the first place.
Druids don't care about who they kill as long as they protect nature precisely because maintaining nature involves death. If they cared they'd have a hard time doing their jobs. It's a hard job. Taking the easy way out, and thereby ditching all moral considerations from your head, is classic Evil. A Good or Neutral Druid can kill to protect nature, but will make a conscious effort to minimize the deaths of innocents in the process. An Evil Druid will do no such thing, and that's one of the major things that makes him Evil.

That's how Evil is spelled out in D&D, and if you do not wish to define Evil that way, you're not using the D&D alignment system anymore.
There's a difference between seeing deaths as a price to pay for protecting nature and actually looking for excuses to kill. That difference is meaningless in terms of alignment, since if you kill innocents without qualm, you are Evil. This is explicitly given in the alignment descriptors, which I will again reprint here with context:

Type I: "The death of innocents is simply the price of protecting nature, I feel no compassion for those who must die"--Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

Type II: "The death of innocents is something I enjoy, I will seek out populations that need to be culled so that I can pursue this interest"--Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Both are Evil, just different ways of being Evil.
But a druid who culls a population is evil unless he cries his eyes out while doing it? Whatever happened to professional detachment? If he feels no pity, remorse, or compassion? Yes, he's indisputably Evil. If you're using "professional detachment" as an excuse to slaughter innocents without compassion, you are Evil in the D&D alignment system. This is explicitly spelled out in the descriptors.

Stephen_E
2007-08-24, 06:11 PM
My point was that it's not the dominant part of the natural cycles. Otherwise, obviously, we'd not be here. Therefore a bias to that side for a druid is a sign of madness.

Death/destruction is as important a part of nature as life/growth. Death requires life and visa versa.

You also assume that a Druid must always take the whole picture in his views. You yourself make quite clear why this isn't so. Druids are limited beeings, not gods, therefore they're fully entitled, or even more so expected, to have preferred areas to focus on, much as you focus on growth=nature.
You also appear to have a preference for the value of complex lifeforms. Others might have a preference for less complex lifeforms.

It should also be noted that species extinction is a part of nature, so a NE Druid may focus on choosing what species get made extinct (Say Halflings:smallbiggrin: ) in the knowledge that nature will fill in with the new species required.

Computer people don't generally try and cover the entire field. They specalise in an area. Bob decides to be an aplications programmer. He doesn't go out and convince people to be O/S programers, Hardware specalists ectre before he starts been a programer. He knows they'll exist already. The NE Druid can specalise in assisting nature in death and destruction knowing that nature will take care of the growth part, and that there are undoubtedly Druids helping with that part as well.

Stephen

Porthos
2007-08-24, 07:11 PM
The NE Druid can specalise in assisting nature in death and destruction knowing that nature will take care of the growth part, and that there are undoubtedly Druids helping with that part as well.


And if you got those Druids together with the ones that want to catalogue all Nature to understand how it works, plus the ones that want to see it grow with wild abandon, you might get a pretty good thing going. Heck, if you then got a Big Picture Kinda Guy to oversee it all, you'd probably have a kick butt organization.

I propose we call it a Druidic Circle.

Call me whacky, but... It. Just. Might. Work. :smalltongue:

Thrawn183
2007-08-24, 09:34 PM
Some different versions of neutral evil. They are all possible-ish. Might varry a little on the lawful-chaotic scale, but... meh.

NE: The guy who stakes squirrels to the ground and skins them alive.

NE: The guy who wants to use the treaties to garner power and wealth for himself, while making others destitute/unhappy etc. Use treaties to get the best land for himself and leave everyone else in barren wasteland for example.

NE: The guy who poisons all the wells to force people to leave. Might warn the villagers. Isn't going to get rid of the poison if the villagers keep drinking the water.

NE: The guy who buffs animals to fight the villagers. Tries to bolster animal forces at the expense of human lives.

NE: The guy who leads raids on villages and targets the youngest first because its the easiest way to prevent any more from being born 20-30 years down the line.

NE: The guy who kidnaps children to force villagers to leave the area.

NE: The guy who watches someone (innocent in this situation) get mauled by an animal when he could easily step in and stop it.

NE: The guy who's gone cannibalistic. Hunts people. Thinks they taste just like chicken.

I could go on forever. The thing is, evil... is evil. It has a myriad of forms. It could support peaceful treaties or oppose them. It is the result of those treaties that matters to evil, not the treaties themselves. Evil has nothing to do with whether or not you'd be on some druidic council. You can hide being evil easily if you think it is in your best interest. NE is the easiest category to fit a druid into. I have the hardest time with true neutral personally. To easy for my npc's to jump from NG to LN to NE. Can't really come up with NN that doesn't sound like LN.

Bagera
2007-08-24, 11:53 PM
That kinda, by definition, leaves out the "I Must Destroy Everything!! MWAWAHAHAAH!!!" types, don'tcha think? :smallwink:

I disagree, I think the I'll destroy everything druids may be motivated by a slash and burn mentality, clearing away the brush to give seed for new life and civilizations to grow, sorta like Ra's al Ghul from Batman.

nagora
2007-08-25, 05:41 AM
Type I: "The death of innocents is simply the price of protecting nature, I feel no compassion for those who must die"--Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.


The "and" and the "if" in that clause are significant: not having compassion is not in itself inherently evil. Killing without qualms for a reason other than personal convenience is not inherently and always evil, otherwise defensive (either self- or for others) killing is no longer allowed as a non-evil act.

A druid who knows that a population (of people, animals, plants, or whatever) is going to crash and burn in a generation if it's not culled now and sets about that cull because in the long term its the only way to maintain a healthy population level, does not have to be full of remorse to not be evil. S/he is simply taking a much longer-term view than the normal person. If judged on the instant, then I can see the Evil interpretation, but druids can't work as a class or a belief system by constantly looking at the moment and dreading taking any action that harms individuals here and now.

That's me off this thread now. There's no point in debating this any further as it clearly comes down to what one thinks a druid is. The 3e alignment rules for druids make little sense to me (if a druid can be Lawful or Good, why not LG?). The natural world is TN - Druids should strive to be too in the same way that paladins are expected to be LG, anything else is a clear falling away from the ideal and, just as with a paladin, should result in the loss of their powers.

NE is particularly anathema to druidic thinking in that it is destructive for the sake of being destructive and as such threatens everything. NG (from the druid POV) is simply misguided and can lead to suffering through overpopulation and overly-prolonged life, but that at least does not threaten to destroy, only distort. As such NG is better than NE, but TN is better than both.

That's my opinion, take it or leave it.:smallcool:

Serenity
2007-08-25, 10:35 AM
Well, since you're clearly operating off a vastly different definition of alignments than anyone else here, or, indeed the definitions in RAW...

D&D does not care about your motivation, it cares about your actions. Ra's al Ghul wants to flood the world with the Lazarus Pits, killing millions, but recreating Eden? In his longer term view, a good thing. However, the short term suffering, and his utter lack of remorse over it, makes it an evil act. Same with the druid actively culling a population to maintain long term health. He might see it as a necessary evil, but that doesn't make it good. That's just basic D&D. If you regularly commit necessary evil, you are evil.

Some NE people are destructive for destructive's sake. Like any other alignment, there's many variations on it.

Stephen_E
2007-08-25, 11:25 AM
D&D does not care about your motivation, it cares about your actions.

I make one change to your statement.

D&D does not care about your motivation, it cares about your intent and actions.

Motivation = why are you trying to do something.
Intent = What you're trying to do.
Action = What you actually do.

Example: You beleive overpopulation is going to cause a massive disaster. You decide to release a plague that should sterilise half the worlds population, to stop population growth. The plague actually kills 1/2 the worlds population and sterilises half of what's left.

Motivation = Stopping a overpopulation disaster.
Intent = Sterilising 1/2 the worlds population.
Action = Killing 1/2 the worlds population, and sterilising 1/2 of those left.

Note: Intent doesn't = stopping overpopulation.
For the purpose of alignment discussion you need to differentiate the direct outcome you are trying to acheive as "intent", and the long range hoped for effect as "motivation".

Stephen

Rex Blunder
2007-08-25, 12:42 PM
In the real world, the idea that nature was a beautiful thing that needed to be protected didn't come up until, I think, the romanticism movement during the Industrial Revolution -- ie, when we realized that we had the power to destroy nature. Before that, I think that nature was scary and dangerous. Most people thought that civilization and farming was good, untamed nature was bad.

From an earlier period, the Neutral Evil idea of a druid is, I think, a Grimm's Fairy Tale-style witch. They live in huts out in the forest (kinda weird). They can turn into an animal and sneak around (a druid ability). They probably eat children. They don't worship civilized god or gods, they cast blights on cattle and cause women to miscarry. They use the evil and destructive -- and powerful -- aspects of nature for their own ends.

Remember, Christianity used a lot of Pan's trappings to outfit the Devil. Nature is scary. Especially when we get to 4th edition "thousand points of light" milieu.

I would guess that an evil druid/witch would live in their own area in the forest, which they would guard jealously. Anyone who went into it would probably be destroyed. I doubt they are doing it to help the forest - they are using the power of the forest to fuel their own magic powers. I would guess that they would want to be on the druid council -- and if they were left off, they would take their revenge -- just like the evil witch who wasn't invited to Sleeping Beauty's birthday party, and showed up anyway to deliver a curse on her. So evil druids would be invited to the druid council and get a vote. That's not to say that anyone would sit next to them at the picnic.

grinner666
2007-08-25, 01:10 PM
Maybe it would be better to quit visualizing Druids as fluffy-bunny-treehugging defenders of Nature with a capital N, and looking to the original Celtic druids for inspiration. Let's face it: in an ancient or medieval society, Nature with a capital N doesn't need defending. People need defending from it.

The Druids filled several different roles in Celtic society. They and the Bards were the only truly educated men of their tribes, the repositories for the tribes' history, astronomy, botany ... all of what passed for "higher learning". As such they were also healers and teachers. None of these roles, at any rate, would be affected if a druid had an Evil alignment.

They also acted as judges, advisers to chieftains and, most importantly (for the sake of this argument) as inter-tribal diplomats and negotiators. Even though it's obviously not the reason Gygax used for requiring them to be Neutral (he was, after all, the original creator of the fluffy-bunny-ecologist Druid), it's a great rationalization for Druids to need to maintain some neutrality in their outlook. But does it preclude Evil? Hell, no!! In fact, a diplomat who's willing to put a dagger in the back of a rival when it becomes ... expedient ... could be quite the useful tool for a chieftain or king.

Finally, let's put the whole nature-worship thing behind us. The Druids did not worship nature!! They revered the Oak and Mistletoe; they were sacred to them. But not beatific. What they worshiped was a whole whack-load of gods and spirits, most of which had nothing to do with nature.

Which brings us to their final role in society: not to defend Nature, but to defend their people ... from the wolves of the forest, foreign armies, the Fair Folk, evil spirits, druids of enemy tribes, you name it. It doesn't seem unreasonable that the magi of a primitive, tribal people would use spells of fire, lightning, earth and tree to defend them, so their spell selection, at least, seems appropriate.

But the tree-hugger thing really annoys me, and has ever since I first started learning about the Celts.

So there you go; if you want NE druids in your campaign, I see no reason why they should have to fill any particular "role" beyond that created by their personalities. Just use and adapt a model based on slightly more historical roles. :smallsmile:

tainsouvra
2007-08-27, 12:29 PM
nagora, you're using an interpretation of alignment that conflicts with WotC's published rules. You're free to use what you consider logical extensions of the rules in your games, but you're not using the rules as written, and that's the reason why the Druid alignment rules don't make sense to you. You're not using the alignment descriptions to which those rules were written to conform.

In D&D, necessary evils without remorse are Evil. There is no grey area to it, it's spelled out in black and white. You might think it makes no sense, but those are the rules, and changing them has an impact on everything else that involves alignment--Druids included.

Machete
2007-08-27, 01:37 PM
there are lots of different types of druids that could be Neutral evil; the prime ones in my opinion:
-Has a subset of nature that he focuses on preserving, healing and nurturing.
-uses evil methods to do that; ex: humanoid bodies make good fertilizer.
-focuses on the death, decay and destruction portions of the circle of life.
-venerates the destructive fury of nature: Fires, storms, etc

Nope, evil.

Don't forget "actively destroys civilization to drive back the plague of overpopulating sentients who are also sapient and destroying nature"

Benejeseret
2007-08-27, 02:28 PM
That's TN.

I always think Social Darwinism is a very lawful notion - the group gets stronger by weeding out the weak individuals. So LN.



Darwinism should not be lawful in any way. At the time it was proposed, and still today, the facts of evolution cause turbulence in society.

Moreover, everyone focuses on the wrong aspect of the theory.
1. Variation
2. Selection

Selection is important and obviously key, but variation must be there first. Variation comes from mutation, random segregation of chromosomes and crossover events.

Any process driven by randomness, mutation. and change cannot be defined as a lawful process.

Social Darwinism is a mockery and grand ethnocentric justification for dominance. If the strong are strong, and thus stay strong...then nothing has happened, nothing has changed, and so there is no reason to bring Darwinian evolution into it at all. Evolution is about change, morphing of thing once thought immutable.

Social Darwinism in its truest sense should explain the forces of chaos and change upon societies. Founder effects (a sub-set of strong cultural norms brought into a previously naive society) or memetic drift (influence of one culture by another) would be the basis for major change. Small cumulative changes within a culture would be more akin to classic darwinism.

Finally, it is the environment that really forms evolutionary trends. The weak may be weak in comparison in a given set of parameters...but it is when those parameters change that evolution begins to forge upsets in the old balance.

But it is all about change.

Change is all about randomness.

Talya
2007-08-27, 04:39 PM
Evil is the harming of life. As such a NE Druid is a nonsense.

Evil includes a disregard for the value of life, particularly sentient life, it is true.

Death is part of the natural life cycle. A Neutral Evil druid has been jaded to (or perhaps never had any concern for) the death of "innocents." In fact, there are no innocents, and none who are guilty. There is simply the natural order, those who are less fit die off, while the fittest survive to prosper, but in the end, all die anyway. Death is natural, there is nothing "wrong" (to an NE druid, anyway) with culling a community of humans --men women and children alike-- who threaten the balance. They value the natural system and assign no value to the individual. They value life as an abstract thing, wrather than individual lives. Most tyrants value the "lives" of their people in the abstract; without them there is nobody to rule over. That doesn't mean they value the life of any given individual.

Duke Malagigi
2007-10-22, 12:56 AM
Remember, Evil isn't "selfish". It's Evil. "Look out for number one" is a Neutral attitude. Evil looks out for number one while crushing number two.

I agree with you in this regard. Sadly some people (like Wizards forums regular Furryhowler) believe that Evil means selfishness. They also tend to believe that Good (especially Exalted status) entails utter disregard for your own well being to the point of self-hatred and willing self destruction. To this group, Good also means the belief that there is no such thing as the Self and that all people are interchanageable parts for lack of a different term.


Egocentricism is the very essence of Evil and it hides in no end of ways (often in "I'm MAKING it better for everyone" - which is the pride/arrogance that often makes Paladins fall).

Egolessness is the very essence of Good.

The difference is in how we see ourselves. Evil sees itself as an end in itself, whilst Good sees itself as a means to an end. Evil then seeks to be master whilst Good seeks to be servant. This doesnt mean Good promotes abuse though as Good is also about hope and there is no hope found in abuse. It does mean though that Good means to serve something higher than the mortal.

Evil serves the mortal, the Ego. It seeks aggrandizement in the face of mortal vulnerability (and all creatures are "mortal" in that all of them can be killed; even arch devils and greater gods) as an attempt to "cure" this vulnerability. This is why Evil is so obsessed with power. Good however doesnt seek aggrandizement as a response to mortal vulnerability. It embraces its lesser status and understands this means it is here to serve not rule. How could this possibly be a message of hope and not abuse? When what it serves is the fundamental truth of who you are :) so in a sense its spiritual collectivism/Oneism; that we are all one in truth. Evil does not see this oneness; instead it sees seperation and vulnerability, is terrified by it and seeks to undo/offset it through power.

Most people are evil. This isnt an irreversable/beyond-the-pale state though :D

alaalba_123
2010-10-22, 05:39 AM
Really, the truth is that any alignment other than TN is dubious at best, but NE is the furthest from the reality of nature. And this is not because it is about death or harm, it is because it is about the preference of death and harm as a means to the end. When the end is maintaining the natural world, a preference for death and harm is insanity. The evil druid in OotS certainly seemed mad :smallsmile:

If you allow such people to gain druid powers I think you need to look at where those powers are coming from because it's unlikely to be where the power of other druids come from.


so are you seriously telling me you think that when given access to the secrets of nature it's impossible to go mad?

Jarian
2010-10-22, 05:44 AM
I'll just leave this here then.

http://i950.photobucket.com/albums/ad345/EddieLomax/necroqcj.jpg

KillianHawkeye
2010-10-22, 07:15 AM
Srsly, how do people even dig up these old threads?? :smallconfused:

Weasel of Doom
2010-10-22, 08:19 AM
Dammit, I wrote up a really long detailed response to the op and THEN scrolled down to read the last couple of posts.

Jayabalard
2010-10-22, 08:24 AM
so are you seriously telling me you think that when given access to the secrets of nature it's impossible to go mad?No, I think he's saying that when given access to the secrets of nature, when you go mad, the source of that power should be cutting you off.

averagejoe
2010-10-22, 11:37 AM
The Mod They Call Me: Thread necromancy.