druid that hates all life?

[newguydude1]

disclaimer: this thread is about my table and my table only. my table follows raw as closely as possible. so if you have no intention of talking about my table, raw, or help me, please dont derail the thread with your offtopic post.
rule1: dont derail the thread. dont post offtopic stuff. this is about my table and raw only. for example, if at your table you ignore the rules and do whatever you want based on what you believe to be "intent", please dont derail this thread by posting such nonsense as it has absolutely nothing to do with my table or raw.
rule2: backup all statements pertaining to rules with rule citations. i didnt want to do this rule because it might discourage people who know their stuff from posting because citing rules is hard work, but too many people in the past have said im wrong when a simple rule lookup wouldve ended the matter which bloats the thread and makes it hard to read. in addition people have suddenly without warning start talking about their table and not mine or raw, tries to pass off their house rule as raw, and refuses/ignores any requests for them to prove their claim. so im hoping that if everyone has to post rule citations to backup their statements it will decrease the chance of people derailing the thread with offtopic stuff that doesnt help me at all and further cement that this thread is about my table or raw, not theirs or their house rules.



is it possible?

i dont like druids because i hate nature. nature is about producing **** and things that grow in **** or things that use that ****. its also about death. cats give birth to a litter because most of the kittens are gonna die. animals eat babies of other animals. i saw on nat geo that a lion killed a lioness's husband. then it stalked the lioness for days and then killed and ate her babies. then the lion and lioness had new babies.{Scrubbed} i hate nature. no way im gonna play something that protects this.

but i read this in phb2


Star Watcher: You spend so much time in the wild that you recognize the stars and constellations of the night sky as easily as you note the smell of flame on the wind or the spoor of a mountain cat about to give birth. You know the various epicycles and positions of the celestial bodies, but more important, you hold that your knowledge of the positions of stars, comets, moons, and planets is useful in understanding, interpreting, and organizing knowledge about what has come before, what’s going on now, and what will one day come to pass. You like to say to your companions concerning your predilection for the stars:
“. . . by looking up I see downward.”
In addition, you make a point to see the stars at least once a week, and more often if possible. If you are prevented from seeing the open sky, you at least have your personally constructed star chart, a scroll of paper on which you’ve inked the various stars, planets, and other celestial bodies important to you. You can while away long hours poring over your charts and drawing complicated designs meant to unleash your intuitive side, so that visions of the future might become clear.
“I saw a comet once that was part of no star chart I had studied. I named it after my secret desire.”
“The stars are wise beyond all else. They looked on as this world formed, and they’ll look on after this
world has run through its history to the end.”

so it got me thinking.
i like outer space. i like suns. i like gas giants. i like planets.
i like sea of fire.
i also like water. pure clear distilled water with nothing in it. no plankton or any other thing.
i also like elementals. they are some of my favorite monsters. i hate animals (see sea otter and lion above)
so is it possible to be a druid who wants to submerge all of nature in a sea of eternal flames?
is it possible to be a druid who wants to kill everything in the world so that the only thing left is pure clear distilled water?
is it possible to be a druid who wants to turn the entire planet into a lifeless celestial object like neptune or venus or pluto or a comet? planet sized comet.

stuff like that.

or do i have to love animals and the horrible things they do if i want to be a druid?

[Evoker]

There's the blighter, from complete divine and I think some other sources. They are evil "ex-druids" who kill off plants, spread disease, and all that fun stuff. You have to have been a druid for at least five levels though, barring early entry shenanigans.

[smasher0404]

It is going to come down to how your DM interprets the Revere Nature line on the Druid's vow. There isn't a RAW ruling on what necessarily crosses that line to my knowledge.

However, the follow up question is, if you don't want to deal with animals or plants, why play a druid? The class by default comes with an Animal Companion, Wild Empathy (aka talking with animals), and a lot of abilities that deal directly with plants and animals. You can trade a lot of those away with ACFs and Variant levels, but you may be better suited playing Clerics of a Cause instead and picking up domains related to what you want to focus on.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by newguydude1
so is it possible to be a druid who wants to submerge all of nature in a sea of eternal flames?

The blighter can blast fire once per round, at will, and the text adds that blighters love starting wildfires. This is in addition to the blighter's ability to kill vegetation with a thought. They can also spread disease and cast a number of fire spells, although that's almost redundant given the 5d6 fire damage they can deal out every round.

So yes, the blighter certainly gets you a head start on all the flamey submerging. But as Evoker noted, the only entry to the PrC is six levels of druid.


Originally Posted by smasher0404
However, the follow up question is, if you don't want to deal with animals or plants, why play a druid?

This. If you hate the fundamental concept of a druid, why not just play something else?

[Doctor Despair]

Iirc there's druid features that allow you to work with aberations and undead that might fit your flavor. Search up eggynack's druid handbook; it discusses them in detail

[newguydude1]

There's the blighter, from complete divine and I think some other sources. They are evil "ex-druids" who kill off plants, spread disease, and all that fun stuff. You have to have been a druid for at least five levels though, barring early entry shenanigans.

its a very interesting class. undead wildshape seems fun. but i want to play a real druid atm.


It is going to come down to how your DM interprets the Revere Nature line on the Druid's vow. There isn't a RAW ruling on what necessarily crosses that line to my knowledge.

However, the follow up question is, if you don't want to deal with animals or plants, why play a druid? The class by default comes with an Animal Companion, Wild Empathy (aka talking with animals), and a lot of abilities that deal directly with plants and animals. You can trade a lot of those away with ACFs and Variant levels, but you may be better suited playing Clerics of a Cause instead and picking up domains related to what you want to focus on.

i like elementals. i will be grabbing the elemental companion acf. i also want healing which arcane casters lack. summon natures ally lets me summon elementals. elemental shape is a long duration polymorph. elemental swarm. stuff like that.

its also something new. i played clerics and wizards before.

[liquidformat]

hum, ignoring the druid code of conduct since that will have to be worked out with your DM to see if you can swing what you want. You can potentially be NE with an obsession with stargazing (harry potter centaur style) and a warped idea of nature to see anything outside of elementals as a bastardization of nature I suppose.

To go with that use Elemental Companion (CM, p33) maybe woodland stride with sandskimmer(sand p47), Resist Nature's Lure with Planar Druid (planar handbook p31), There is a dragon mag Aspect of Nature that could replace wild shape, besides that most of your choices to replace your druid nature stuff would come from cityscape web enhancement but are still ish nature.

Again I think you are probably best just being a Wuja, cleric, or something else that isn't focused around nature if you want to go that far from druid.

[sorcererlover]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} .

I did not know that...

[smasher0404]

its a very interesting class. undead wildshape seems fun. but i want to play a real druid atm.



i like elementals. i will be grabbing the elemental companion acf. i also want healing which arcane casters lack. summon natures ally lets me summon elementals. elemental shape is a long duration polymorph. elemental swarm. stuff like that.

its also something new. i played clerics and wizards before.

Just a comment, you won't be getting Elemental Wild Shape by default Druid until 16th. That's pretty much late game, after you have access to 8th level spells. Depending on what level you start at and how long the campaign will go for, you might never see that part of wild shape.

The Summon Monster list also gets the ability to summon Elementals as well as non-nature based outsiders which provides more versatility if we want to completely avoid summoning animals.

If you go cleric, you'd also still be able to pick up the Elemental Swarm spell as a 9th level spell with the Elemental domains (Fire, Water, Earth, and Air). It'd be a more limited variant but it is still available.

Sublime Chord (Complete Arcane) might also work if you want to incorporate the stargazing section. It gets healing through the bard spell list, summon monster spells, and requires Profession(Astrologer) ranks which is as good an excuse as any to put ranks into it.

EDIT: Forgot to mention High Elemental Binder (Player's Guide to Eberron) also grants elemental companions and can be entered by most full casting classes.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by newguydude1
my table follows raw as closely as possible.

Here’s the text from the PHB: “A druid reveres nature above all.”

A druid who lacks this reverence explicitly requires atonement, and both functionally and philosophically isn’t a druid at all. Have you discussed this with your DM? Because this concept doesn’t work under RAW and will need some sort of DM fiat to operate in the game.


Originally Posted by sorcererlover
I did not know that...

There's a lot of overblown claims made on sites which aren't remotely scientific. The actual science doesn't support the specific wording of the claim, and these seem to be rare events, tied to specific demographic trends in one location.

.

[newguydude1]

The Summon Monster list also gets the ability to summon Elementals as well as non-nature based outsiders which provides more versatility if we want to completely avoid summoning animals.

druids gets the bigger ones quicker. which is important.

basically, i want my no deity druid to draw her spells from the cosmos like stars and planets (preferred choice) instead of trees and plants. so if all the trees and plants and animals die because of an extinction event like a meteor colliding with the material plane, i want my druid to still cast spells cause she draws her power from the cosmos.

or from the elemental planes of fire or water or earth or air. not the elemental princes or whatever. i dont like it when my characters worship.

so i was wondering if this is possible in d&d lore/fluff.


Here’s the text from the PHB: “A druid reveres nature above all.”

A druid who lacks this reverence explicitly requires atonement, and both functionally and philosophically isn’t a druid at all. Have you discussed this with your DM? Because this concept doesn’t work under RAW and will need some sort of DM fiat to operate in the game.

yes if you are right i wont be playing druid.

[liquidformat]

druids gets the bigger ones quicker. which is important.

basically, i want my no deity druid to draw her spells from the cosmos like stars and planets (preferred choice) instead of trees and plants. so if all the trees and plants and animals die because of an extinction event like a meteor colliding with the material plane, i want my druid to still cast spells cause she draws her power from the cosmos.

or from the elemental planes of fire or water or earth or air. not the elemental princes or whatever. i dont like it when my characters worship.

so i was wondering if this is possible in d&d lore/fluff.



yes if you are right i wont be playing druid.

Um your best bet is probably going Shaman from Oriental handbook they are more like a cleric that is good at hand to hand combat, or a spirit shaman from CD. They would both work much better for your concept than a druid

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by newguydude1
so i was wondering if this is possible in d&d lore/fluff.

The game lore of druids overwhelmingly emphasizes their reverence and devotion to the natural world, to the point that a druid who falls out of harmony with nature ceases to function as a druid.

Also note that losing all druid abilities includes losing the animal companion, or in your case the elemental companion.

Unless your DM has given approval for a druid concept that violates both RAW and game lore, this character quite literally can’t function.

[smasher0404]

druids gets the bigger ones quicker. which is important.

basically, i want my no deity druid to draw her spells from the cosmos like stars and planets (preferred choice) instead of trees and plants. so if all the trees and plants and animals die because of an extinction event like a meteor colliding with the material plane, i want my druid to still cast spells cause she draws her power from the cosmos.

or from the elemental planes of fire or water or earth or air. not the elemental princes or whatever. i dont like it when my characters worship.

so i was wondering if this is possible in d&d lore/fluff.



yes if you are right i wont be playing druid.

Clerics explicitly don't have to worship a Deity/Power but can worship a Cause instead.

"If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, he still selects two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities"

-From the SRD. There are better rule citations for this elsewhere, but I'm working from my phone right now. But, this has a more RAW basis than a Druid completely abandoning animals and plants and still being considered "revering nature". While revering nature is ambiguous by RAW, Blighter shows an authorial intent that complete hatred of Plants is enough to get a Druid to fall.

Plus, more minor note: you can still access elemental forms for summoning through Conjure Ice Beast (Frostburn) albeit with an ice flavoring to them (and no fire Elementals).

[newguydude1]

The game lore of druids overwhelmingly emphasizes their reverence and devotion to the natural world, to the point that a druid who falls out of harmony with nature ceases to function as a druid.

does it have to be the entire natural world or just a part of the natural world? cause cosmos is nature.

urban druid and such makes me think there might be some sort of special cases. if there isnt then thats that. no druid for me.

[smasher0404]

does it have to be the entire natural world or just a part of the natural world? cause cosmos is nature.

urban druid and such makes me think there might be some sort of special cases. if there isnt then thats that. no druid for me.

If you are talking about Urban Druid from Dragon Compendium/Dragon Magazine, I'd point out that those are explicitly not Druids and are explicitly not drawing their powers from "nature". Specifically, look under their characteristics section on the about page.

[newguydude1]

If you are talking about Urban Druid from Dragon Compendium/Dragon Magazine, I'd point out that those are explicitly not Druids and are explicitly not drawing their powers from "nature". Specifically, look under their characteristics section on the about page.

i got it mixed up with urban ranger.

ok thanks. no druid for me.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by newguydude1
does it have to be the entire natural world or just a part of the natural world?

Here's a relevant line: "The typical druid pursues a mystic spirituality of transcendent union with nature...."

All of nature seems to be the default assumption in this and other references.

Your best bet is to try a wu jen or some of the other non-druid options mentioned.

[newguydude1]

Your best bet is to try a wu jen or some of the other non-druid options mentioned.

none of them can use master of many forms or have elemental wildshape. druids have a lot of fun stuff.

[jdizzlean]

as you stated, death is as much a part of nature as life is. so you can play a druid obsessed w/ the non-normal parts of nature, which is how you get into blighter in the first place, it's pretty much why that class exists. for a few levels it sucks because you basically start over on your spell progression, but in the end i think you get higher level spells faster in order to catch back up. i haven't looked at that class in awhile, but you get earthquake for example 1 or 2 spell levels faster than a normal druid i believe.


don't give up based off the wording in the druid's text. as with all things, and even w/ raw heavy games, if you can build it into your story, and support it through gameplay and fluff, you can still have it work. so play druid 6/blighter if you want, but really read both classes before you go that route

[Asmotherion]

I'm not sure on any specific Prestige (some were mentioned above). But I could see a Druid arguement reasoning "this planet's default state was void of all life, as other planets are void of all life, and thus life itself is unatural and a blight to the planet, as it interferes with it's natural course".

[newguydude1]

as you stated, death is as much a part of nature as life is. so you can play a druid obsessed w/ the non-normal parts of nature, which is how you get into blighter in the first place, it's pretty much why that class exists. for a few levels it sucks because you basically start over on your spell progression, but in the end i think you get higher level spells faster in order to catch back up. i haven't looked at that class in awhile, but you get earthquake for example 1 or 2 spell levels faster than a normal druid i believe.


don't give up based off the wording in the druid's text. as with all things, and even w/ raw heavy games, if you can build it into your story, and support it through gameplay and fluff, you can still have it work. so play druid 6/blighter if you want, but really read both classes before you go that route

i want to be either a pure druid til 20 for elemental wildshape elder elementals or master of many forms without dealing with the whole prc first step or lose all benefit debate. not blighter. maybe some other time because blighter does seem a little fun but right now im focused on elemental wildshape and master of many forms.


I'm not sure on any specific Prestige (some were mentioned above). But I could see a Druid arguement reasoning "this planet's default state was void of all life, as other planets are void of all life, and thus life itself is unatural and a blight to the planet, as it interferes with it's natural course".

thats exactly what i want but the question is does that really fly in d&d? like in fr, greyhawk, or eberron is there such druids that seek to empty the world of all life to make it look like before it was infested and ruined with living creatures.

or someone who wants to make the material plane a 2nd plane of fire.

[jdizzlean]

just make sure you have the "familiarity" debate with your DM, otherwise you may find MoMF to be quite lackluster

[magicalmagicman]

Answer is.....

YES

You should've looked in Sandstorm


Some druids seek to help their people survive and prosper through careful use of the waste’s resources, while others specialize in turning the already inhospitable climate against intruders

If a druid can kill everything that enters a lifeless desert for the crime of being an "intruder" then he can kill everything that seeks to colonize a planet. Plants included.



A walker in the waste embodies the harsh, unforgiving nature of the desert. The waste’s dryness can perfectly preserve a royal city, a wondrous creature, or a towering forest—caught at the very moment of death, before age and decay can spoil it. Maybe you want to protect your chosen environment and warn away those who would intrude. For you, most living things are nothing more than potential exhibits, and your soul is as parched as the sands that surround you

...

BECOMING A WALKER IN THE WASTE
Clerics who serve deities of thirst are the most common characters to take levels in this class. You already worship a harsh deity, and the magic of the dry and deadly waste comes readily to you. If you’re a desert druid of a harsh bent, you might take up this path as well.

...

Local Drought (Su): Beginning at 3rd level, you can produce desert conditions in a 20-foot-radius emanation with you at the center. The temperature band in that area rises by one step or to hot, whichever produces the hotter result. (See Heat Dangers and the effects of natural dehydration in Chapter 1.) You can suppress this effect for 1 round as a free action, but it renews automatically on your next turn unless you consciously suppress it again.

...

Greater Drought (Su): Beginning at 9th level, you can produce extreme desert conditions in a 100-footradius emanation with you at the center. The temperature band in that area rises by two steps or to severe heat, whichever produces the hotter result. (See Heat Dangers and the effects of natural dehydration in Chapter 1.) You can suppress this effect for 1 round as a free action, but it renews automatically on your next turn unless you con sciously suppress it again. This effect supersedes that of the local drought ability.

...

PLAYING A WALKER IN THE WASTE
However you got here, you’re a loner. You bring the desert with you, and you maintain it where it already exists. Not many understand your pure, dry desire to preserve. They think it is evil or perverse. But you know the truth: Someone needs to keep a record of what was. There is no higher calling. At times you must join forces, at least temporarily, with others. A loose fellowship of walkers, called the Dusty Conclave, occasionally gathers to discuss mutual threats and plan action for the coming years. You sometimes work with desert-dwelling tribes and groups of druids, rangers, or barbarians to repel those who would threaten your waste and destroy the creation you have labored so hard to craft. You might use fear to coerce such service, but the desert also has its riches, and gold always speaks the right language.

...

Only the hated touch of water is a true threat—you take extensive precautions to keep it from entering your domain.

...

A walker is not recruited so much as awakened. You are filled with a profound, all-consuming love for the arid beauty of the waste. You would do anything to be closer to that essence, to spread its cleanliness across the world

That last line is the most important as it is exactly what you want to do, except spread the arid beauty of lifeless celestial planets instead of deserts.

So we have here by RAW a druid who is fully permitted to turn the entire world into a wasteland, permanently dry up all the water in the world, and kill all life on the material plane to preserve it in the moment of death to create an exhibit.

So the answer is yes. You can be a Druid that only reveres a part of nature and spread that even if it means ending all life on the material plane.

[Asmotherion]

i want to be either a pure druid til 20 for elemental wildshape elder elementals or master of many forms without dealing with the whole prc first step or lose all benefit debate. not blighter. maybe some other time because blighter does seem a little fun but right now im focused on elemental wildshape and master of many forms.



thats exactly what i want but the question is does that really fly in d&d? like in fr, greyhawk, or eberron is there such druids that seek to empty the world of all life to make it look like before it was infested and ruined with living creatures.

or someone who wants to make the material plane a 2nd plane of fire.

Pretty sure there is a Dark Sun Faction of Druids that have the "let's turn the Prime Material into an elemental Plane of choice" viewpoint. That's the prime example I can think of, but if I revisit lore, I might find the same for other settings.

[noce]

Unapproachable East has Talontar Blightlord, for druids of the Evil God Talona, the Lady of Poison, Mistress of Disease, and Mother of All Plagues.

Also, the PrC is way better than Blighter.

[Aotrs Commander]

I think one question that needs to be asked aside from the mechanical, (as this is a player character, yes?) is how you intend to have said character want to associate with the party? It may be you've already thought about this aspect, and if so, that's fine, 'nuff said; but if not, you probably ought to consider it. As it doesn't, on the face of it, strike me that someone who is omnicidal to that level would be overly keen on sticking around with a party as opposed, to, like, murdering them in their sleep at the first chance. (Which is, obviously, a bit of a no-no in a co-operative game...)

(If this is for an NPC villain, of course, then you can do what the frack you like, you're the DM.)

[newguydude1]

Answer is.....

YES

You should've looked in Sandstorm



If a druid can kill everything that enters a lifeless desert for the crime of being an "intruder" then he can kill everything that seeks to colonize a planet. Plants included.



That last line is the most important as it is exactly what you want to do, except spread the arid beauty of lifeless celestial planets instead of deserts.

So we have here by RAW a druid who is fully permitted to turn the entire world into a wasteland, permanently dry up all the water in the world, and kill all life on the material plane to preserve it in the moment of death to create an exhibit.

So the answer is yes. You can be a Druid that only reveres a part of nature and spread that even if it means ending all life on the material plane.

thank you!!! omg!!! that prc has constructs and undead!!! undead undead undead!!!! lol. druid that makes undead. anything is possible. but more important is golemcrafting done by druid.

im a definitely show this to my dm and start a druid character!


Pretty sure there is a Dark Sun Faction of Druids that have the "let's turn the Prime Material into an elemental Plane of choice" viewpoint. That's the prime example I can think of, but if I revisit lore, I might find the same for other settings.


Unapproachable East has Talontar Blightlord, for druids of the Evil God Talona, the Lady of Poison, Mistress of Disease, and Mother of All Plagues.

Also, the PrC is way better than Blighter.

thanks!!!


I think one question that needs to be asked aside from the mechanical, (as this is a player character, yes?) is how you intend to have said character want to associate with the party? It may be you've already thought about this aspect, and if so, that's fine, 'nuff said; but if not, you probably ought to consider it. As it doesn't, on the face of it, strike me that someone who is omnicidal to that level would be overly keen on sticking around with a party as opposed, to, like, murdering them in their sleep at the first chance. (Which is, obviously, a bit of a no-no in a co-operative game...)

(If this is for an NPC villain, of course, then you can do what the frack you like, you're the DM.)

character is not actually gonna be omnicidal. its more, if an omnicidal druid is legal, then the nonomnicidal druids i want to play are also legal. this druid is more gonna be indifferent to the death and destruction of animals and forests while salivating over stars and planets and the elemental planes. she might be a pyromaniac though cause it might give her a glimpse of the surface of stars. or something like that.

[Asmotherion]

thank you!!! omg!!! that prc has constructs and undead!!! undead undead undead!!!! lol. druid that makes undead. anything is possible. but more important is golemcrafting done by druid.

im a definitely show this to my dm and start a druid character!





thanks!!!



character is not actually gonna be omnicidal. its more, if an omnicidal druid is legal, then the nonomnicidal druids i want to play are also legal. this druid is more gonna be indifferent to the death and destruction of animals and forests while salivating over stars and planets and the elemental planes. she might be a pyromaniac though cause it might give her a glimpse of the surface of stars. or something like that.

Also, now that I think about it the cults of elemental evil ara also kinda Druid-ish in nature, and their philosophy revolves around this.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Asmotherion
But I could see a Druid arguement reasoning "this planet's default state was void of all life, as other planets are void of all life, and thus life itself is unatural and a blight to the planet, as it interferes with it's natural course".


Originally Posted by newguydude1
…the question is does that really fly in d&d?

It really doesn’t.

The lore and description of the druid class emphasizes the druids’ reverence of life and living things. The class is designed to function within and draw its power from a living world, and destroying a living world is utterly antithetical to the concept and practice of being a druid.

People who want to destroy living worlds are the ones that druids fight to their last breath to stop.


Originally Posted by Asmotherion
But I could see a Druid arguement reasoning "this planet's default state was void of all life, as other planets are void of all life....

Two problems here. First, there's no reason a druid would believe his home planet ever existed without life. Druids aren't geologists. And there's no guarantee that life didn't appear right when the gods first created the world, which invalidates the argument.

And second, there's no reason for a druid to believe other planets are "void of all life," because in many settings that's simply not true. In Forgotten Realms the other worlds of the system explicitly have life, and the same goes for the Golarion system in Pathfinder. So both legs of this argument don't hold true.


Originally Posted by magicalmagicman
If a druid can kill everything that enters a lifeless desert for the crime of being an "intruder" then he can kill everything that seeks to colonize a planet.

This is a false equivalence. “Inhospitable climate” does not mean “lifeless desert.”

All deserts have a wide diversity of life, adapted to the harsh conditions; it’s just not always easy to see.

Protecting a chosen habitat does not equate to an open mandate to destroy all life.


Originally Posted by Walker in the Waste
Maybe you want to protect your chosen environment….

There is nothing in the text of this PrC which supports the concept of destroying all life. A druid who takes the PrC is fanatically devoted to protecting his chosen desert habitat, but there’s nothing that gives him blanket permission to destroy all life on the planet.


Originally Posted by magicalmagicman
You can be a Druid that only reveres a part of nature and spread that even if it means ending all life on the material plane.

No, you can’t. Revering any part of nature is fundamentally incompatible with ending all life.


Originally Posted by newguydude1
im a definitely show this to my dm and start a druid character!

Walker in the Waste doesn’t do everything you've been told it does. It does not give blank-check permission to destroy all life everywhere.

And if the campaign takes place anywhere outside of a desert environment, your character may be at a disadvantage.


Originally Posted by newguydude1
druid that makes undead.

You may have overlooked it, but the blighter PrC can also create undead, as well as taking undead wild shape.

But if you’re really excited about a character that creates undead, play a dread necromancer. Give him a telescope and you’re set.

.

[magicalmagicman]

There is nothing in the text of this PrC which supports the concept of destroying all life. A druid who takes the PrC is fanatically devoted to protecting his chosen desert habitat, but there’s nothing that gives him blanket permission to destroy all life on the planet.


For you, most living things are nothing more than potential exhibits

and


Only the hated touch of water is a true threat—you take extensive precautions to keep it from entering your domain.

Show me one living thing on this planet that can survive without water.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Walker in the Waste
For you, most living things are nothing more than potential exhibits....

“Most” isn’t “all.”

Attempting to force “most” to be “all” is a deliberate misreading of the text.


Originally Posted by magicalmagicman
Show me one living thing on this planet that can survive without water.

Tardigrades.

[smasher0404]

I'll also point out that their goal is specifically the creation of the Wastes environment, an environment that Sandstorm specifically provides animals that are native to that region. The goal of expanding the Wastes, and protecting and revering an ecosystem is not mutually exclusive.

While the majority of Walkers might be the sort to try and stamp that out, the majority of Walkers are also not Druids (the entry says it's primarily clerics of gods of Thirst and Sand and that particularly harsh Druids MAY enter).

Walker definitely provides some preliminary basis, I don't think it conclusively proves that a Druid can get away with hating all animals and plants.

[Leon]

Nature is more than just the things living in it so yes, you could revere nature and hate life.

[magicalmagicman]

“Most” isn’t “all.”

Attempting to force “most” to be “all” is a deliberate misreading of the text.



Tardigrades.

So druids are capable of wiping out all life except tardigrades.

Elementals are also "living" which the OP seems to want to focus on.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by smasher0404
I'll also point out that their goal is specifically the creation of the Wastes environment, an environment that Sandstorm specifically provides animals that are native to that region. The goal of expanding the Wastes, and protecting and revering an ecosystem is not mutually exclusive.

Agreed completely.


Originally Posted by leon
Nature is more than just the things living in it so yes, you could revere nature and hate life.

But not as a functioning druid. What you describe is antithetical to how druids are presented.

Here’s a pair of relevant passages from Masters of the Wild:


Elves are the archetypal druids, with good reason. From birth, children of this race learn to love the woodlands and the natural world in general.

The druid’s defense of the natural world is neither short-sighted nor provincial. She is, in some sense, a living extension of nature’s will. Therefore, when evil threatens the land, she’s likely to enlist in the fight, even if it takes place far outside her grove.

“Nature” and “natural world” are used interchangeably in these and other passages, with the clear sense that nature and the natural world are comprised of a living tapestry of species and ecosystems.

Given that nature is understood to be the sum total of living things, it’s impossible for a druid to revere nature and somehow hate what it’s composed of. It's essentially dividing by zero. It does not work for druids.

A character can try to hold that philosophy, but by game lore, that character won't be a druid.


.

[dancrilis]

Ex-Druid:
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).


Revere: To regard with deepest respect and awe; venerate; reverence; hold in great honor or high esteem. (https://www.wordnik.com/words/revere)
Nature: The material world and its phenomena. (https://www.wordnik.com/words/nature)
Phenomena: Plural form of phenomenon. (https://www.wordnik.com/words/phenomena)
Phenomenon: An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel. (https://www.wordnik.com/words/phenomenon)

So the question of a 'druid that hates all life' comes down to whether 'life' is a phenomenon of the material world, it might be - but it might have been placed on the material world (or plane) by gods who are not part of the material world and also meaning that life is not a phenomenon (as it would be accounted for and not unusual).

This as such would depend on how your GM, the setting you are playing in, and if you accept the above definations over other ones you could use.

[Psyren]

i like outer space. i like suns. i like gas giants. i like planets.
i like sea of fire.
i also like water. pure clear distilled water with nothing in it. no plankton or any other thing.
i also like elementals. they are some of my favorite monsters. i hate animals (see sea otter and lion above)
so is it possible to be a druid who wants to submerge all of nature in a sea of eternal flames?
is it possible to be a druid who wants to kill everything in the world so that the only thing left is pure clear distilled water?
is it possible to be a druid who wants to turn the entire planet into a lifeless celestial object like neptune or venus or pluto or a comet? planet sized comet.

stuff like that.

or do i have to love animals and the horrible things they do if i want to be a druid?

Well... I think there's some middle ground between "I don't want to be an animal/plant-themed druid and "I want to submerge all of nature in a sea of eternal flames." Especially if you're open to Pathfinder material.

But if transforming an entire biosphere into a barren wasteland is truly your goal, I think it could be compatible with Walker in the Waste. Playing such a character in a party of other living creatures would be challenging (to say the least) - a fact that the PrC itself warns you about - but not totally impossible.

[magicalmagicman]

Agreed completely.



But not as a functioning druid. What you describe is antithetical to how druids are presented.

Here’s a pair of relevant passages from Masters of the Wild:



“Nature” and “natural world” are used interchangeably in these and other passages, with the clear sense that nature and the natural world are comprised of a living tapestry of species and ecosystems.

Given that nature is understood to be the sum total of living things, it’s impossible for a druid to revere nature and somehow hate what it’s composed of. It's essentially dividing by zero. It does not work for druids.

A character can try to hold that philosophy, but by game lore, that character won't be a druid.


.

Except druids in other places of d&d like Sandstorm shows them revering only a specific part of nature and intentionally killing and destroying all life wherever they walk. Except "tardigrades". The walker has a 100ft aura that annihilates all water wherever he walks. He can literally terraform the entire world into a wasteland which is his goal which would end all life except "tardigrades".

If a druid in sandstorm can do it, so can all druids.

[Psyren]

Without getting into that debate, Tardigrades need to eat too. So to spare the tardigrades, you need to spare algae too etc.

I think the OP's concept is doable, but would need a very specialized party unless he's going solo. Most other PCs would fall into the category of "life" that the Walker seeks to destroy. And while a Druid/WitW might be fine transforming their entire planet into a hothouse, I don't know that you could extrapolate that kind of nihilism to every desert druid.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Dancrilis
This as such would depend on how your GM, the setting you are playing in, and if you accept the above definations over other ones you could use.

This is what it comes down to. We can argue back and forth about shadings of words and the intent of phrases, but that won’t make any real difference. This is down to a DM call.

[magicalmagicman]

This is what it comes down to. We can argue back and forth about shadings of words and the intent of phrases, but that won’t make any real difference. This is down to a DM call.

The disclaimer says the OP's DM is someone who follows RAW closely and rule #1 is don't bring author "intent" to the discussion. I have provided enough RAW to show that an omnicidal druid is possible in d&d 3.5.

You're bringing in "intent" of phrases which violates rule #1.


I don't know that you could extrapolate that kind of nihilism to every desert druid.

Just one, not all. But you only need one to know its possible.

[D+1]

I want to play an assassin, but I want to be a LG pacifist assassin.

[dancrilis]

I want to play an assassin, but I want to be a LG pacifist assassin.

You should probably start up your own topic for this, but check out the 'Slayer of Domiel' and give them the 'Vow of Nonviolence' - both can be found in the Book of Exalted Deeds.

[Psyren]

Just one, not all. But you only need one to know its possible.

I'm not arguing the possibility of an omnicidal druid - just questioning its viability outside of a solo game. Maybe some kind of evil party that devolves into a PvP massacre when the campaign is over...?

[Buddy76]

I think there's a few ways you can go.

Dragon Magazine 311 has two Druid variants that I think might appeal to you. One is Metal Master, a druid who reveres metal (it could also tie into your other "artificial" druid thread) it is, however, very very bad, losing all the cool druid abilities (except for spellcasting) in exchange for a bunch of minor abilities. The other variant is the Wild Reaper, a druid who focuses on death as a part of nature, this one is actually not bad but you'd lose elemental shape in exchange for some expanded spontaneous casting of spells like blight, poison, antilife shell and finger of death, among others. You also gain turn undead at level 12, a bit late but divine metamagic shenenigans are always fun.

Now, I think you're best bets are actually in Faiths of Eberron. The Children of Winter are a druidic sect with fluff similar to Wild Reapers regarding death. You could play a Neutral Evil or, possibly, Lawful Neutral druid that brings death and if the life giving druids aren't pulling their weight repairing your damage, well you're just doing your job.

A subsect of the Children of Winter called the Nightbringers seems to be the closest to what you're looking for. They see darkness as (quoting the book here) "the ultimate destiny of the universe" and they try to bring it about. This fits pretty well with your stargazing concept (he looked at the void between the stars and it called to him). There's a feat called Nightbringer Intiate that adds hide and move silent to your druid skill list and also a few spells regarding undead, darkness, negative energy, etc.

Finally, in the same book, there's Planar Sheperd. I don't know exactly in what setting you're playing, but both druid sects from above and the planes of Eberron could be refluffed easily. Whit Planar Sheperd you can go elemental druid (pick either the ice or fire planes) or total necromantic Nightbringer druid (pick Mabar or, basically, the Negaive Energy Plane, if you're not in Eberron). This also ties in with the astronomer angle. Your character could have a planar orrery or something like that).

Assorted musings: Depending of the way you choose, have a look at undead grafts (Libris Mortis), deathless grafts, elemental grafts or construct grafts (those three are in magic of eberron). The idea being that you're trying to get rid of your disgusting biological body. Here's a cool handbook (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?190350-Fleshwarping-A-List-of-Grafts-Symbionts-and-Related-Goodies) on the subject.

Alienist also seems like a cool concept. It's kinda like an astronomer and could represent a druid that seeks to bring "better" creatures from the farthest reaches of space. The problem is that it decreases your wisdom score and doesn't advance your druid class features (except for spellcasting). The Giant had homebrewed a feat called Fey Druid that allows you to shift your casting stat to charisma (though I can't find it online anymore and it's not RAW).

Also, maybe, a Nightbringer Druid/Dread Necromancer going into Arcane Hierophant? That sounds pretty fun.

Anyway, I hope some of this was of help!

[newguydude1]

Anyway, I hope some of this was of help!

it was. thanks!


The disclaimer says the OP's DM is someone who follows RAW closely and rule #1 is don't bring author "intent" to the discussion. I have provided enough RAW to show that an omnicidal druid is possible in d&d 3.5.

You're bringing in "intent" of phrases which violates rule #1.

im never gonna stop putting that disclaimer in all of my threads. it works!


I'm not arguing the possibility of an omnicidal druid - just questioning its viability outside of a solo game. Maybe some kind of evil party that devolves into a PvP massacre when the campaign is over...?


character is not actually gonna be omnicidal. its more, if an omnicidal druid is legal, then the nonomnicidal druids i want to play are also legal. this druid is more gonna be indifferent to the death and destruction of animals and forests while salivating over stars and planets and the elemental planes. she might be a pyromaniac though cause it might give her a glimpse of the surface of stars. or something like that.

[smasher0404]

The disclaimer says the OP's DM is someone who follows RAW closely and rule #1 is don't bring author "intent" to the discussion. I have provided enough RAW to show that an omnicidal druid is possible in d&d 3.5.

You're bringing in "intent" of phrases which violates rule #1.



Just one, not all. But you only need one to know its possible.

Preemptive Note: I'm of the personal opinion that there is probably enough wiggle room with a RAW reading of Druid to have a Druid that hates plants and animals. However, if one wanted to avoid the plant/animal parts of the class, they'd probably be better suited using a different base class to pursue their goals. I'm presenting these arguments for 2 reasons. 1) I do believe that Walker in the Wastes does not serve as proof of that wiggle room and 2) I'm exceptionally bored.

Just to weigh in further in the Walker in the Wastes as proof of "omnicidal" druids arguments. There is actually literally no requirement of Walker in the Wastes to actually SPREAD the Wastes. Even if we take the line about most life being just exhibits as rules text dictating a necessary attitude, the literal meaning of exhibits does not necessarily preclude the killing of said life (ex. a Zoo). In fact, one of only four direct references to spreading the Wastes comes in the Organization section of the prestige class, after you've already become a Walker and need to advance past 7th level.

"To demonstrate your worthiness, you must undertake a mission for the conclave. Usually this mission involves furthering the spread of the waste in some way: drying up a village’s water supply to force the inhabitants out, making a pilgrimage and an offering to a desert dragon, or establishing diplomatic ties with efreet or other dangerous waste spirits."

Note the word usually in that second sentence. It is entirely with in the scope of RAW behavior that the mission be unrelated to spreading the Waste, albeit unlikely. In fact, the first example, the drying of a village's water supply, could be seen as typical druid behavior, preventing the settlement and destruction of a natural ecosystem. Note, after performing this mission, there is no requirement that said Druid Walker work with the Dusty Conclave after that (you only need to in order for them to introduce you to "the higher mysteries").

The three other references are in reference to the Dusty Conclave all having the same goal, Walkers in the Game, and in the example NPC. Most of the rest of the fluff talks about spreading different characteristics of the wastes (such as cleanliness), or preserving/defending the wastes. As previously mentioned, being a Walker in the Waste does not actually necessitate being a member of the Dusty Conclave, and thus their goals do not affect the requirements of a Druid's vow. Walkers in the Game makes mention of a potential non-good party of Walkers spreading the Waste around the world, which does not actually indicate that it is a requirement of the class or even of general attitude of Walkers (again remember not all Walkers are Druids, Clerics are not required to uphold the Druid's vow for obvious reasons).

Then we come to the elephant in the room, the example NPC Abesukh Habah explicitly makes mention of "preserving and expanding sandy territory for her people to colonize and travel". That seems fairly cut and dry at first. However, the example given for how she is pursuing it is attacking existing settlements on the edge. There isn't explicit statements as to whether she is converting existing natural ecosystems into the wastes, and the only example is her kicking out settlers and converting the towns that were built into desert. That's returning civilization to a natural state. It is entirely possible for her to sidestep that entire issue of converting one ecosystem into another by restricting her attacks to border settlements.

Finally, the non-RAI but RAW answer, while the Druid's Vow does make a RAW requirement of "revering nature", there is no RAW requirement that a Walker has to share any of the beliefs ascribed to them by the book. The only requirements of the class are that you be Non-Good, take the Heat Endurance feat, and be able to cast three spells from the Sand and Thirst Domains. Druids can fulfill all of those requirements without ever setting foot in the Wastes, or caring one bit about spreading the Wastes. From there, they can advance without spreading the wastes or interacting with anyone spreading the wastes up until 7th level (all of their drought abilities can be willingly suppressed with a free action, and it is fairly easy to eliminate the need for sleep such that you'll always be able to take that free action). Even then, there is no RAW requirement that the mission actually benefit the Dusty Conclave's goals. The mission could by RAW be something as simple as delivering a vegan sandwich to a Conclave member that was hungry. While by RAI it shouldn't be as simple as that, by RAW there is no requirements that the mission be particularly difficult, or have anything to do with the Dusty Conclave's ultimate goal. The only hiccup is the example NPC Abesukh Habah, but as covered before, preserving and expanding sandy territory and revering nature are not mutually exclusive and would be dependent on how she expanded said sandy territory.

[magicalmagicman]

Preemptive Note: I'm of the personal opinion that there is probably enough wiggle room with a RAW reading of Druid to have a Druid that hates plants and animals.

You say that but.....


Just to weigh in further in the Walker in the Wastes as proof of "omnicidal" druids arguments. There is actually literally no requirement of Walker in the Wastes to actually SPREAD the Wastes. Even if we take the line about most life being just exhibits as rules text dictating a necessary attitude, the literal meaning of exhibits does not necessarily preclude the killing of said life (ex. a Zoo). In fact, one of only four direct references to spreading the Wastes comes in the Organization section of the prestige class, after you've already become a Walker and need to advance past 7th level.

See, the class directly tells you what an exhibit is. It's in the same paragraph.

"The waste’s dryness can perfectly preserve a royal city, a wondrous creature, or a towering forest—caught at the very moment of death, before age and decay can spoil it."

A preserved creature at the very moment of death. And you somehow drew the conclusion that exhibits mean zoos and living creatures. So in my opinion you're trying to fudge the text to make it sound like what you want. Which admittedly is what the OP is doing too but here he doesn't have to fudge. The text is direct, explicit, and unambiguously clear. A walker of the waste is someone who wants to kill all life and preserve all life at their moment of death. No zoos. 0 chance of zoos. There is no mention of zoos. Only dead dried creatures.

Your unique PC might have different motivations and intentions when taking the PrC but that's irrelevant. A normal druid that enters Walker of the Waste is a druid that seeks to terraform the entire world into a wasteland, completely dry up all the oceans, lakes, clouds, everything that has water, and turn all living things into a desiccated lifeless exhibit, possibly also turned into a salt mummy.

And if a druid that reveres nature gets to turn the entire world into a dried up museum without losing spellcasting then so can other druids for other reasons. Unlike malconvoker there is no special PrC ability that lets you ignore restrictions of your base class. Which means normal druids can do exactly the same thing walkers do without taking a single level in the PrC.


Then we come to the elephant in the room, the example NPC Abesukh Habah explicitly makes mention of "preserving and expanding sandy territory for her people to colonize and travel". That seems fairly cut and dry at first. However, the example given for how she is pursuing it is attacking existing settlements on the edge. There isn't explicit statements as to whether she is converting existing natural ecosystems into the wastes, and the only example is her kicking out settlers and converting the towns that were built into desert. That's returning civilization to a natural state. It is entirely possible for her to sidestep that entire issue of converting one ecosystem into another by restricting her attacks to border settlements. .

Here too. You're right, it is cut and dry until you decided to twist the words so it sounds like it says what you want. You're trying to make it sound like the farmers somehow managed to terraform a part of the waste into farmland in ages past and Abesukh habah is just liberating whats rightfully a wasteland. And now suddenly "expand territory" turned into "reclaim territory". And then you say "reclaim territory is not expanding" therefore Abesukh Habah is not spreading the waste, just restoring it. The hoops you jump through to make expand mean the opposite of what it means.

This is ludicrous. Expand means expand. End of story.

A wondrous creature preserved by dryness at its moment of death is not a zoo.
Expanding the wastes is not reclaiming or restoring previously terraformed land.

And the logic you're applying, let me use it too.
a. It is entirely possible that the entity that created the druid class is secretly an omnicidal maniac bent on destroying the universe therefore it is entirely possible that a druid who completely betrays his vows and uses metal gets no repercussion because the druid is unknowingly following a secret unmentioned ancient part of the druid code.
b. The universe started with a big bang. Before the bang there was nothing. So it is entirely possible that a druid that wants to return everything into nothingness is just returning universe into its original natural state.

>.>

Don't say "it is entirely possible" to add random weird unbelievable unsupported abnormal ludicrous situations as context to make words sound like the exact opposite of what it means.

[D+1]

You should probably start up your own topic for this, but check out the 'Slayer of Domiel' and give them the 'Vow of Nonviolence' - both can be found in the Book of Exalted Deeds.
[sigh...]

Q.E.D.

[smasher0404]

You say that but.....



See, the class directly tells you what an exhibit is. It's in the same paragraph.

"The waste’s dryness can perfectly preserve a royal city, a wondrous creature, or a towering forest—caught at the very moment of death, before age and decay can spoil it."

A preserved creature at the very moment of death. And you somehow drew the conclusion that exhibits mean zoos and living creatures. So in my opinion you're trying to fudge the text to make it sound like what you want. Which admittedly is what the OP is doing too but here he doesn't have to fudge. The text is direct, explicit, and unambiguously clear. A walker of the waste is someone who wants to kill all life and preserve all life at their moment of death. No zoos. 0 chance of zoos. There is no mention of zoos. Only dead dried creatures.

Your unique PC might have different motivations and intentions when taking the PrC but that's irrelevant. A normal druid that enters Walker of the Waste is a druid that seeks to terraform the entire world into a wasteland, completely dry up all the oceans, lakes, clouds, everything that has water, and turn all living things into a desiccated lifeless exhibit, possibly also turned into a salt mummy.

And if a druid that reveres nature gets to turn the entire world into a dried up museum without losing spellcasting then so can other druids for other reasons. Unlike malconvoker there is no special PrC ability that lets you ignore restrictions of your base class. Which means normal druids can do exactly the same thing walkers do without taking a single level in the PrC.



Here too. You're right, it is cut and dry until you decided to twist the words so it sounds like it says what you want. You're trying to make it sound like the farmers somehow managed to terraform a part of the waste into farmland in ages past and Abesukh habah is just liberating whats rightfully a wasteland. And now suddenly "expand territory" turned into "reclaim territory". And then you say "reclaim territory is not expanding" therefore Abesukh Habah is not spreading the waste, just restoring it. The hoops you jump through to make expand mean the opposite of what it means.

This is ludicrous. Expand means expand. End of story.

A wondrous creature preserved by dryness at its moment of death is not a zoo.
Expanding the wastes is not reclaiming or restoring previously terraformed land.

And the logic you're applying, let me use it too.
a. It is entirely possible that the entity that created the druid class is secretly an omnicidal maniac bent on destroying the universe therefore it is entirely possible that a druid who completely betrays his vows and uses metal gets no repercussion because the druid is unknowingly following a secret unmentioned ancient part of the druid code.
b. The universe started with a big bang. Before the bang there was nothing. So it is entirely possible that a druid that wants to return everything into nothingness is just returning universe into its original natural state.

>.>

Don't say "it is entirely possible" to add random weird unbelievable unsupported abnormal ludicrous situations as context to make words sound like the exact opposite of what it means.

Sigh :smallsigh:, nice straw man you have going there at the end. I'm not appending any rules text to my argument. What I'm saying is that a Druid's capable entry to Walker in the Wastes does not necessitate an adoption of an "omnicidal" mentality of converting everything to wastes. There are 3 main points needed to conclude that Druid's must adopt the "Expand Wastes" mentality and thus would not fall for converting everything to Wastes.

1) Druids can enter Walker in the Wastes

I'm not debating you there. They can enter, that's incredibly clear. The bigger points of contention are the next two points

2) Walker in the Waste must adopt a Spread Wastes Everywhere mentality.

Not true. I've already argued this point. Most of the Spread Wastes fluff actually comes from the Dusty Conclave. And while the Spread Wastes mentality might be the most common, Druids aren't even the most common class that enters Walkers in the Waste. First line of Becoming a Walker in the Waste is that "Clerics who serve deities of thirst are the most common characters to take levels in this class", the common Walker already isn't a Druid, and most of that text is going to be written with that in mind. The class never requires that mentality. In my post, I cover every time that mentality is brought up, and how two of them involve an organization that you only tangentially have to be involved with and one of them refers to a very specific group of hypothetical Walkers.

The exhibits line if interpreted as a requirement (which it explicitly is not), just needs an interpretation that makes sense for a character entering the class. Druids who are born and only know the Wastes, that line would not make sense to them and they would in turn. Note the very same paragraph contains the line "Maybe you want to protect your chosen environment and warn away those who intrude".

3) Spread Wastes Everywhere mentality does not cause a Druid to fall.

This point is unnecessary to disprove, but to simply handle the known cases where Druids who have a similar mentality could still respect animal and plant life while pursuing it. The only example of a Druid that does so is the example NPC. You argue that I'm saying that they are reclaiming desert territory. I'm arguing that terraforming is well within the purview of a Druid when it is in the pursuit of returning land to nature.

A druid that converts a nearby plains town into a forest very clearly is still revering nature and and returning land that nature could use back into a natural ecosystem. A druid converting a town on the edge of a desert into a desert is doing the exact same thing on a macro scale, converting land that was being settled and converting it into part of a natural ecosystem. The example NPC is only explicitly expanding their desert territory, and the only methodology given in their description is by attacking towns. Note even if the Spread Wastes Everywhere mentality was a requirement, it only needs to possible that a Druid skirt by with that mentality, not that it be easy for them to have that mentality.


I am NOT adding any rules text that isn't there. Unlike your example of some random part of the Druid's Vow. Nor am I doing anything nearly as far as extrapolating back to the Big Bang (which in a D&D setting didn't necessarily happen). My own opinion on whether a Druid can avoid interacting with the animal and plant parts and still avoid breaking their vows does not impact my opinion that Walker in the Wastes does NOT serve as proof of that statement.

[magicalmagicman]

2) Walker in the Waste must adopt a Spread Wastes Everywhere mentality.

You accuse me of being a strawman yet here you are pulling a strawman.

A walker in the waste does not have to adopt an omnicidal mentality. I have never said that. The class isn't strict. It's very flexible. And its your character. You can do whatever you want.

A walker in the waste CAN adopt an omnicidal mentality even with a druid entry. In fact the omnicidal mentality is the DEFAULT mentality for Walkers. Therefore druids can adopt an omnicidal mentality. And that's all that matters. Period. The end. End of discussion.

Because if one druid can do it, then all the druids can. So the OP can make a druid that is omnicidal.
Omnicidal Walkers are legal. Druid Walkers are legal. Therefore Omnicidal Druids are legal.
It's simple Logic. Omnicidal A is legal. B can be A. Therefore Omnicidal B is legal.

If you want to win this argument you need to prove that even one walker druid CAN'T do it. If you can't prove that all druid walkers must not be omnicidal, then that's that. The end. End of discussion. Period.

I don't understand what's the point of talking about this super special case of a druid walker that behaves atypically and creates zoos. Good for you. That is a non-evil druid walker. Congrats. How does that stop me from playing a druid that behaves like a normal walker and dry up all the water in the world?

[dancrilis]

Omnicidal Walkers are legal. Druid Walkers are legal. Therefore Omnicidal Druids are legal.
It's simple Logic.

While I agree that a Druid can be omnicidal, the above does not show that.
Druids can be Walkers.
Walkers can be omnicidal.

This does not automatically mean that Druid Walkers can be omnicidal.

[magicalmagicman]

While I agree that a Druid can be omnicidal, the above does not show that.
Druids can be Walkers.
Walkers can be omnicidal.

This does not automatically mean that Druid Walkers can be omnicidal.

My apologies. How's this?

Default walkers are omnicidal.
Druids can be default walkers.
Therefore Druids can be omnicidal.

A is omnicidal
B can be A
Therefore B can be omnicidal.

[smasher0404]

You accuse me of being a strawman yet here you are pulling a strawman.

A walker in the waste does not have to adopt an omnicidal mentality. I have never said that. The class isn't strict. It's very flexible. And its your character. You can do whatever you want.

A walker in the waste CAN adopt an omnicidal mentality even with a druid entry. In fact the omnicidal mentality is the DEFAULT mentality for Walkers. Therefore druids can adopt an omnicidal mentality. And that's all that matters. Period. The end. End of discussion.

Because if one druid can do it, then all the druids can. So the OP can make a druid that is omnicidal.
Omnicidal Walkers are legal. Druid Walkers are legal. Therefore Omnicidal Druids are legal.
It's simple Logic. Omnicidal A is legal. B can be A. Therefore Omnicidal B is legal.

If you want to win this argument you need to prove that even one walker druid CAN'T do it. If you can't prove that all druid walkers must not be omnicidal, then that's that. The end. End of discussion. Period.

I don't understand what's the point of talking about this super special case of a druid walker that behaves atypically and creates zoos. Good for you. That is a non-evil druid walker. Congrats. How does that stop me from playing a druid that behaves like a normal walker and dry up all the water in the world?

Except you are using the class as an argument that the "omnicidal" mentality is required for druids. Druids being able to class does not necessitate the allowance of that mentality. The argument that Omnicidal Walkers exist and Druid Walkers exist thus Omnicidal Druids also exist is not logically sound.

To speak fairly metaphorically (bear with me there is a point to this):

A Square Quadrilateral exists. By definition, a Square by definition has 4 sides of equal length and two sets of parallel sides.
A Quadrilateral with only one set of parallel sides exists. See your standard example of a trapezoid in a geometry textbook.
However, a Square with only one set of parallel sides CANNOT exist. By definition, Squares cannot have only one set of parallel sides.

In the same vein:the fact omnicidal Walkers can exist and druid Walkers exist does not logically prove that omnicidal Walkers can exist. It obviously doesn't disprove the existence of omnicidal Druids, but your argument does not PROVE that Druids can have that mentality (which was the point of bringing up Walker in the Waste).

In order to serve as evidence that Omnicidal Druids are allowed the logic would have to be set up such that being a Walker NECESSITATES being omnicidal. Walker in the Wastes does not necessitate it, thus cannot serve as proof of their existence.


Edit: Sorry I typed fairly slow. However, then you need to show that Walker in the Wastes necessitates being omnicidal. My argument earlier attempts to prove that the omnicidal nature is not necessary to being a Walker. You have done nothing to discredit that.

[dancrilis]

My apologies. How's this?

Default walkers are omnicidal.
Druids can be default walkers.
Therefore Druids can be omnicidal.

A is omnicidal
B can be A
Therefore B can be omnicidal.

Better but I am not sure that 'Default walkers are omnicidal' has been shown 'walkers can be omnicidal' I think is clear enough - it also seems that 'default walkers' are clerics from the text.

[magicalmagicman]

Except you are using the class as an argument that the "omnicidal" mentality is required for druids.

See there it is again. I never said required. I said option. It is an option for druids. Not required. How did you not get that from me directly saying

A walker in the waste does not have to adopt an omnicidal mentality.



In the same vein:the fact omnicidal Walkers can exist and druid Walkers exist does not logically prove that omnicidal Walkers can exist. It obviously doesn't disprove the existence of omnicidal Druids, but your argument does not PROVE that Druids can have that mentality (which was the point of bringing up Walker in the Waste).

In order to serve as evidence that Omnicidal Druids are allowed the logic would have to be set up such that being a Walker NECESSITATES being omnicidal. Walker in the Wastes does not necessitate it, thus cannot serve as proof of their existence.

Ok. I see where the confusion is. Lets try to see if we can clear this messup.

1. The default no weirdness no special circumstances no extra context read as written Walker in the Waste PrC is either omnicidal or almost omnicidal. No word twisting, no "exhibit could mean other things", no "expansion could mean reclamation". No reading between the lines. No creativity. Just pure cut and dry reading of the PrC is either omnicidal or almost omnicidal.
2. The prc says the default no weirdness no special circumstances read as written Walker in the Waste PrC can be entered by Druids of Harsh Bent.
3. Therefore a Druid can behave exactly like the Walker of the Waste described in the PrC with no repercussion. Copy the entire PrC entry, paste it into a druid including their goals, behavior, how they think, their personality, etc. Everything. I am playing a Druid that is a literal copy and clone of the Walker described in the PrC. No creativity from me. Just pure copy and paste.
4. Such a druid is either omnicidal or almost omnicidal.
5. Therefore druids can be omnicidal or almost omnicidal.

Which point are you contesting here?

[smasher0404]

See there it is again. I never said required. I said option. It is an option for druids. Not required. How did you not get that from me directly saying





Ok. I see where the confusion is. Lets try to see if we can clear this messup.

1. The default no weirdness no special circumstances no extra context read as written Walker in the Waste PrC is either omnicidal or almost omnicidal. No word twisting, no "exhibit could mean other things", no "expansion could mean reclamation". No reading between the lines. No creativity. Just pure cut and dry reading of the PrC is either omnicidal or almost omnicidal.
2. The prc says the default no weirdness no special circumstances read as written Walker in the Waste PrC can be entered by Druids of Harsh Bent.
3. Therefore a Druid can behave exactly like the Walker of the Waste described in the PrC with no repercussion. Copy the entire PrC entry, paste it into a druid including their goals, behavior, how they think, their personality, etc. Everything. I am playing a Druid that is a literal copy and clone of the Walker described in the PrC. No creativity from me. Just pure copy and paste.
4. Such a druid is either omnicidal or almost omnicidal.
5. Therefore druids can be omnicidal or almost omnicidal.

Which point are you contesting here?


OK, required is the wrong word (I blame a lack of sleep last night), but you are trying to show that they can be omnicidal.

A couple of things:

You are assuming a Druid can enter the class and immediately adopt that mentality. That hasn't been shown. Typical Walkers have that behavior, but the Typical Walker is also a Cleric. They can enter the class by default, but the Walker of the Wastes does not specifically address the issue of the Druid's vow nor provide any evidence that said behavior will allow them to maintain their Druid Powers. They may share beliefs and methodologies with the standard Walker but that is not give-in. Step-three is making a leap that assumes that typical Walker behavior must be condoned by typical DRUID Walkers. That may be the case, but as written nothing is really shown in that regards.

You are trying to prove that since Druids can by default enter the class, they may also adopt the omnicidal/near-omnicidal mentality without repercussions. However, that does not necessarily follow. Sure, I'm entirely willing to believe in the existence of omnicidal Druids (as I have stated before) and thus the existence of omnicidal Druid Walkers, but the class does not prove that connection. You have to show that a typical Walker's behavior DOES NOT violate a Druid's Vow, not that Druids can enter the class via standard means. Note again, there are ways to interpret the sample NPC's actions as returning civilization to nature (via terraforming) thus expanding what desert exists (and is the only given example for said NPC's actual actions) and thus may be considered an atypical case of Walker-ness.

#NotAllWalkers.

In fact, in theory, if one wanted to dive into the whole mess that is alignment. The fact that the alignment is Non-Good rather than Any Evil could be argued to show that typical Walker behavior is NOT omnicidal. Omnicidal could easily be argue to necessitate the Evil alignment, barring edge cases. The fact that a Walker is not required to be Evil shows that they do not have to be omnicidal by no-weirdness clauses.

The only conclusive way that I can think of proving that connection ("Typical" Walker Behavior does not Violate Druid Vows) is to show that ALL Walkers have that behavior. However, as previously shown, that is not the case.

[magicalmagicman]

OK, required is the wrong word (I blame a lack of sleep last night), but you are trying to show that they can be omnicidal.

A couple of things:

You are assuming a Druid can enter the class and immediately adopt that mentality. That hasn't been shown. .

Ok so that's where you're wrong. And for the record you are contesting point number 3.

If druids are explicitly allowed to enter the PrC, but doing so causes a conflict, the PrC will explicitly tell you that.

For example


Proficiency: Glaive. A druid who wields a glaive is in violation of her spiritual oaths, but a character may take a Martial Weapon Proficiency feat with the weapon and simply refrain from wielding it until she qualifies for the blightlord class.

And many many others. Most of them are not specific to druids, but if there is a conflict with the PrC description and a particular class, they will say so.

So if a druid acting like the walker exactly as described in the PrC results in the druid breaking its vow, the PrC will tell you. It makes no special mention of druids. Therefore there is no conflict. You are fully allowed to make a druid behave identically to the PrC description without any repercussions.

[smasher0404]

Ok so that's where you're wrong. And for the record you are contesting point number 3.

If druids are explicitly allowed to enter the PrC, but doing so causes a conflict, the PrC will explicitly tell you that.

For example



And many many others. Most of them are not specific to druids, but if there is a conflict with the PrC description and a particular class, they will say so.

So if a druid acting like the walker exactly as described in the PrC results in the druid breaking its vow, the PrC will tell you. It makes no special mention of druids. Therefore there is no conflict. You are fully allowed to make a druid behave identically to the PrC description without any repercussions.

Except that isn't a ruling. The lack of a specific prohibition or call-out does not mean that said behavior is permissible. There are plenty non-druid specific classes that will grant abilities that will cause Druids to fall but they aren't called out (mostly due to not being intended for druids). While specific call-outs are nice for the player to be reminded of existing restrictions, the absence of such a statement does not NECESSARILY mean that there is no conflict.


EDIT: This is just a fun fact because I had to do a double-take, Core Druids don't have any prohibitions against using Glaives. I'm not sure where Blightlord is getting that restriction from. Druids are prohibited from using metal armor (although that does not require atonement) but have no such prohibitions on weapons.

[magicalmagicman]

Except that isn't a ruling. The lack of a specific prohibition or call-out does not mean that said behavior is permissible. There are plenty non-druid specific classes that will grant abilities that will cause Druids to fall but they aren't called out (mostly due to not being intended for druids). While specific call-outs are nice for the player to be reminded of existing restrictions, the absence of such a statement does not NECESSARILY mean that there is no conflict.

Let me use an analogy.

What is a succubus? It's a sex demon that drains the life of its victims.
WotC showed us that it is possible to have a Lawful Good Paladin succubus.

When people talk about Succubi, are they talking about the sex demon or the Lawful Good Paladin?
When books talk about Succubi, are they talking about the sex demon or the Lawful Good Paladin?
When 3rd party adventure books talk about Succubi, are they talking about the sex demon or the Lawful Good Paladin?

The answer is universally the sex demon.

Now apply it here.

What is a Walker in the Waste? It's a Dry Lich that is trying to evaporate all water from the world and turn most living things into a desiccated museum exhibit.
You showed us that it is possible to have a Walker in the Waste that creates living Zoos in the wasteland.

When people talk about Walker in the Waste, are they talking about the guy who is gonna dry up the world, or the Zoomaker?
When books talk about Walker in the Waste, are they talking about the guy who is gonna dry up the world, or the Zoomaker?
When 3rd party adventure books talk about Walker in the Waste, are they talking about the guy who is gonna dry up the world, or the Zoomaker?

So when Sandstorm says Druids of Harsh Bent can become a Walker in the Waste. Is it saying that Druids can become the guy who is gonna dry up the world, or the Zoomaker?

[smasher0404]

You are taking that point to the extreme when I'm actually arguing something more moderate:
You make the assumption that the typical Walker is omnicidal. However, that is not the only characteristic
You can hit the major key points of being a Walker without adopting the "omnicidal" mentality:

Powers of Dessication/Drought - Given by Default

Desire to expand the Waste - Kicking civilized people out of lands that are currently not controlled by nature still expands the desert and doesn't require annihilating entire ecosystems. It is also a common tactic brought up by the class description several times.

Able to ally with the Dusty Conclave - Sure, protecting the Wastes is also a fundamental part of the Conclave's goal. One does not necessarily have to agree with annihilating the rest of the world to work with them.

"Pure Dry, Desire to preserve" - Protecting the Wastes sounds like a desire to preserve the stuff petrified there.

People fearing you - Yeah, causing a drought in a desert is going to be frightening to people no matter what you do with it.

Note, you very specifically don't have to be a Dusty Conclave member to become a Walker. You don't even have to be a member to advance past the 7th level. You just need to be able to work with them. Most of the examples given are workable under the idea that said Druids aren't omnicidal.

[magicalmagicman]

This is the official definition of a Walker in the waste


A walker in the waste embodies the harsh, unforgiving nature of the desert. The waste’s dryness can perfectly preserve a royal city, a wondrous creature, or a towering forest—caught at the very moment of death, before age and decay can spoil it. Maybe you want to protect your chosen environment and warn away those who would intrude. For you, most living things are nothing more than potential exhibits, and your soul is as parched as the sands that surround you.

The official definition, the very first paragraph of the PrC, is telling you outright that this is an omnicidal or almost omnicidal PrC.

The very next paragraph, I repeat, the very next paragraph, then says


Clerics who serve deities of thirst are the most common characters to take levels in this class. You already worship a harsh deity, and the magic of the dry and deadly waste comes readily to you. If you’re a desert druid of a harsh bent, you might take up this path as well

That Druids can become what the very first paragraph said. And then druids are never mentioned again.

This is as clear as d&d gets. There is no wiggle room for other interpretations. A Walker in the Waste is the first paragraph. Nothing else. Everytime Sandstorm talks about A Walker in the Waste, it's talking about something that is the very first paragraph of the PrC.

Your hypotheticals cannot even exist by the 2nd paragraph.

[Calthropstu]

It really doesn’t.

The lore and description of the druid class emphasizes the druids’ reverence of life and living things. The class is designed to function within and draw its power from a living world, and destroying a living world is utterly antithetical to the concept and practice of being a druid.

People who want to destroy living worlds are the ones that druids fight to their last breath to stop.



Two problems here. First, there's no reason a druid would believe his home planet ever existed without life. Druids aren't geologists. And there's no guarantee that life didn't appear right when the gods first created the world, which invalidates the argument.

And second, there's no reason for a druid to believe other planets are "void of all life," because in many settings that's simply not true. In Forgotten Realms the other worlds of the system explicitly have life, and the same goes for the Golarion system in Pathfinder. So both legs of this argument don't hold true.



This is a false equivalence. “Inhospitable climate” does not mean “lifeless desert.”

All deserts have a wide diversity of life, adapted to the harsh conditions; it’s just not always easy to see.

Protecting a chosen habitat does not equate to an open mandate to destroy all life.



There is nothing in the text of this PrC which supports the concept of destroying all life. A druid who takes the PrC is fanatically devoted to protecting his chosen desert habitat, but there’s nothing that gives him blanket permission to destroy all life on the planet.



No, you can’t. Revering any part of nature is fundamentally incompatible with ending all life.



Walker in the Waste doesn’t do everything you've been told it does. It does not give blank-check permission to destroy all life everywhere.

And if the campaign takes place anywhere outside of a desert environment, your character may be at a disadvantage.



You may have overlooked it, but the blighter PrC can also create undead, as well as taking undead wild shape.

But if you’re really excited about a character that creates undead, play a dread necromancer. Give him a telescope and you’re set.

.

You have a point. However, protecting that chosen habitat could also extend to INCREASING that chosen habitat. so slaughtering everything adjac ent and preparing a ritual to increase the size of the desert would be perfectly acceptable here.

[Psyren]

It does highlight a conflict on Sandstorm 93 - suggesting that omnicidal walkers be NPCs, solitary, or work in evil parties where the other party members serve as their "retinue." While not being impossible to play one, it does mean that a truly omnicidal one is a very niche pick. And I don't know how one would describe a character that wants to "submerge all of nature in a sea of eternal flames" (OP's words) as anything but "omnicidal."

[Palanan]

We need to look at the definition of “waste” in Sandstorm.

Waste is explicitly not a lifeless environment:


Originally Posted by Sandstorm, p.4
Dryness, ash, dust, heat, and sand: These are the elements that make up a waste environment. The presence of any one of these elements might be sufficient to qualify an area as a waste environment.

Thus “waste” is used extremely broadly, and does not automatically equate to lifelessness. A dry forest would be considered a waste under this definition, but the forest remains a functioning ecosystem.

This is supported in the next paragraph:


Originally Posted by Sandstorm, p.4
The scale of what can be classified as a waste environment extends from the very small, such as a single dry spot in an otherwise temperate location (even a single chamber in a dungeon) to the enormous—a region, continent, world, or perhaps an entire plane of existence.

Thus a “waste” can exist as a very small area in a larger, more ordinary region, and that small area is not described as a lifeless zone.

Some varieties of waste are presented which are harsh and inimical to life, but again, nowhere is it specified that a waste environment automatically destroys all life. This is supported with many examples in the first section of Chapter 2, starting on p. 35, “Life in the Waste.” This section describes “waste-dwelling cultures” and goes on to say:


Originally Posted by Sandstorm, p. 36
The presence of water and arable land determines whether people in the waste establish permanent settlements or opt for a more nomadic existence.

If cultures are living permanently in a waste environment, then by definition that environment does not destroy all life simply by being described as a waste. Note especially that water can exist as part of a waste. Thus a waste does not necessarily exist without water, and—most importantly—describing a region as a waste does not mean that region is entirely devoid of water.

The next page describes the Races of the Waste:


Originally Posted by Sandstorm, p. 37
The waste forces adjustment in the lives of any people who dare settle its forbidding climes. Every race is affected by social changes brought on by life in the waste, eve if only for the duration of a short stay. The bodies of waste-dwellers also change.

Thus living in a waste environment requires physical and cultural adaptations, but entire races and cultures are capable of living their lives in a waste environment. Thus, once again, just because a region is described as a waste does not mean that it is incapable of supporting life.

So using the term “waste” cannot automatically mean an utterly lifeless environment, because the term is not defined that way on p. 4, and there are abundant examples from pp.36-43 of races and cultures thriving in regions defined as wastes.

Therefore, “waste” does not equate to a lifeless environment, and the abundance of races living in wastes only emphasizes that many wastes are capable of supporting a wide diversity of life.

Druids, who by lore and definition revere the living world, are frequently found among these cultures:


Originally Posted by Sandstorm, p.47
Druids are common in the waste, experts at living in harmony with that harsh environment. Some druids seek to help their people survive and prosper through careful use of the waste’s resources, while others specialize in turning the already inhospitable climate against intruders.

Once again, life is understood to be part and parcel of the waste environment, and druids are an integral part of the cultures native to and living within the waste.

Given this, let’s consider Walker in the Waste:


Originally Posted by Sandstorm, p. 89
Maybe you want to protect your chosen environment and warn away those who would intrude.

Everything in the book so far presents the waste environment as anything but uniformly inimical to life. The Walker in the Waste may go to extremes to protect that environment, but there is nothing here which says that environment is by definition lifeless.


Originally Posted by Sandstorm, p. 89
Maybe you want to protect your chosen environment and warn away those who would intrude. For you, most living things are nothing more than potential exhibits….

The second sentence has to be understood in context of the first. “Most living things” clearly refers to intruders from outside the Walker’s home waste, and of course “most living things” does not equate to all living things.


Originally Posted by Sandstorm, p. 90
If you’re a desert druid of a harsh bent, you might take up this path as well.

“Harsh bent” does not equate to a desire to kill all things. On the contrary, druids in waste environments have already been defined as living with communities and helping them thrive in waste conditions (see p. 47) and druids who choose the Walker PrC are from that tradition.

There is nothing in the Walker which even inclines druids towards the destruction of all life in the waste environment, just as there is nothing in the definition of waste environments which requires them to be lifeless (see p. 4). Thus wastes cannot be inferred to be lifeless by definition, and the Walker cannot be inferred to desire the destruction of all life within a waste.

The Walker’s perspective on the waste does not alter this:


Originally Posted by Sandstorm, p. 92
You are filled with a profound, all-consuming love for the arid beauty of the waste.

Again, describing the Walker’s chosen environment as a waste does not automatically mean that this environment is lifeless, nor is there any mention that the Walker specifically wants to spread absolute lifelessness.

The Walker is in love with a specific harsh terrain, and wants to expand that terrain, but there is nothing here to indicate the Walker wants to destroy all life. Walkers may destroy “unnecessary life” (p. 93) in the course of their calling, but that does not equate to destroying all life.

The example Walker in the Waste, Abesukh Habah, specifically acts to promote her people’s interests above those of others in the waste:


Originally Posted by Sandstorm, p. 93
Abesukh Habah is an asherati druid and walker in the waste who is fanatically dedicated to preserving and expanding sandy territory for her people to colonize and travel.

Thus even a fanatical druid Walker in the Waste is not intended to destroy all life in the waste, but rather uses her abilities to drive out competitors and expand her own people’s presence. Her techniques are clearly evil, but her goal is not the destruction of all life in a waste, but instead to create territory amenable to members of her own race and community. Twisted and ruthless as she is, she is still supporting and nurturing life in the waste.



To summarize: the term “waste” covers a tremendous variety of environments, many of which can and do support specially adapted life. “Waste” does not automatically equate to “utterly lifeless terrain” and its use can never be taken to infer this.

Likewise, Walkers in the Waste are not dedicated to the destruction of all life, but rather to the expansion of their preferred waste environment, which includes its own suite of waste-adapted species. There is nothing in the Walker’s description which specifies a Walker is ever dedicated to the destruction of all life.

Druids in the waste are presented as integral to their communities and dedicated to the survival of those communities, which by definition involves the active support of life in the waste and not its destruction. There is nothing to suggest that a druid entering this PrC would change that perspective on the rare occasion when a druid becomes a Walker, and there is absolutely nothing to suggest a druid Walker would desire the destruction of all life everywhere.

[magicalmagicman]

We need to look at the definition of “waste” in Sandstorm.

No we don't. We just need to read the first paragraph.


Most living things are nothing more than potential exhibits.

Then we look at a description.


Only the hated touch of water is a true threat—you take extensive precautions to keep it from entering your domain.

There is no life without water.

Stop trying to lawyer something this direct, clear cut, and unambiguous. You are wrong. Omnicidal Druids are common in d&d 3.5

In addition.

Now, I think you're best bets are actually in Faiths of Eberron. The Children of Winter are a druidic sect with fluff similar to Wild Reapers regarding death. You could play a Neutral Evil or, possibly, Lawful Neutral druid that brings death and if the life giving druids aren't pulling their weight repairing your damage, well you're just doing your job.

A subsect of the Children of Winter called the Nightbringers seems to be the closest to what you're looking for. They see darkness as (quoting the book here) "the ultimate destiny of the universe" and they try to bring it about. This fits pretty well with your stargazing concept (he looked at the void between the stars and it called to him). There's a feat called Nightbringer Intiate that adds hide and move silent to your druid skill list and also a few spells regarding undead, darkness, negative energy, etc.

[Psyren]

Whoa now - "possible" is not "common" by any stretch. Nor does it mean "immune from falling." You can try to do something and still fail.

[magicalmagicman]

Whoa now - "possible" is not "common" by any stretch. Nor does it mean "immune from falling." You can try to do something and still fail.

My apologies. How's this?

Omnicidal druids are common enough that it is likely you will meet at least one in your career.
Walker of the Wastes
Nightlord Druids
Talontar Blightlord
etc.

[Tvtyrant]

disclaimer: this thread is about my table and my table only. my table follows raw as closely as possible. so if you have no intention of talking about my table, raw, or help me, please dont derail the thread with your offtopic post.
rule1: dont derail the thread. dont post offtopic stuff. this is about my table and raw only. for example, if at your table you ignore the rules and do whatever you want based on what you believe to be "intent", please dont derail this thread by posting such nonsense as it has absolutely nothing to do with my table or raw.
rule2: backup all statements pertaining to rules with rule citations. i didnt want to do this rule because it might discourage people who know their stuff from posting because citing rules is hard work, but too many people in the past have said im wrong when a simple rule lookup wouldve ended the matter which bloats the thread and makes it hard to read. in addition people have suddenly without warning start talking about their table and not mine or raw, tries to pass off their house rule as raw, and refuses/ignores any requests for them to prove their claim. so im hoping that if everyone has to post rule citations to backup their statements it will decrease the chance of people derailing the thread with offtopic stuff that doesnt help me at all and further cement that this thread is about my table or raw, not theirs or their house rules.



is it possible?

i dont like druids because i hate nature. nature is about producing **** and things that grow in **** or things that use that ****. its also about death. cats give birth to a litter because most of the kittens are gonna die. animals eat babies of other animals. i saw on nat geo that a lion killed a lioness's husband. then it stalked the lioness for days and then killed and ate her babies. then the lion and lioness had new babies.{Scrubbed} i hate nature. no way im gonna play something that protects this.

but i read this in phb2



so it got me thinking.
i like outer space. i like suns. i like gas giants. i like planets.
i like sea of fire.
i also like water. pure clear distilled water with nothing in it. no plankton or any other thing.
i also like elementals. they are some of my favorite monsters. i hate animals (see sea otter and lion above)
so is it possible to be a druid who wants to submerge all of nature in a sea of eternal flames?
is it possible to be a druid who wants to kill everything in the world so that the only thing left is pure clear distilled water?
is it possible to be a druid who wants to turn the entire planet into a lifeless celestial object like neptune or venus or pluto or a comet? planet sized comet.

stuff like that.

or do i have to love animals and the horrible things they do if i want to be a druid?
I tend towards "it is all cultural" and there are a few cultures that hate all life outside themselves.

Ethergaunts could presumably be Druids with some flexing, their belief that all life is inferior to their perfection would count. They effectively are nature and everything else is an aberration.

Slaad and Modrons are similar but less evil, one being LAW and one being CHAOS (we all know frogs love crazy eternal parties.)

A Druid of Extinction who pulls the Ultron "things must die for new ones to take their place" could work; an Ithiliad Druid who wants to pave the way for aberrations would be pretty cool. Aboleth Druids that want to return to "nature" from before time, Beholders that want all life to be identical copies of themselves.

[Psyren]

My apologies. How's this?

Omnicidal druids are common enough that it is likely you will meet at least one in your career.

There's no support for this either. Even if there's more than one PrC that can support this concept, these druids can't be that common, otherwise every campaign world would already be a barren wasteland.

But that's okay - something being uncommon doesn't mean your GM won't allow it or you can't play it.