can druids revere artificial evolution?

[newguydude1]

{scrubbed}

one of the problems i have with druids is that artificial is an improvement over the natural. so those who stick to the natural is being stupid. like using a sword is superior to using a fist, and druids would be the one saying you should bring your fist to a sword fight without gauntlets because swords are unnatural.

but then i was reading about druids in lords of madness and found this

Most druids detest aberrations and think of them as outside nature, but some view them simply as examples of nature from an extreme and alien world. Thanks to your heritage, you are one of these latter, and have learned to channel your inhuman bloodline into your shapeshifting power."

so here druids are allowed to twist taboo into non taboo with the right spin. aberration is hated, aberration is actually just nature in an alien world, aberration is good, i use my aberration blood to transform into aberrations.

so i thought why not apply it here to try and remove one of my problems i have with druids. so here it is



evolution is part of nature. all species do it. even ants and plants. human intelligence is also a product of evolution. so if humans decide to use their intelligence to create superior lifeforms, how is that different from evolution?

so my druid would revere artificial lifeforms like constructs. mindless ones are akin to soldier ants, bred for a specific purpose. sentient ones would be akin to true evolution. cause sentient robot is better than humans.

my druid would hate undead though. she would view undead as a pathetic attempt to preserve an inferior lifeform long past its failure to survive.

my druid also hates tools because i gotta have a reason to not use metal shields and armor. so my druid views fortresses, walls, swords, and such crutches for the inferior race, surviving off of trickery and deceit instead of physical biological superiority. and thus dislikes civilization. but once these things become sentient like animate objects or animate city, she then loves them because they are weaponized life forms "evolved" to be superior than their creator race at their specific tasks. in this case its combat



so would this fly in d&d? if a druid practiced the above philosophy, would she keep all of her spells? and what if she participated in artificial evolution herself like with golem crafting and awaken construct to create an epic optimized sentient golem with optimized feat selection made out of refined metal. or create something like tyranids from warhammer 40k which would consume all life on a planet and that blast off to outer space to continue to do the same? something like how ultimate evolution makes it the ultimate predator species and the weaker lesser bioforms all lost out in the survival of the fittest which makes them food for the tyranids the best use of their flesh. better than the flesh using its brain to do its own thing because the brain and flesh are both inferior. (not that ill do this in game because tyranids dont exist in d&d and theres nothing thats similar to them. im just using them as an example)

important: its ok to say no. im not trying to say im right. i genuinely want to know whether the above flies with d&d 3.5 lore. if it doesn't then its ok ill play something other than druid. but i will defend it a little bit.

[Malphegor]

Sure. That’s basically a good way to play an Urban Druid tbh. Embracing the philosophy that ‘all things strive’ and that nature is more than just nature, and constructs exist therefore the balance of all things must now include them too.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by newguydude1
so my druid would revere artificial lifeforms like constructs.


Originally Posted by newguydude1
my druid also hates tools….

Constructs are tools. Just like fortresses, walls and shields, constructs are crutches to allow inferior races to achieve what they otherwise couldn’t, lacking physical biological superiority.


Originally Posted by newguydude1
but once these things become sentient like animate objects or animate city, she then loves them because they are weaponized life forms "evolved" to be superior than their creator race at their specific tasks.

The process of a construct gaining sentience has nothing to do with biological evolution, and any druid who is aware of biological evolution would know this.

But there’s no reason for a druid to be aware of evolution in the natural world. For all a druid knows, the world was created by the gods, and all life was created together with the world. Thus there is no reason to believe that constructs are somehow the apotheosis of the living world, when to a druid they would be completely artificial and lifeless, no matter what magic moved them.

.

[FaerieGodfather]

Short Answer: To answer the question in your thread title, yes, I think Druids can revere artificial and aberrant lifeforms as a legitimate part of nature. My avatar depicts a Druid like that... as reflection of my own beliefs and interests in a D&D fantasy world.


one of the problems i have with druids is that artificial is an improvement over the natural. so those who stick to the natural is being stupid. like using a sword is superior to using a fist, and druids would be the one saying you should bring your fist to a sword fight without gauntlets because swords are unnatural.

Well, point blank, if you believe this you can't be a Druid in the exact same way that if you believe chivalry and justice to be stupid, you can't be a Paladin. I will point out that Druids are proficient in a number of artifical manufactured weapons, including actual swords, and their ethos doesn't prohibit them from enjoying all manner of artificial conveniences.

I will also point out the existence of artificial cheese.

Being a Druid isn't about rejecting progress and artifice. It's about recognizing the danger of allowing progress and artifice to destroy the ecology that supports them. Civilization cannot destroy Nature; it can only temporarily interfere with Nature's capacity to support Civilization. Druids are permitted to hate Civilization, but they are only obligated to prevent it from turning its surroundings into a smoking crater.



so here druids are allowed to twist taboo into non taboo with the right spin. aberration is hated, aberration is actually just nature in an alien world, aberration is good, i use my aberration blood to transform into aberrations.

I am all about this.


evolution is part of nature. all species do it. even ants and plants. human intelligence is also a product of evolution. so if humans decide to use their intelligence to create superior lifeforms, how is that different from evolution?

I am all about this. As a Druid, this is specifically my ethos, this is how I revere Nature.


so my druid would revere artificial lifeforms like constructs. mindless ones are akin to soldier ants, bred for a specific purpose. sentient ones would be akin to true evolution. cause sentient robot is better than humans.

... and you lost me. Constructs aren't "artificial lifeforms", because they are not lifeforms (https://biologywise.com/characteristics-of-life) at all. Specifically, they do not have a lifecycle and they do not occupy any position within the food chain-- they are neither predators nor prey, they do not die and they do not nourish the soil. They do not reproduce, so they can not evolve.

Constructs are great! Constructs can do more work while consuming fewer resources than people and animals, meaning that a Civilization that employs them wisely can be more sustainable. Sentient Constructs can even become Druids, if they choose, though I think most conservative Circles should be prejudiced against them.

Constructs are not enemies of Nature, and can even be allies of Nature, but they can never be part of Nature.


my druid would hate undead though. she would view undead as a pathetic attempt to preserve an inferior lifeform long past its failure to survive.

Kinda got a "strawman Druid" thing going here-- I mean, sure, Druids can be Social Darwinists, but it's... well, it's an ideology born of Civilization's poor understanding of Nature, and doesn't really have anything to do with being a Druid.

I'd argue that the real reason to hate the Undead is similar to the reason not to revere Constructs-- most Undead are predators, but nothing preys upon them and they do not nourish the soil. They take life and give nothing back, and they poison their environment by their very presence.


my druid also hates tools because i gotta have a reason to not use metal shields and armor. so my druid views fortresses, walls, swords, and such crutches for the inferior race, surviving off of trickery and deceit instead of physical biological superiority. and thus dislikes civilization. but once these things become sentient like animate objects or animate city, she then loves them because they are weaponized life forms "evolved" to be superior than their creator race at their specific tasks. in this case its combat

Honestly... the Druid class does nothing for you in terms of supporting this ideology. It's also weirdly contradictory to hate tools with a passion while venerating the products of tools. You can't animate a golem's body until after you've built it, and you can't do that with your bare hands. (Though, if you're open to Pathfinder Third Party, check out the DSP version of the Soulknife, who can actually create tools out of psionic force.) Fundamentally, you can't have your goal of sentient constructs without the society you claim to hate.

I would totally buy it as a legitimate character concept in D&D, and I would totally let you play it-- but Druid is the wrong starting point for you. If you wanted to play this in my game... I would start by making a hybrid class out of Artificer and Soulknife, and then point you in the direction of some of the Prestige Classes that turn the character into Living Constructs.

[Quertus]

This is such a bizarre concept.

So, the first problem is the underlying concept of "evolution". This is more of a modern mindset, and isn't exactly something that one would expect D&D characters to understand (citation needed). In fact, it might be blatantly wrong for any given campaign world (citation needed). A GM who simply declares "evolution doesn't exist in my world" isn't wrong to do so (citation needed). Of course, I don't know your table, you do, so you can ask the GM whether evolution even is a valid concept in that world, and whether it's possible for a Druid to understand it.

There are several methods for this to make sense. For one, we've already "evolved" the concept of evolution, so characters could learn of it through worlds that have modern Earth as their past (citation needed), characters who have canonically or otherwise traveled to modern Earth, like Elminster (citation needed), or through exploring the dreams of modern humans (citation needed). Add time travel (via Teleport Through Time or other means) to taste (citation needed).

Alternately, if the world could support a druidic version of Charles Darwin, I suppose someone could have independently simply *observed* this truth - if they can encounter sufficiently isolated locations with variant creatures clearly evolved to their environment, like Darwin did (citation needed). Does your GM have that level of world-building skills? If not, then this method simply isn't reasonable.

Next, you have this strange juxtapositioning of "hates tools, loves Constructs". Sure, I can *completely* envision Constructs as an evolution upgrade from mankind… however, at the same time, there are many who view Constructs as simple tools. Perhaps your character would view those as having a Slave Lord / slave relationship, and murderhobo them to death, hard?

As for whether there exists an existing druidic structure in place that would be willing to empower this particular evolution of druidic insanity? Um… citation needed? :smallwink:

[Aotrs Commander]

I think you're really reaching to try and be able to find way to play a mechanical druid only without the animal bits, either by this approach or the "hates all life" one, given it is the class that is specifically all about the animal bits.

Given how deeply stuff like Wild Shape (or any replacements) - until very high level there's not getting around you have to change into animals, which would go against what you want (even with Shapechange ACF) and the spell list (let alone class features) are ingrained with the base concept, I think you're really going to struggle to find an approach that matches what you want. (And also you have the animal companion issue as well. Sure, you can just not USE Wild Shape/Animal Companion/Wild Empathy etc, but at that point you've just got a spellcaster wearing hide armour and waving a scimitar about, and there's better ways to get that.)



Perhaps consider Archivist instead? It's not quite as combat-capable (they fall between druid and wizard in terms of that), but you get access (through the RAW, which was begrudingly supported, as I recall by the WotC's customer services despite being not what they intended it to be) to ALL divine spells, so provided you DM lets you buy scrolls, you can have all the druid, ranger AND domain spells you like. It also has much less of a defined flavour and you can much more easily spin it monster lore abilities into the sort of flavour you're going for.

Archivist has fewer hits and worse BAB, sure, but you also aren't restricted by armour (hell, if you wanted to burn a feat, you could tanl around in plate) and with access to ALL divine spells it's not hard to just find spells that don't require attack rolls.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by newguydude1
so i thought why not apply it here to try and remove one of my problems i have with druids.

If you hate everything that defines a druid, as you honestly seem to, why are you spending so much effort trying to twist the class into something it isn’t?


Originally Posted by FaerieGodfather
Honestly... the Druid class does nothing for you in terms of supporting this ideology.

…I would totally buy it as a legitimate character concept in D&D, and I would totally let you play it-- but Druid is the wrong starting point for you.


Originally Posted by Aotrs Commander
I think you're really reaching to try and be able to find way to play a mechanical druid only without the animal bits, either by this approach or the "hates all life" one, given it is the class that is specifically all about the animal bits.

So much all of this.


Originally Posted by Quertus
So, the first problem is the underlying concept of "evolution". This is more of a modern mindset, and isn't exactly something that one would expect D&D characters to understand (citation needed).

…you can ask the GM whether evolution even is a valid concept in that world, and whether it's possible for a Druid to understand it.

These are key points. Evolution might not even exist in a world with one or more pantheons of gods, and so anything predicated on that concept wouldn’t exist either.

You need to ask your DM about this, but if your table follows RAW as closely as you suggest, this may be another tough sell.

[Psyren]

Looking at this and your other thread - I think your ultimate goal is to be a druid without the "animal bits" as others stated above. In my mind this means replacing the animal companion and wild shape with something more thematically fitting.

Pathfinder has druid archetypes that do exactly this - you could even get these ported back to 3.5 to allow you to play your non-animal druid from level 1.These include archetypes like Elemental Ally, Fungal Pilgrim, Halcyon Druid, Tempest Tamer, Death Druid and Skinshaper.

[newguydude1]

I think you're really reaching to try and be able to find way to play a mechanical druid only without the animal bits, either by this approach or the "hates all life" one, given it is the class that is specifically all about the animal bits.

i know im reaching. thats why i said its ok to say no. but my other thread was also me reaching and it turned out to be valid so im throwing this out here too in hopes that it can turn valid too.


Given how deeply stuff like Wild Shape (or any replacements) - until very high level there's not getting around you have to change into animals, which would go against what you want (even with Shapechange ACF) and the spell list (let alone class features) are ingrained with the base concept, I think you're really going to struggle to find an approach that matches what you want. (And also you have the animal companion issue as well. Sure, you can just not USE Wild Shape/Animal Companion/Wild Empathy etc, but at that point you've just got a spellcaster wearing hide armour and waving a scimitar about, and there's better ways to get that.)



Perhaps consider Archivist instead? It's not quite as combat-capable (they fall between druid and wizard in terms of that), but you get access (through the RAW, which was begrudingly supported, as I recall by the WotC's customer services despite being not what they intended it to be) to ALL divine spells, so provided you DM lets you buy scrolls, you can have all the druid, ranger AND domain spells you like. It also has much less of a defined flavour and you can much more easily spin it monster lore abilities into the sort of flavour you're going for.

Archivist has fewer hits and worse BAB, sure, but you also aren't restricted by armour (hell, if you wanted to burn a feat, you could tanl around in plate) and with access to ALL divine spells it's not hard to just find spells that don't require attack rolls.

i just want to play a sorcerer or a wizard mindset with a druids tools. elemental wildshape. master of many forms. elemental animal companion.

my problem with druids is two things
1. animal bits.
2. against change. change is how things improve. a druid is likely gonna keep a boulder a boulder instead of carving it into a tool. so in the end the wizard creates super lifeforms like optimized epic creatures that can destroy all of the natural world including their own epic creatures while a druid would destroy anyone attempting to improve nature and completely stunt growth of humanity. or something like that.

so if i play a druid i have to go around killing wizards who want to create things like owlbears. i dont like that. owlbear makers are trying to improve nature. thats a good thing.

my first thread solved 1.
im trying to solve 2. with this thread. i know im reaching so its ok to say no. i already play cleric psion sorcerer and artificer. i just in the mood to play with elemental wildshape and elemental companion and master of many forms and stuff like that so im trying to force my ideal character motivation stuff onto a druid despite it not really fitting.


If you hate everything that defines a druid, as you honestly seem to, why are you spending so much effort trying to twist the class into something it isn’t?

i wanna play with their toys without playing someone i dont like roleplaying. elemental wildshape. master of many forms. elemental companion. stuff like that.


Next, you have this strange juxtapositioning of "hates tools, loves Constructs". Sure, I can *completely* envision Constructs as an evolution upgrade from mankind… however, at the same time, there are many who view Constructs as simple tools. Perhaps your character would view those as having a Slave Lord / slave relationship, and murderhobo them to death, hard?

i can change the hate tools part. that part is just there to justify me losing 24 hours of spellcasting if i wield a metal armor. roleplay gotta be represented mechanically too so i gotta come up with another reason she cant use metal stuff despite being totally ok with it idealogically.


... and you lost me. Constructs aren't "artificial lifeforms", because they are not lifeforms (https://biologywise.com/characteristics-of-life) at all. Specifically, they do not have a lifecycle and they do not occupy any position within the food chain-- they are neither predators nor prey, they do not die and they do not nourish the soil. They do not reproduce, so they can not evolve.

thats not what i meant by lifeform.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MechanicalLifeforms


Constructs are great! Constructs can do more work while consuming fewer resources than people and animals, meaning that a Civilization that employs them wisely can be more sustainable. Sentient Constructs can even become Druids, if they choose, though I think most conservative Circles should be prejudiced against them.

Constructs are not enemies of Nature, and can even be allies of Nature, but they can never be part of Nature.

evolution is nature. intelligence is a product of evolution. a creation of a superior race via intelligence is therefore also a product and the process of evolution. is the angle im going for like the aberration thing.

[Gavinfoxx]

Whoever told you Druids are against change is a damn dirty liar, and you should treat them as such.

Why not play a Progress-minded Druid who specifically is working toward a Solarpunk future? Perhaps one involving massive amounts of orbital rotating habitats and land-based arcologies and a planet with a sustainable population in the hundreds of billions while still having incredible biodiversity, massive amounts of space for people, huge amounts of untamed wilderness, and incredible quality of life? Really, given the various means of obtaining post-scarcity in D&D, it wouldn't even be hard.

Here you go:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aG4P3dU6WP3pq8mW9l1qztFeNfqQHyI22oJe09i8KWw/edit?usp=sharing

and

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z9NJIs751Af3i0IEIJwCkIp9H9YFiZYZ7u-wmYVaheI/edit?usp=sharing

And just watch a bunch of Isaac Arthur and Kurzgesagt videos on youtube, you seem like you have some misunderstandings about science... stuff that might or might not be relevant to a D&D game, but is good to resolve anyway.

[FaerieGodfather]

thats not what i meant by lifeform.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MechanicalLifeforms

I did actually understand what you meant, but it doesn't matter for the reasons I listed: Constructs may not be harmful to a living ecosystem, but they do not function as a part of it.


evolution is nature. intelligence is a product of evolution. a creation of a superior race via intelligence is therefore also a product and the process of evolution. is the angle im going for like the aberration thing.

I see the angle you're going for. It doesn't work. There is no part of the Druid's ethos or skillset that is compatible with either the ethos or the skillset you're trying to cultivate here. You admitted in the OP that you didn't like the Druid class and you thought it was stupid-- well, you're right. It is not going to do what you want it to do.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by newguydude1
my first thread solved 1.

I didn’t see anything solved in that thread.


Originally Posted newguydude1
evolution is nature.

Which you’ve told us you personally hate, in lurid detail, and you want to play a character who shares that hate.

But now you’re using it to support your concept, which seems selective at best, if not utterly inconsistent.


Originally Posted by newguydude1
so if i play a druid i have to go around killing wizards who want to create things like owlbears.

… a druid would destroy anyone attempting to improve nature and completely stunt growth of humanity. or something like that.

This is an absurdly distorted view of druids, and I have absolutely no idea where you’re getting any of this from.


Originally Posted by newguydude1
i just want to play a sorcerer or a wizard mindset with a druids tools.

Rather than trying to warp the druid class into something it was never meant to be, it might be more productive if you started another thread (preferably without the “rules”) to look for ways to add your desired elements to a wizard chassis.

That would be a lot simpler, and would involve much less conceptual dissonance, than trying to strip away the essence of a class to service a view not grounded in the lore regarding that class.

[Gavinfoxx]

Since you aren't keen on changing your understanding of either nature, science, or the canonical beliefs of d&d druids, why not play a Spirit Shaman?

[Psyren]

evolution is part of nature. all species do it. even ants and plants. human intelligence is also a product of evolution. so if humans decide to use their intelligence to create superior lifeforms, how is that different from evolution?

so my druid would revere artificial lifeforms like constructs. mindless ones are akin to soldier ants, bred for a specific purpose. sentient ones would be akin to true evolution. cause sentient robot is better than humans.

You made a bit of a leap here. I can understand your thought process on aberrant wild shape, but how did you get to constructs?

There is a type of druid that can wild shape into constructs (the urban druid) but they explicitly don't get their powers from nature:


Characteristics: Urban druids cast divine spells in the same way druids do, although they get their spells from the power of the city's spirit rather than from nature.

They are a separate class, so it's not straightforward to see how regular druids could revere constructs in this way.

[Saintheart]

So, the first problem is the underlying concept of "evolution". This is more of a modern mindset, and isn't exactly something that one would expect D&D characters to understand (citation needed). In fact, it might be blatantly wrong for any given campaign world (citation needed).


“I’m not surprised at Yennefer,’ he said as he walked. ‘She is a woman and thus an evolutionary inferior creature, governed by hormonal chaos. But you, Geralt, are not only a man who is sensible by nature, but also a mutant, invulnerable to emotions.’

--Vilgefortz of Roggeveen, some weird D&D campaign world.

I think they even had druids, albeit that was one setting where they actually let melee have Some Nice Things so long as they passed some pretty brutal fluff prerequisites.

[MicHag]

my druid also hates tools because i gotta have a reason to not use metal shields and armor. so my druid views fortresses, walls, swords, and such crutches for the inferior race, surviving off of trickery and deceit instead of physical biological superiority. and thus dislikes civilization. but once these things become sentient like animate objects or animate city, she then loves them because they are weaponized life forms "evolved" to be superior than their creator race at their specific tasks. in this case its combat

So an artificer starts creating a weapon. You hate that, you hate the weapon, you hate the tools the artificers uses to make it. The artificer then makes the weapon a sentient weapon. You suddenly love it! best thing in the world! This sounds strange to me.


...thread and makes it hard to read

If you are worried about your threads being hard to read, try using punctuation.

[King of Nowhere]

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.
[B]rule2: backup all statements pertaining to rules with rule citations.

You are asking for hard rules, but what exactly a druid worship is fluff.
Pure fluff.
there are, and there cannot be, hard rules about it. if someone actually made rules about it, then it's like the old class/race restrictions, restricting creativity and enforcing archetypes for no real reason.
It would be like asking "can I have a character that likes pies? please provide rule quotations"

[Malphegor]

I really do think the solution to all of this is play an Urban Druid for the construct wildshape and animated object companion and focus on that aspect over the wild nature in a city aspects

[Psyren]

“I’m not surprised at Yennefer,’ he said as he walked. ‘She is a woman and thus an evolutionary inferior creature, governed by hormonal chaos. But you, Geralt, are not only a man who is sensible by nature, but also a mutant, invulnerable to emotions.’

--Vilgefortz of Roggeveen, some weird D&D campaign world.

I think they even had druids, albeit that was one setting where they actually let melee have Some Nice Things so long as they passed some pretty brutal fluff prerequisites.

Pretty sure Witchers just use magic with their swordplay, and probably some alchemy. He's closer to a Magus or Duskblade than a fighter; if that's your standard for "nice things" then the existing D&D settings have those too.


I really do think the solution to all of this is play an Urban Druid for the construct wildshape and animated object companion and focus on that aspect over the wild nature in a city aspects

I agree this should get him closer to where he seems to want to be (which I read as "druid, but constructs!"), but I'll caveat that Urban Druid is not actually a Druid, both fluff and mechanically. Different spell list, different power source, different primary stat etc. It has various class features that work similarly, but it is at the end of the day a different class.

[Red Fel]

2. against change. change is how things improve. a druid is likely gonna keep a boulder a boulder instead of carving it into a tool. so in the end the wizard creates super lifeforms like optimized epic creatures that can destroy all of the natural world including their own epic creatures while a druid would destroy anyone attempting to improve nature and completely stunt growth of humanity. or something like that.

so if i play a druid i have to go around killing wizards who want to create things like owlbears. i dont like that. owlbear makers are trying to improve nature. thats a good thing.

I'm going to join in with others and say that I have no idea where this comes from.

Druids revere nature, full stop. That's basically the only part of the class fluff that's essential. How they do it can vary wildly. This Druid may destroy cities because he feels they hurt nature. That Druid may battle Wizards because she feels that arcane magic interferes with the natural world. These Druids may devote their lives to protecting this isolated glade from any mortal intrusion. It's all about mindset.

You say your mindset is evolution? Perfect. Nature is all about evolution, even if not all Druids know it by that name. Nature is, by its nature (sorry not sorry), dynamic. It changes. A rose bush doesn't remain in its shape forever; it grows and spreads, or wilts and dies. An ecosystem, a local climate, a population of animals or plants, the tides and the rains and the shade of the trees - they all change over time. That's natural, and therefore good. Change is good.

And what's wrong with tools? As people advance, they change, like nature. They evolve and adapt, like nature. They develop tools. Wolves have their fangs, raptors have their talons, and the intelligent races have their tools. That's natural too.

And then you have constructs. This is the problem, here. If you embrace constructs as the natural next step of tools, that's great, because it makes sense. Animals develop better natural defenses with times, the intelligent races develop better tools. Solid. If you embrace constructs because they're an unusual lifeform - living, but not living, part of the living world but apart from it - that's great, because it makes sense. Weird things are fascinating. Constructs aren't natural, but they're also not quite unnatural, either - not like, say, Undead. You could even argue, depending on how your setting handles constructs, that placing intelligence in a construct is the logical extension of replacing body parts with prosthetics or grafts - eventually, why not replace the whole thing? You could argue that this is therefore a natural extension of humanity's drive for self-improvement, again assuming that's how your setting handles constructs. (Cybermen, much?)

These are bases for a Druid - or at least, a lowercase-d druid-like character - to embrace constructs. They make sense. What doesn't make sense is looking at constructs and seeing any kind of natural evolution. Constructs do not occur naturally. As others have mentioned, they do not live, they are not born, they are not dynamic, and they do not propagate. In most senses, a construct is antithetical to the notion of evolution, because it can neither change nor pass on its changes.

If what you want is a construct-focused Druid, then I agree with everyone else - go Urban Druid and be done. Otherwise, I simply can't wrap my head around what you're trying to achieve with your character concept. And that's an issue of your pitch - you need to be able to communicate your character concept in order for your table to interact with them properly. If you can't do that much, you need to take a step back. If the people on this forum who are trying to pick apart your concept to help you can't quite get it, how do you think it will be for the people at your table who, frankly, shouldn't have to worry about your character?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by newguydude1
i know im reaching so its ok to say no.

You keep saying that, but even when everyone in the thread says no, you don’t seem to take it to heart.

Let’s go around the horn:


Originally Posted by Faerie Godfather
…the Druid class does nothing for you in terms of supporting this ideology….Druid is the wrong starting point for you.


Originally Posted by Quertus
As for whether there exists an existing druidic structure in place that would be willing to empower this particular evolution of druidic insanity? Um… citation needed?


Originally Posted by Palanan
Rather than trying to warp the druid class into something it was never meant to be, it might be more productive if you started another thread (preferably without the “rules”) to look for ways to add your desired elements to a wizard chassis.


Originally Posted by Psyren
There is a type of druid that can wild shape into constructs (the urban druid) but they explicitly don't get their powers from nature…. They are a separate class, so it's not straightforward to see how regular druids could revere constructs in this way.

And to perfectly sum it all up:


Originally Posted by Faerie Godfather
There is no part of the Druid's ethos or skillset that is compatible with either the ethos or the skillset you're trying to cultivate here. You admitted in the OP that you didn't like the Druid class and you thought it was stupid-- well, you're right. It is not going to do what you want it to do.

Also, everything Red Fel says, but especially this:


Originally Posted by Red Fel
If what you want is a construct-focused Druid, then I agree with everyone else - go Urban Druid and be done. Otherwise, I simply can't wrap my head around what you're trying to achieve with your character concept.



OP, what we’re trying to tell you is that by insisting on using the druid class, you have a character concept that’s essentially dividing by zero. It does not work.

And you should really, really take this to heart:


Originally Posted by Red Fel
…you need to take a step back. If the people on this forum who are trying to pick apart your concept to help you can't quite get it, how do you think it will be for the people at your table who, frankly, shouldn't have to worry about your character?

[newguydude1]

lets take this backwards.

goals
i want elemental wildshape elder
i want elemental companion
on a different druid i want to enter master of many forms and go all the way to the 10th level of it.
reason is because i like both master of many forms and elder elemental shape. i always wanted to try it in a game. seems fun and awesome.

other goals
i want to help other npcs advance, for a lack of a better word, technology. i want to help them make iron colossus. i want to make an iron colossus myself. i want to help them make some kind of super aberration monster like an artificial worm that walks or gibbering orb or whatever.
i want to help npcs who graft. like if they want to make a 20 armed creature stitched with arms of 20 different monsters, as long as its not undead i want to help them.
i want to cast awaken construct on the iron colossus, give it the best feat combination possible, and set it loose on the world. its gonna call my druid mommy.

problems
druid reverance of nature conflicts with metal constructs or unnatural things.
not going druid robs me of elemental wildshape elder, elemental companion, and entry into master of many forms.

what i dont want to do
keep natures cycle of death and life going. those things under other goals results in immortal superior beings.

solution????
give me something that works if evolution angle doesnt. if its possible. if its impossible then i guess thats that. i become sad and never play master of many forms or play with elemental wildshape.


This is an absurdly distorted view of druids, and I have absolutely no idea where you’re getting any of this from.

seriosuly?

wizard: im gonna fuse owl and bear to make owlbear!!!!
druid: you bastard. you are committing an unspeakable atrocitiy. how dare you defile nature with your perverted wizardry experiments!!! die!!!!

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by newguydude1
give me something that works if evolution angle doesnt.

We’ve tried. We’ve really, honestly tried.


Originally Posted by Faerie Godfather
I would start by making a hybrid class out of Artificer and Soulknife, and then point you in the direction of some of the Prestige Classes that turn the character into Living Constructs.


Originally Posted by Aotrs Commander
Perhaps consider Archivist instead?


Originally Posted by Palanan
…it might be more productive if you started another thread (preferably without the “rules”) to look for ways to add your desired elements to a wizard chassis.


Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx
…why not play a Spirit Shaman?


Originally Posted by Malphegor
I really do think the solution to all of this is play an Urban Druid for the construct wildshape and animated object companion and focus on that aspect over the wild nature in a city aspects.


Originally Posted by Red Fel
If what you want is a construct-focused Druid, then I agree with everyone else - go Urban Druid and be done.



We have given you options to spare, but you don’t seem interested in considering anything we suggest.

At this point there’s no reason to say anything more.

[newguydude1]

We’ve tried. We’ve really, honestly tried.

We have given you options to spare, but you don’t seem interested in considering anything we suggest.

At this point there’s no reason to say anything more.


not going druid robs me of elemental wildshape elder, elemental companion, and entry into master of many forms.

does any of those options solve this problem?

perhaps theres no reason for at least you to say anything more. i get it. you are someone who thinks druids must love plants. there is nothing that will change your mind. and all you're doing is brow beating this to me when everything you say has nothing to do with what im trying to do. which is sorcerer or wizard mindset with druid toys specifically elemental wildshape, elemental comapnion, and master of many forms. how many times have i repeated that i want to try these three things out to you and yet you keep saying other classes that cant use these.'

i say i want to use these three things in my next character. you spew some other class that doesnt have them.
i say i want to use these three things in my next character. you spew some other class i dont care about
i again i say i want to use these three things in my next character. again you brow beat some other class that doesnt have them and therefore i dont care about.
what part of i want to use elemental wildshape do you not understand????????????? how many more times do i have to repeat that i want to use elemental wildshape???????

if your not gonna help me try to get a construct loving character with elemental wildshape and master of many forms then yes, there is no reason for you to say anymore.

[Psyren]

seriosuly?

wizard: im gonna fuse owl and bear to make owlbear!!!!
druid: you bastard. you are committing an unspeakable atrocitiy. how dare you defile nature with your perverted wizardry experiments!!! die!!!!

How do you know this didn't happen? :smalltongue:

The guy who made owlbears isn't around anymore after all.

[newguydude1]

How do you know this didn't happen? :smalltongue:

The guy who made owlbears isn't around anymore after all.

whether it happened or not is not the important part. the important part is i dont want to be the guy who gets mad at guys who make owlbears.

[Nifft]

whether it happened or not is not the important part. the important part is i dont want to be the guy who gets mad at guys who make owlbears. Maybe I missed something...

Did someone in this thread say that you have to get mad about owlbears?

[Psyren]

if your not gonna help me try to get a construct loving character with elemental wildshape and master of many forms then yes, there is no reason for you to say anymore.

Given that an Urban Druid's Urban Shape "functions identically to wild shape except the list of forms is more specialized" - couldn't it be used to qualify for PrCs and feats that require wild shape? Your GM should be able to okay using it for Master of Many Forms, and that solves your problems.

[Draconi Redfir]

this might be the kind of thing that can only be talked about with the DM of the game. or by finding and replacing. Maybe you can look around normal animal companions, find one that has stats that are similar to the elemental companion you want, and then see if the DM will allow you to substitute the animal for the elemental instead?

[newguydude1]

Given that an Urban Druid's Urban Shape "functions identically to wild shape except the list of forms is more specialized" - couldn't it be used to qualify for PrCs and feats that require wild shape? Your GM should be able to okay using it for Master of Many Forms, and that solves your problems.

ok dragon compendium might be allowed in my dms game. dragon magazine is a definite no.
he is gonna want rules or examples of "functions like something" qualifying for prerequisites. but i suspect hes gonna bring up artificers infusions and psionic powers functioning like spells and then how they cant be used as prerequisites. so thats probably a no.

momf is one of what i want to try out. elemental elder wildshape is the other.

edit: nope. he says dragon compendium is official 3rd party. urban druid is out so the other debate doesnt need to come up.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by newguydude1
i get it. you are someone who thinks druids must love plants.

You’ve specifically asked about established D&D lore regarding druids.

Well, the established lore is that druids love both plants and animals. That’s a fundamental aspect of the class. You seem to be the only one trying to strip it out.


Originally Posted by newguydude1
momf is one of what i want to try out. elemental elder wildshape is the other.

If you are genuinely interested in those elements alone, then you would be best advised to create a new thread specifically addressing how to acquire those elements on a non-druid chassis.

If you can simply declare you don't want any solution involving the druid base class, that will remove any discussion involving druids, and should allow a laser focus on non-druid approaches to acquiring those elements.


Originally Posted by Nifft
Did someone in this thread say that you have to get mad about owlbears?

No one has.

He just keeps coming out with that, and similar claims which have absolutely no textual support.

.

[Doctor Despair]

If you want MoMF, you could do the Ranger Wildshape Variant from Unearthed Arcana.

Gain: Wild shape (as druid; Small or Medium animals only), fast movement (as barbarian).

Lose: Combat style, improved combat style, combat style mastery.

[Demidos]

If I understand correctly, you're looking for a fluff justification that allows you to play a druid that takes a mindset that would typically be reserved for a wizard in terms of progress. You want specific rules to back this up, rather than intent.

It's a bit difficult to prove this conclusively in such a way that your DM will be "forced" to accept it, since, as many posters above have mentioned, ultimately regardless of how explicit RAW try to be, there will always be a large space for interpretation. That being said, I'll try my best to come up with a few concepts that might help your pitch.

Eternity -- The druid is concerned not with the minutiae of day to day existence, but the slow heat death of the universe, where everything will slowly fade to dust. The druid can try to hasten it, seeing it as the one purest expression of the triumph of nature over civilization, by egging on the progress of civilization to watch them burn. Alternately, he can view civilization as the means to stop it, via creating permanent expressions of life (e.g. developing golems/elementals. Undead are a failed attempt since they slowly decay and rot over time (may or may not be applicable at your table)).

Simplicity and Purity -- The simplest forms can be the best ones. A pure metal golem, water elemental, or other similar being returns the world back in time towards the most simple building blocks of the universe. Ironically, progress is the simplest way to reduce the natural world back to it's simplest parts. At least, until the conversion is complete and progress is no longer required...


Do any of these match the regular druid fluff? Not particularly, as that tends to be more about cycles and slow sustainable change. But it's close enough that a good roleplayer could make people begin to doubt their preconceived notions, which sounds like it might be enough to convince your DM.

[newguydude1]

If I understand correctly, you're looking for a fluff justification that allows you to play a druid that takes a mindset that would typically be reserved for a wizard in terms of progress. You want specific rules to back this up, rather than intent.

not "rules" cause this is fluff stuff. like a similar example done by a different druid npc, or something. i dont know. just something. like in the other thread some nice people have provided omnicidal druid prcs or stuff like nightbringer druids. they are similar to what i wanted to do in that so that is enough "proof" that what i want to do is valid.


Eternity -- The druid is concerned not with the minutiae of day to day existence, but the slow heat death of the universe, where everything will slowly fade to dust. The druid can try to hasten it, seeing it as the one purest expression of the triumph of nature over civilization, by egging on the progress of civilization to watch them burn. Alternately, he can view civilization as the means to stop it, via creating permanent expressions of life (e.g. developing golems/elementals. Undead are a failed attempt since they slowly decay and rot over time (may or may not be applicable at your table)).

thats brilliant! i like this a lot!!

edit: gotta actually think about this one a lot. ill post it after i get it worked out.


Simplicity and Purity -- The simplest forms can be the best ones. A pure metal golem, water elemental, or other similar being returns the world back in time towards the most simple building blocks of the universe. Ironically, progress is the simplest way to reduce the natural world back to it's simplest parts. At least, until the conversion is complete and progress is no longer required....

i dont like this one. golems are complicated.


If you want MoMF, you could do the Ranger Wildshape Variant from Unearthed Arcana.

Gain: Wild shape (as druid; Small or Medium animals only), fast movement (as barbarian).

Lose: Combat style, improved combat style, combat style mastery.

thank you! i will look this over. thanks.

[magicalmagicman]

Your druid reveres stars and celestial bodies. And whatever that lets you get closer to or wield the stars and celestial bodies is what your druid strives to obtain. Dyson Spheres are wielding the stars and you're gonna need constructs to build and maintain them for example.

So your druid should be able to refine metals to create flying fortresses or space ships to reach the celestial bodies she desires to be one with.

[FaerieGodfather]

there are, and there cannot be, hard rules about it. if someone actually made rules about it, then it's like the old class/race restrictions, restricting creativity and enforcing archetypes for no real reason.

Enforcing fluff-based archetypes is a real and valid reason for imposing restrictions on character choices. They're the entire reason that D&D has "classes" and "races" instead of a point-buy system like Mutants & Masterminds, and even M&M has very clear fluff-based restrictions on what characters can and cannot do-- they just mostly apply in play, to in character decisions, rather than character creation decisions.

I think it's generally a good thing for these archetypes to be broad and flexible enough to support many unique characters, but they have to remain narrow and rigid enough to provide structure and meaning.

OP's character concept is perfectly viable for... probably most D&D games, include nearly all D&D games that I'd run, but it's not a Druid. There are multiple existing classes that make sense for it, that have been suggested by myself and others, but Druid is not one of them. The powers he specifically wants from the Druid class do not make sense for the concept he's describing, and the Prestige Classes he wants to use those powers to qualify for do not fit the concept he's describing.

I do not want to tell anyone the One Right Way to build or play their character, but for every single character concept imaginable, there are some ways that are Just Wrong, that Just Don't Work. This... appears to be combining several of them.

[newguydude1]

Your druid reveres stars and celestial bodies. And whatever that lets you get closer to or wield the stars and celestial bodies is what your druid strives to obtain. Dyson Spheres are wielding the stars and you're gonna need constructs to build and maintain them for example.

So your druid should be able to refine metals to create flying fortresses or space ships to reach the celestial bodies she desires to be one with.

anyone have a problem with this? planet and star lover druid using tools to be one with them?

[King of Nowhere]

Enforcing fluff-based archetypes is a real and valid reason for imposing restrictions on character choices. They're the entire reason that D&D has "classes" and "races" instead of a point-buy system like Mutants & Masterminds, and even M&M has very clear fluff-based restrictions on what characters can and cannot do-- they just mostly apply in play, to in character decisions, rather than character creation decisions.

I think it's generally a good thing for these archetypes to be broad and flexible enough to support many unique characters, but they have to remain narrow and rigid enough to provide structure and meaning.

OP's character concept is perfectly viable for... probably most D&D games, include nearly all D&D games that I'd run, but it's not a Druid. There are multiple existing classes that make sense for it, that have been suggested by myself and others, but Druid is not one of them. The powers he specifically wants from the Druid class do not make sense for the concept he's describing, and the Prestige Classes he wants to use those powers to qualify for do not fit the concept he's describing.

I do not want to tell anyone the One Right Way to build or play their character, but for every single character concept imaginable, there are some ways that are Just Wrong, that Just Don't Work. This... appears to be combining several of them.

we have to separate fluff and mechanics here. fluff does not interfere with mechanics. For example, you cna make pelor an evil god, and besides changing its domains and portfolio accordingly, a cleric of pelor works mechanically all the same. or you can say that you are a half-human, half-gnome breed and use the stats of a dwarf.

on the other hand, in this specific case, druids got some abilities... animal companion... move in wilderness... cast plant-related spells... summon animals... yeah, the druid does not mechanically support the concept the OP was proposing. It can be done with some extensive reworking, by swapping out nature-related abilities with similar ones more befitting a theme. and it's easier doing it this way than taking a wizard and modifying it. But the OP was asking for RAW solutions, which this homebrewing clearly would not be.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by King of Nowhere
we have to separate fluff and mechanics here. fluff does not interfere with mechanics.

This is an artificial distinction, and the best example is the key issue here: the requirement for druids to venerate nature.

Failing to do so has specific mechanical consequences. A druid who ceases to venerate nature ceases to function as a druid, according to the PHB p.37, and the OP’s character concept is unworkable because of this.

The OP keeps saying “it’s ok to say no,” and he asked for rules citations, but when people cite those rules he doesn't acknowledge them.


Originally Posted by Faerie Godfather
There are multiple existing classes that make sense for it, that have been suggested by myself and others, but Druid is not one of them. The powers he specifically wants from the Druid class do not make sense for the concept he's describing, and the Prestige Classes he wants to use those powers to qualify for do not fit the concept he's describing.

Case in point, Faerie Godfather has been giving some of the best responses in this thread, clear and concise explanations of why the OP’s concept can’t work on a druid chassis. But these explanations are being ignored.


Originally Posted by King of Nowhere
For example, you cna make pelor an evil god, and besides changing its domains and portfolio accordingly, a cleric of pelor works mechanically all the same.

This is a poor example, because in this case the cleric of Evil Pelor can’t spontaneously cast healing spells the way a cleric of the original Pelor can. That’s a clear mechanical difference between the two.


Originally Posted by Doctor Despair
If you want MoMF, you could do the Ranger Wildshape Variant from Unearthed Arcana.

This to me looks like the perfect solution, since it avoids every last one of the issues with using a druid.

[Doctor Despair]

This is an artificial distinction, and the best example is the key issue here: the requirement for druids to venerate nature.

...

This to me looks like the perfect solution, since it avoids every last one of the issues with using a druid.

I agree that the Ranger variant is simpler/more elegant/more thematic all around, but to be fair, does 3.5 define "revere" as a game mechanic? Could be some room to dispute how a druid must revere nature. If revere is just respect, maybe the ultimate way to show respect for nature's strength is to try to destroy it? Obviously goes against the fluff, but the only hard-coded disqualifier from the class is the reverence, not the fluff.

Additionally, just from a crunch perspective, Urban Druid is missing the "Ex Druid" feature, so if you can swing the fluff regarding your love and devotion to "the city" (unclear in its use if it is singular or plural, although context implies plural), that could work. If it's singular, maybe you want to bring an end to all other cities and the nature around them out of some twisted, fierce competitiveness?

But overall, if he just wants to hit MoMF, ranger definitely requires way fewer thrown DMGs.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Doctor Despair
But overall, if he just wants to hit MoMF, ranger definitely requires way fewer thrown DMGs.

As far as I can tell, wildshape ranger does the job with no issues whatsoever. Seems like a win all around.

[Psyren]

Well, a wildshape ranger would have to wildshape into animals for a little while before the rest of the concept comes online, so I suppose there's that negative. OP could just refrain from using it until after having entered MoMF though.


anyone have a problem with this? planet and star lover druid using tools to be one with them?

You mean other than a "Dyson Sphere" not being present in any rulebook so your GM would have to help you figure this out?

[magicalmagicman]

You mean other than a "Dyson Sphere" not being present in any rulebook so your GM would have to help you figure this out?

All this talk about creating iron colossus stuff that calls the OP's druid mommy clearly means the OP has epic level intentions so I threw in Dyson Sphere because why not.

For a more realistic goal, spaceship. A druid that creates constructs that construct, maintain, and operate a spaceship (spelljammer has something like spaceships IIRC? Not familiar with the setting) because she wants to get closer to the stars.

Reveres nature? Check. Celestial bodies are nature. And the other thread has ample amounts of druids revering only a specific part of nature and causing harm to living things including animals in their reverence to that specific part only.

Possible conflict? I actually looked into the whole metal thing and I can definitely say the OP is misunderstanding something.
Mechanically, Druids are just prohibited from wearing metal ARMOR and SHIELDs. They are not prohibited from wielding metal weapons. They have scimitar proficiency.
There is absolutely no repercussions for a druid for creating magical weapons, armors, and items metal or otherwise. Or constructs.
The only criteria for permanently losing spellcasting is ceasing to revering nature, becoming non-neutral alignment, or teaching the druidic language to a non-druid.

In other words, there is no conflict. There is no repercussion for a druid for living in a civilized city and taking part in heavy industry and crafting Iron Colossi.

Everything fits. There is no betrayal of fluff anywhere.

Unless you disagree.

[Quertus]

So, combining these two threads…

Urban Druid A) would be great, but b) is not allowed at the OP's table, and C) is 3rd party, so cannot speak to how Druids' definition of "Nature" is fluid.

Walker in the Waste, however, is 1st party, and thus *does* speak to how Druids' definition of "Nature" is fluid. But how does WitW revere nature?

Does it love puppies? No, it would happily not only kick the puppy, but turn it into a desiccated, mummified exhibit. It unnaturally raises the temperature around itself. It creates constructs, and undead (!), eventually becoming undead itself (!!). And all this is not enough to qualify as "falling to revere Nature".

Now, the desert is it's own thriving, self-sustaining ecosystem (at least in our world). So, the Walker in the Waste still reveres *some* form of nature, even while hating the rest.

Except… does that "Nature" need to be naturally formed? Well, no, the Walker in the Waste will happily create unnatural, artificial desert conditions. Does that "Nature" need to be naturally self-sustaining? Well, no, the Walker in the Waste zealously defends the waste against anything that would naturally cause their waste to evolve.

So, by RAW, there is a *lot* of leeway with regards to what a Druid has to do to stop counting as "revering nature".

Now, to have an unnatural ecosystem to revere as their own personal "Nature", at the extremes you seem to want, I think you'll need recycling programs, and Constructs that can build copies of themselves from the bodies of "deactivated" Constructs - sentient Iron Golem Wizards mining & melting down other Iron Golems to forge more sentient Iron Golems, for example.

[newguydude1]

Possible conflict? I actually looked into the whole metal thing and I can definitely say the OP is misunderstanding something.
Mechanically, Druids are just prohibited from wearing metal ARMOR and SHIELDs. They are not prohibited from wielding metal weapons. They have scimitar proficiency.
There is absolutely no repercussions for a druid for creating magical weapons, armors, and items metal or otherwise. Or constructs.
The only criteria for permanently losing spellcasting is ceasing to revering nature, becoming non-neutral alignment, or teaching the druidic language to a non-druid..

omg you are absolutely correct. the restrictions of druid is far more lenient than i thought it was!!!!!!


So, by RAW, there is a *lot* of leeway with regards to what a Druid has to do to stop counting as "revering nature".

i know!!!! its amazing!!!!!!



ok so lets just figure everything out now right now.

phb said druids hate civilization, undead, and aberrations.

lords of madness has druids loving aberrations because aberrations are alien nature.
faiths of eberron has druids revering and creating undead. thats right. they view evil as a necessary to balance good. and their feat, nightbringer initiate, adds create greater undead to the druid spell list.
sandstorm has druids making even more undead and killing animals. and making constructs.

so phb saying druids hate undead and aberration is just a normal druid. an abnormal druid can love undead and aberrations with no repercussions. and eberron druids love undead.

mechanically, as magicalmagicman says, there is nothing a druid cant do. a druid can do anything. make undead. murder animals. a druid can do anything.
the only thing they have to do is revere nature. thats it. you can create abominations of super mutant monsters stitched together because nothing in the class stops you from doing this.

so metal armor making you lose spellcasting, im a chalk that off as metal armor somehow interferes with druid's method of obtaining spells like how a dead magic zone interferes with a wizard's method of obtaining spells. its not a roleplay thing. its not a vow thing. its simply a repercussion of a particular method of obtaining magic. so i dont have to justify it with rp background or personality stuff.



ok so im happy now. im a play druid. ill figure something out. like a druid that loves stars and elementals and focuses on that only. she doesnt hate the unnatural, there is no requirement for druids to hate the unnatural, which means i can make all the iron colossi i want.

she likes animals like how a normal human likes pet cats. but doesnt like the bad parts of animals so she focuses on stars.

ok thanks everyone! wow! you all been so helpful!

[Psyren]

Unless you disagree.

I don't disagree but I do have more to add.

I agree there's nothing wrong with a druid making constructs (and indeed, there are various wooden, stone and other natural/plant-based constructs they could make.)

I do however see a distinction between making a scimitar and making an iron colossus. The amount of raw materials (e.g. metal) required for the latter could potentially be difficult to source without harming nature in some way. The creature itself could also be inherently disruptive to nature once made, unless commanded to stand still or avoid natural areas.

Assuming you found a way around those, that specific construct might not be a problem, but I would still aim for something a bit more nature-friendly.



ok so lets just figure everything out now right now.

phb said druids hate civilization, undead, and aberrations.

lords of madness has druids loving aberrations because aberrations are alien nature.
faiths of eberron has druids revering and creating undead. thats right. they view evil as a necessary to balance good. and their feat, nightbringer initiate, adds create greater undead to the druid spell list.
sandstorm has druids making even more undead and killing animals. and making constructs.


Not to dampen your enthusiasm but keep two things in mind:

1) None of those variant types of druid actually remove the PHB requirement to revere nature. So if your undead creatures or aberrations despoil nature, you could still be held metaphysically liable - no different than if you were doing standard animal/plant stuff and harmed nature too, except that for undead it might be even more likely. For example, if you make any undead that are capable of creating spawn, you have a responsibility to keep them in check and not have them wipe out an area's fauna.

2) Eberron in particular is very lenient when it comes to divine classes and falling. It's possible that something you find there (like the Nightbringer stuff) can be used elsewhere, but by default setting-specific material only exists in that setting, so keep that in mind.

[Doctor Despair]

I don't disagree but I do have more to add.

I agree there's nothing wrong with a druid making constructs (and indeed, there are various wooden, stone and other natural/plant-based constructs they could make.)

I do however see a distinction between making a scimitar and making an iron colossus. The amount of raw materials (e.g. metal) required for the latter could potentially be difficult to source without harming nature in some way. The creature itself could also be inherently disruptive to nature once made, unless commanded to stand still or avoid natural areas.

Assuming you found a way around those, that specific construct might not be a problem, but I would still aim for something a bit more nature-friendly.

...


1) None of those variant types of druid actually remove the PHB requirement to revere nature. So if your undead creatures or aberrations despoil nature, you could still be held metaphysically liable - no different than if you were doing standard animal/plant stuff and harmed nature too, except that for undead it might be even more likely. For example, if you make any undead that are capable of creating spawn, you have a responsibility to keep them in check and not have them wipe out an area's fauna.


I think the key difference in reading between you and OP is in the plural of nature. OP has looked at all these druid variants and alternative fluff for druid sects in splatbooks and used that as evidence to support a reading that the Ex-Druid requirement that druids must revere nature means that they must revere at least one part of nature. You are reading the requirement as druids needing to revere ALL nature. As nature is both singular and plural, it is a gray area, and the text doesn't seem to explicitly bar a druid from revereing one part of nature to the detriment of others. Using the singular reading, druid that worships all aspects of the ocean could hate forests and want to drown all the land and land-creatures while still revereing nature. However, a DM would be entirely in their rights to read it as all nature, I will admit.

Then, however, we have to ask that question: what does it mean to revere? It's not a game term. Again, this is tossed into DM fiat territory, but it would not be against RAW to have a druid revere nature's power and majesty by trying to destroy it, or in the case of the collosus, respect nature's power so much that he cares not about the damage caused by collecting those raw materials. After all, what harm could he possibly do to nature as a whole with his puny power? It would be the height of arrogance to think that any damage he could do in his miniscule lifespan would harm nature in any lasting way.

[Psyren]

It's less the definition of "revere" that I'm concerned with, than the definition of "nature." A waste druid clearly sees a desert full of little beyond sand and well-preserved corpses as a form of "nature," and if they're a Walker in the Waste specifically, they seek to spread that form of "nature" all over the world (unless they're using the more moderate adaptation.)

I don't think there's anything wrong with a few druids having that mindset, nor even a PC being one of them (PCs are generally exceptional individuals, after all.) But nature as a whole includes deserts, swamps, rainforests, jungles, volcanos etc. So while whatever forces grant druidic powers are powering up a waste druid to pursue their agenda, those forces are simultaneously granting druidic powers to druids with a more traditional viewpoint that nature includes green plants and thriving animals. And that I think is where the "balance" that druids champion comes from.

It's possible, in my view, that if any side were to start "winning" - whether that means eradicating all forests or eradicating all deserts - that the forces of nature would react to that. But so long as all those types of druid exist, they can all receive power.

[Quertus]

Not to dampen your enthusiasm but keep two things in mind:

1) None of those variant types of druid actually remove the PHB requirement to revere nature.


druids must revere nature means that they must revere at least one part of nature.

This. There needs to be some "nature", some ecosystem more than the elemental planes, that the Druid actually cares about.

Since all life may well simply be an invention of the gods, incapable of evolution (citation needed), *all* nature may well be artificial, so revering an "artificial" nature (such as my "golems making golems") may well be the default, absolutely normal for Druids. But they have to revere *something*. Not nothing. Not just pure elements, afaict. Some functional ecosystem.

[newguydude1]

I do however see a distinction between making a scimitar and making an iron colossus. The amount of raw materials (e.g. metal) required for the latter could potentially be difficult to source without harming nature in some way. The creature itself could also be inherently disruptive to nature once made, unless commanded to stand still or avoid natural areas.

you can be disruptive to nature. as long as its not the nature you care about. if omnicidal druids are legal then less omnicidal druids are also legal.


1) None of those variant types of druid actually remove the PHB requirement to revere nature. So if your undead creatures or aberrations despoil nature, you could still be held metaphysically liable - no different than if you were doing standard animal/plant stuff and harmed nature too, except that for undead it might be even more likely. For example, if you make any undead that are capable of creating spawn, you have a responsibility to keep them in check and not have them wipe out an area's fauna.

i just need to pick the right nature to revere. still working on it.
nature has adaptability, improvement, and evolution. my druid gonna revere that and gonna consider civilization and heavy industry a part of that.
d&d treats elements as building blocks of nature. my druid gonna revere that.
celestial bodies are nature. my druid gonna revere that. awesome power of the stars and black holes.

animals, druid not gonna care. looking at wild shape changes/alternatives atm so i dont have to wildshape into animals. there are tons. so many options.
undead, i probably wont use it.
aberration, i also probably wont use it.


2) Eberron in particular is very lenient when it comes to divine classes and falling. It's possible that something you find there (like the Nightbringer stuff) can be used elsewhere, but by default setting-specific material only exists in that setting, so keep that in mind.

sandstorm is setting neutral. and fr has talontar blightlord. so i dont think this really applies. all settings has pretty much shown druids can be quite death loving.


This. There needs to be some "nature", some ecosystem more than the elemental planes, that the Druid actually cares about.

Since all life may well simply be an invention of the gods, incapable of evolution (citation needed), *all* nature may well be artificial, so revering an "artificial" nature (such as my "golems making golems") may well be the default, absolutely normal for Druids. But they have to revere *something*. Not nothing. Not just pure elements, afaict. Some functional ecosystem.

nope your wrong.


Every druid reveres nature, but some pay more respect to the fundamental building blocks of the natural world than to its flora and fauna. By forgoing her bond with the animal kingdom, a druid can instead take on an elemental creature as her companion.

i can choose to respect the building blocks than natural world. so ecosystem and stuff is not needed. the acf outright says i sever my bond with the animal kingdom. and even if i am wrong elementals have their own ecosystem. and like you said constructs should have their own ecosystem too. repairing and recycling and reproduction.


It's less the definition of "revere" that I'm concerned with, than the definition of "nature." A waste druid clearly sees a desert full of little beyond sand and well-preserved corpses as a form of "nature," and if they're a Walker in the Waste specifically, they seek to spread that form of "nature" all over the world (unless they're using the more moderate adaptation.)

I don't think there's anything wrong with a few druids having that mindset, nor even a PC being one of them (PCs are generally exceptional individuals, after all.) But nature as a whole includes deserts, swamps, rainforests, jungles, volcanos etc. So while whatever forces grant druidic powers are powering up a waste druid to pursue their agenda, those forces are simultaneously granting druidic powers to druids with a more traditional viewpoint that nature includes green plants and thriving animals. And that I think is where the "balance" that druids champion comes from.

It's possible, in my view, that if any side were to start "winning" - whether that means eradicating all forests or eradicating all deserts - that the forces of nature would react to that. But so long as all those types of druid exist, they can all receive power.

see above. elements are nature. just like the walker only cares about desert, i can only care about elemental planes.

edit: i think im gonna get rid of the celestial objects.
so druid only reveres elementals and evolution/adaptation/improvement. her magic comes from her reverence of the four elemental planes and her character motivation is modeled after the evolution/adaptation/improvement part of nature.

[Quertus]

nope your wrong.



i can choose to respect the building blocks than natural world. so ecosystem and stuff is not needed. the acf outright says i sever my bond with the animal kingdom. and even if i am wrong elementals have their own ecosystem. and like you said constructs should have their own ecosystem too. repairing and recycling and reproduction.



see above. elements are nature. just like the walker only cares about desert, i can only care about elemental planes.

edit: i think im gonna get rid of the celestial objects.
so druid only reveres elementals and evolution/adaptation/improvement. her magic comes from her reverence of the four elemental planes and her character motivation is modeled after the evolution/adaptation/improvement part of nature.

Sigh. OK, as you've said, this is for your table. So, if this half-baked idea is sufficient to con your GM into letting this fly, fine. If not - or if you want to full proof your stance with actual rules-supported and Playgrounder-approved logic - let us know.

[magicalmagicman]

Sigh. OK, as you've said, this is for your table. So, if this half-baked idea is sufficient to con your GM into letting this fly, fine. If not - or if you want to full proof your stance with actual rules-supported and Playgrounder-approved logic - let us know.

I mean, he did quote a druid ACF that severs the druid's bond with the animal kingdom to revere the building blocks of nature. How can this get any more rules-supported? If anything, your demand that only ecosystems can be considered "nature" is unsupported.

[Quertus]

I mean, he did quote a druid ACF that severs the druid's bond with the animal kingdom to revere the building blocks of nature. How can this get any more rules-supported? If anything, your demand that only ecosystems can be considered "nature" is unsupported.

Now that's a fair debate point. :smallwink:

The "server the bond with nature" that the OP quoted *only applies to their Animal Companion* - not to their Wild Shape, not to their Summon Nature's Ally, not to their spells or prohibition on metal armor, and, case in point, not to their edict to *revere nature*.

Now, if it actually systematically replaced every single instance of plants and animals in the Druid class features with elementals? Then there would be solid ground to stand on that any omission in defining how "revere nature" applies was simply an oversight.

As it stands, the scope of the effect is limited solely to the animal companion, and thus has no impact on the separate "revere nature" clause.

So, unless it can be proven that "revere nature" is actually subordinate to the "animal companion" class feature, discussing this ACF in this context is a waste of virtual ink.

-----

My definition of "nature"? I'll not deny that it's a bit sketchy. But here's what we have to work with:

Depending on the campaign world…

Natural things can be evolved.

Natural things can be created.

Natural things can be capable of evolution.

Natural things can be incapable of evolution.

"Nature" need not refer to the whole of nature.

"Nature" can include constructs.

"Nature" can include undead (!)

The smallest subset of Nature presented is an entire, functioning ecosystem.

… etc. Anyone caring to add to the list, and draw better conclusions is welcome.

[magicalmagicman]

Now that's a fair debate point. :smallwink:

The "server the bond with nature" that the OP quoted *only applies to their Animal Companion* - not to their Wild Shape, not to their Summon Nature's Ally, not to their spells or prohibition on metal armor, and, case in point, not to their edict to *revere nature*.

Now, if it actually systematically replaced every single instance of plants and animals in the Druid class features with elementals? Then there would be solid ground to stand on that any omission in defining how "revere nature" applies was simply an oversight.

As it stands, the scope of the effect is limited solely to the animal companion, and thus has no impact on the separate "revere nature" clause.

So, unless it can be proven that "revere nature" is actually subordinate to the "animal companion" class feature, discussing this ACF in this context is a waste of virtual ink.

-----

My definition of "nature"? I'll not deny that it's a bit sketchy. But here's what we have to work with:

Depending on the campaign world…

Natural things can be evolved.

Natural things can be created.

Natural things can be capable of evolution.

Natural things can be incapable of evolution.

"Nature" need not refer to the whole of nature.

"Nature" can include constructs.

"Nature" can include undead (!)

The smallest subset of Nature presented is an entire, functioning ecosystem.

… etc. Anyone caring to add to the list, and draw better conclusions is welcome.

I'm not understanding your point.

Nightbringer druids in Faiths of Eberron revere Mabar. Mabar is, and I quote.
"Mabar, the Endless Night, is a realm of darkness and negative energy. Most inhabitants of Eberron see the plane as inimical to life, and its inhabitants as wholly evil. "

Keywords: Inimical to life, Plane of negative energy.

Nightbringer Druids get away with worshipping a single plane of negative energy inimical to life as "revering nature".
Nightbringer Druids are fully capable of summoning and wild shaping animals despite wanting to put an end to their existences.

The OP is trying to get away with revering the four elemental planes as "revering nature" and disregarding the material plane.
The Elemental ACF quote showed that druids can revere the elemental planes rather than animals, plants, and flora.
Disregarding the material plane is far, far better than trying to emerge it in eternal darkness.

So to me, there's no problem here. Revering a plane or four planes qualifies as "revering nature". Whatever counts as "nature" in a plane of fire, earth, water, and air should count just as much as whatever counts as "nature" in a plane of negative energy. There are elemental templates that can be applied to animals and such in planar handbook iirc.

This is a rule supported argument. Everything I said is based on official 1st party druids.

You on the other hand, from my interpretation, is discussing about what you believe nature is instead of what d&d thinks nature is.

[Psyren]

see above. elements are nature. just like the walker only cares about desert, i can only care about elemental planes.

I never said you couldn't? The stuff you're telling me to "see above" doesn't apply to anything I said.



This is a rule supported argument. Everything I said is based on official 1st party druids.

That goes back to the point I made earlier though. Eberron is 1st-party, yes - but it's not a standard setting, especially when it comes to their treatment of divine casters. Yes, there's a druidic cult there that reveres their equivalent of the negative energy plane, but without knowing anything about the setting the OP's GM is using, that's why he (and you) are getting some of the reactions you are.

I'm not saying the OP can't run such a concept. What I'm saying is that the revere nature clause still applies (because none of these variants, archetypes or PrCs remove it), and finding umpteen examples of variant druids across different settings doesn't mean that your druid is immune from falling no matter what they do.

My personal take would be - yes, you can be a waste druid, and yes, you can keep your powers even if you have a stated goal of championing the death of living things and spreading the waste to the four corners of the world. That's a valid concept (for an evil druid) to play. It's equally valid however, for living things to want to stop you - and for that opposition to grow fiercer the closer you get to actually achieving your goal. It's also valid that the forces of nature might put limits on the number or power of druids that pursue that path, to ensure that the death druids can't outnumber or overpower the pro-life ones, which would result in the demise of nature itself.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
…without knowing anything about the setting the OP's GM is using, that's why he (and you) are getting some of the reactions you are.

This is a valid point that’s been brought up several times, but the OP hasn’t actually given any details on what sources are allowed in his DM’s campaign. He also hasn’t mentioned discussing this whole approach with his DM yet, much less DM approval.


Originally Posted by Psyren
What I'm saying is that the revere nature clause still applies (because none of these variants, archetypes or PrCs remove it), and finding umpteen examples of variant druids across different settings doesn't mean that your druid is immune from falling no matter what they do.

Every word of this is true. It’s a pivotal point, but as near as I can tell it keeps getting brushed aside.


Originally Posted by Psyren
My personal take would be - yes, you can be a waste druid, and yes, you can keep your powers even if you have a stated goal of championing the death of living things and spreading the waste to the four corners of the world.

It’s worth pointing out that “waste” as defined by Sandstorm is very explicitly not lifeless, and “waste” can’t be used as an automatic stand-in for utterly lifeless terrain. Sandstorm gives many examples of life in the waste, so there’s a fundamental difference between “waste” in the Sandstorm sense—which is simply an extreme desert ecosystem—as opposed to, say, the lunar barrens, which are genuinely lifeless in a way that no terrestrial habitat ever is.

[sorcererlover]

It’s worth pointing out that “waste” as defined by Sandstorm is very explicitly not lifeless, and “waste” can’t be used as an automatic stand-in for utterly lifeless terrain. Sandstorm gives many examples of life in the waste, so there’s a fundamental difference between “waste” in the Sandstorm sense—which is simply an extreme desert ecosystem—as opposed to, say, the lunar barrens, which are genuinely lifeless in a way that no terrestrial habitat ever is.

Just stop. Seriously. It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that walker of the waste eradicates all water from his domains and that life cannot exist without water. So just stop trying to push your view of druids on others when RAW completely disagrees you. Read the disclaimer. This is a RAW thread. What you want has no relevance here. Either show us where in sandstorm says certain living creatures can live without water or stop pushing your nonsense on others. No one is buying it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by sorcererlover
This is a RAW thread.

The OP said that at first, and then completely reversed himself:


Originally Posted by newguydude1 in the OP
this is about my table and raw only.


Originally Posted by newguydude1 one page later
not "rules" cause this is fluff stuff.




Originally Posted by sorcererlover
Either show us where in sandstorm says certain living creatures can live without water….

Living without water has no relevance to the definition of a waste as presented on p. 4 of Sandstorm.

.

[Quertus]

I'm not understanding your point.

Nightbringer druids in Faiths of Eberron revere Mabar. Mabar is, and I quote.
"Mabar, the Endless Night, is a realm of darkness and negative energy. Most inhabitants of Eberron see the plane as inimical to life, and its inhabitants as wholly evil. "

Keywords: Inimical to life, Plane of negative energy.

Just the part you've quoted? It tells how they are seen. Not even the Druids, just how the plane is seen. So let's cross off those first keywords of "Inimical to life", as they're irrelevant to this discussion.

Eberon Druids can revere a negative energy plane? OK, cool, Druids and elemental planes always had a connection, and Walker in the Waste clearly gave a thumbs up to Undead and negative energy. Before these threads, I wouldn't have believed it (so you've convinced me of more than I entered these threads believing, don't get me wrong - but it's not about belief, it's about proof). But there's nothing in there that says that they stop revering nature. I can revere… Albert Einstein and Gandhi. If there's a class that requires revering Einstein, I don't get to say "I can ignore that, because Bob is that class, and he revered Gandhi". So, they revere a negative energy plane? Awesome. Tell me how they revere Nature.

The issue I'm having is a matter of when you're taking logical leaps not directly supported by the quoted text.

[sorcererlover]

{Scrubbed}

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by sorcererlover
…stop pushing your nonsense on others.

First, please dial back the aggression in your tone. Please don’t attack my perspective as “nonsense.” That doesn’t help anyone.


Originally Posted by sorcererlover
Are we talking about the waste?

I’m talking about the waste as Psyren mentioned it in post #55 above.


Originally Posted by Quertus
But there's nothing in there that says that they stop revering nature.

Exactly the same point made by Psyren. It’s fundamental, but keeps getting sidestepped or ignored.

[sorcererlover]

Exactly the same point made by Psyren. It’s fundamental, but keeps getting sidestepped or ignored.

I will repeat.

How does the definition of a waste found on p.4 of sandstorm affect this line


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

How does the definition of the waste presented on p.4 of Sandstorm have any relevance to this sentence? How does the definition of the waste presented on p.4 of Sandstorm change the fact that the Walker of the Waste takes extensive precautions to ensures there is not even a touch of water in his entire domain?

Please explain.

[Psyren]

sorcererlover - that line applies to Walkers in the Waste who have "attained the pinnacle of their career." Dry Liches in other words, who have a stated weakness to coming into contact with any water - not all druids in general.

And really, there's a degree of common sense here - before you become a dry lich, you still need water to survive, so clearly eradicating all water before then would be not just impractical, but actively self-destructive.

[magicalmagicman]

But there's nothing in there that says that they stop revering nature.

I'm sorry I still don't quite understand what you are saying.

The elemental companion ACF says the elementals (and their planes) are the building blocks of nature. Therefore they are a part of nature. Therefore anyone who reveres them reveres nature.
The OP said he wants to revere the four elemental planes. There his druid is revering nature.

Where is the logical leap from the quoted text?


sorcererlover - that line applies to Walkers in the Waste who have "attained the pinnacle of their career." Dry Liches in other words, who have a stated weakness to coming into contact with any water - not all druids in general.

And really, there's a degree of common sense here - before you become a dry lich, you still need water to survive, so clearly eradicating all water before then would be not just impractical, but actively self-destructive.

Druids can walk the path of the Walker. The path of the Walker is becoming a lich that tries to kill all life. Therefore druids can become liches that try to kill all life.

I don't understand what's going on here either. I think Palanan is trying to say that it's impossible for a druid to be omnicidal, but his reasoning is incomprehensible to me.

[Psyren]

I'm sorry I still don't quite understand what you are saying.

The elemental companion ACF says the elementals (and their planes) are the building blocks of nature. Therefore they are a part of nature. Therefore anyone who reveres them reveres nature.
The OP said he wants to revere the four elemental planes. There his druid is revering nature.

Where is the logical leap from the quoted text?

I don't think "revering elemental planes" is the problem. (I in fact provided some Pathfinder druid archetypes that do exactly this.)

The problem comes when his druid tries to do things like, and I quote, "create something like tyranids from warhammer 40k which would consume all life on a planet and that blast off to outer space to continue to do the same." Or indeed from his other thread, "submerge all of nature in a sea of eternal flames."

[magicalmagicman]

I don't think "revering elemental planes" is the problem. (I in fact provided some Pathfinder druid archetypes that do exactly this.)

The problem comes when his druid tries to do things like, and I quote, "create something like tyranids from warhammer 40k which would consume all life on a planet and that blast off to outer space to continue to do the same." Or indeed from his other thread, "submerge all of nature in a sea of eternal flames."

How is submerging all of nature in a sea of eternal flame any different than druids trying to submerge the world in eternal darkness?
He hasn't mentioned the Tyranid thing since he changed his "reverence" to elemental planes. Only Iron Colossi.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by sorcererlover
How does the definition of a waste found on p.4 of sandstorm affect this line….

Sandstorm (p. 4) defines a waste as having any one of five traits—dryness, ash, dust, heat, sand. Any one of these qualifies an area as a waste. The complete lack of water is not a defining characteristic of a waste, since warm temperatures, sandy terrain, dust and ash are not mutually exclusive with the presence of water.

A waste is not defined as being utterly without water, so a waste is not lifeless, as the section “Life in the Waste” describes in detail.


Originally Posted by sorcererlover
How does the definition of the waste presented on p.4 of Sandstorm change the fact that the Walker of the Waste takes extensive precautions to ensures there is not even a touch of water in his entire domain?

Reading through the PrC, the Walker has no class features that actually do this.

The Walker has no ability to completely desiccate a landscape. The Walker can desiccate individuals with a touch attack, and the Walker can heat the air in a 100-foot radius around him. But that’s not a desiccation effect, that’s a heat effect.

And that’s not even a permanent heat effect. Once he moves on, that area no longer receives the benefits of the Walker’s heating.

And that’s it. The Walker receives no actual class features that can prevent water from existing in a landscape. Standing right next to a Walker—yes, that’s quite toasty. Standing on the other end of a ballpark from him—is perfectly normal.


Originally Posted by Psyren
The problem comes when his druid tries to do things like, and I quote, "create something like tyranids from warhammer 40k which would consume all life on a planet and that blast off to outer space to continue to do the same." Or indeed from his other thread, "submerge all of nature in a sea of eternal flames."

This is indeed the problem.

[sorcererlover]

Sandstorm (p. 4) defines a waste as having any one of five traits—dryness, ash, dust, heat, sand. Any one of these qualifies an area as a waste. The complete lack of water is not a defining characteristic of a waste, since warm temperatures, sandy terrain, dust and ash are not mutually exclusive with the presence of water.

A waste is not defined as being utterly without water, so a waste is not lifeless, as the section “Life in the Waste” describes in detail.



Reading through the PrC, the Walker has no class features that actually do this.

The Walker has no ability to completely desiccate a landscape. The Walker can desiccate individuals with a touch attack, and the Walker can heat the air in a 100-foot radius around him. But that’s not a desiccation effect, that’s a heat effect.

And that’s not even a permanent heat effect. Once he moves on, that area no longer receives the benefits of the Walker’s heating.

And that’s it. The Walker receives no actual class features that can prevent water from existing in a landscape. Standing right next to a Walker—yes, that’s quite toasty. Standing on the other end of a ballpark from him—is perfectly normal.



This is indeed the problem.

Ok, so now you are saying "there are no actual mechanics related to the Walker taking extensive precautions to ensure not even a touch of water enters his domain therefore we can pretend this line doesn't exist".

{Scrubbed}

edit: and again you failed to explain how the definition of a waste has anything to do with the Walker removing all water from his domain.

[Psyren]

How is submerging all of nature in a sea of eternal flame any different than druids trying to submerge the world in eternal darkness?



Druids can walk the path of the Walker. The path of the Walker is becoming a lich that tries to kill all life. Therefore druids can become liches that try to kill all life.

I don't understand what's going on here either. I think Palanan is trying to say that it's impossible for a druid to be omnicidal, but his reasoning is incomprehensible to me.

The best way I can explain it, is that I think starting on a path and actually pulling it off are two different things. Clearly no Walker in the Waste, even the most powerful members of the Dusty Conclave, have actually eradicated all life. Nature is about balance, so empowering some evil druids (even playable ones) that champion death to balance the ones empowered to spread life makes sense.

Put another way - "my druid believes in the power of death and spreading the wasteland to all four corners of the world" is a valid philosophy for at least some druids to have. Would the forces of nature that empower you actually let you succeed in that goal though? His DM might - though that would probably be a dead end for many settings - but in-universe I think there is a line there.


He hasn't mentioned the Tyranid thing since he changed his "reverence" to elemental planes. Only Iron Colossi.

My thoughts on the Iron Colossi thing are upthread.



edit: and again you failed to explain how the definition of a waste has anything to do with the Walker removing all water from his domain.

You may have missed where I explained that passage.

[magicalmagicman]

Sandstorm (p. 4) defines a waste as having any one of five traits—dryness, ash, dust, heat, sand. Any one of these qualifies an area as a waste. The complete lack of water is not a defining characteristic of a waste, since warm temperatures, sandy terrain, dust and ash are not mutually exclusive with the presence of water.

A waste is not defined as being utterly without water, so a waste is not lifeless, as the section “Life in the Waste” describes in detail.

How does a waste as not defined as being utterly without water have anything to do with Walkers of the Waste eliminating all water from his domain?

The Walker removes all touch of water. What does the waste being defined as not being utterly without water have to do with the Walker removing all touch of water?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by sorcererlover
Scrub the post, scrub the quote

{Scrubbed}. I’m reading the text of the PrC and not seeing abilities that match with what’s being claimed.

[magicalmagicman]

Please don’t make insinuations about my motives. I’m reading the text of the PrC and not seeing abilities that match with what’s being claimed.

I'm gonna have to agree with sorcererlover. We shifted from
"the waste has water so the walker doesnt actually remove all water"
to
"the prc has no mechanics that eliminate all water so the walker doesn't actually remove all water"

We're talking about reverence here. Even if the walker fails, his goal is to permanently remove water from the world. Whether he is successful or not does not change the fact that the PrC directly tells you that if you play a Walker your goal is to remove water from the world.

And the definition of the waste and the PrC's lack of "remove water (Su)" doesn't change the fact that the Walker will kill the deity of water at the first chance he gets.

[hamishspence]

"Their domain" in this case, may mean their lair, rather than the desert as a whole.

It's clear that walkers in the waste want desert - but that doesn't have to be lifeless desert.

Sandstorm p93:

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. She and her retinue of horrid monsters are laying siege to a farming settlement on the edge of the Great Waste, ruining crops, destroying irrigation structures, and murdering townsfolk.


She has 9 levels in Walker - so is on the brink of turning into a Dry Lich. And is True Neutral. And wants to create terrain that other asherati can survive in - so, not completely barren.

[magicalmagicman]

My thoughts on the Iron Colossi thing are upthread.

If a druid reveres only the elemental planes and is indifferent or has contempt for animals, plants, and fauna, why would it matter that a large part of it would be harmed in the process of creating an Iron Colossus? Destroying this part of nature to source materials can't be more evil than submerging the world in eternal darkness.

As long as the OP's druid genuinely reveres the elemental planes, I don't think anything will violate his "reverence" unless he does something that harms the elemental planes themselves.


"Their domain" in this case, may mean their lair, rather than the desert as a whole.

It's clear that walkers in the waste want desert - but that doesn't have to be lifeless desert.

Domain means land you own. So unless the Walker is creating the artificial deserts on behalf of someone else, everything that turns to waste is his domain.

It doesn't have to be lifeless desert. Its your character, you can RP whatever way you want. But the Walker described in the PrC is someone that wants a lifeless desert because he hates water that much after he achieves lichdom.

Anyways, I'm exhausted talking about this. I'm pretty sure Palanan is the only person here who thinks omnicidal druids are an impossibility, so I'm dropping the subject.

[hamishspence]

The sample Walker is doing so on behalf of their tribe rather than themselves.


Dry liches are damaged by regular water, the way most undead are by holy water, so it makes sense for them to keep their lairs as dry as possible.

[Psyren]

If a druid reveres only the elemental planes and is indifferent or has contempt for animals, plants, and fauna, why would it matter that a large part of it would be harmed in the process of creating an Iron Colossus? Destroying this part of nature to source materials can't be more evil than submerging the world in eternal darkness.

As long as the OP's druid genuinely reveres the elemental planes, I don't think anything will violate his "reverence" unless he does something that harms the elemental planes themselves.

I'm not trying to definitively place that line either - only that I think there is one.

Harming a specific location in nature to create such a construct might be allowed - or even several spots to create several such constructs - but I think it would depend on factors that aren't being discussed, like the druid's overall goals and motivations. If he's doing it purely for giggles or just because he can, that's probably grounds for a fall. When you're dealing with terms like "reverence" (or for that matter, "nature") that aren't clearly defined in the rules anywhere, there's a level of DM judgement that needs to be applied to the concept as a whole. That's all I'm saying.


The sample Walker is doing so on behalf of their tribe rather than themselves.


Dry liches are damaged by regular water, the way most undead are by holy water, so it makes sense for them to keep their lairs as dry as possible.

Exactly, on both counts.

[hamishspence]

The Wicked Witch of the West from Wizard of Oz might be thought of as the prototype for the Dry Lich. Lives in a dry (but not completely barren) region, is vulnerable to regular water, etc.

[Nifft]

The Wicked Witch of the West from Wizard of Oz might be thought of as the prototype for the Dry Lich. Lives in a dry (but not completely barren) region, is vulnerable to regular water, etc.

Now I want to see the Wizard of Oz done with D&D villains, so she's literally the Wicked Lich of the West.

"What kind of lich are you?"

"I'm not a lich at all!"

[magicalmagicman]

I'm not trying to definitively place that line either - only that I think there is one.

Harming a specific location in nature to create such a construct might be allowed - or even several spots to create several such constructs - but I think it would depend on factors that aren't being discussed, like the druid's overall goals and motivations. If he's doing it purely for giggles or just because he can, that's probably grounds for a fall. When you're dealing with terms like "reverence" (or for that matter, "nature") that aren't clearly defined in the rules anywhere, there's a level of DM judgement that needs to be applied to the concept as a whole. That's all I'm saying.

My guess is that the OP's motivation for Iron Colossi construction is "to create the ultimate "lifeform" and have it call his druid "mommy"".

[Psyren]

My guess is that the OP's motivation for Iron Colossi construction is "to create the ultimate "lifeform" and have it call his druid "mommy"".

That's not a goal though, that's just a means to an end. Why does he want to create the ultimate lifeform? What does he expect this lifeform do? What will it help him accomplish that he couldn't do alone? Is he trying to create a new race to serve him? Improve on perceived deficiencies in an existing one so that it can better survive on its own? Replace all natural life in a region with his artificial creation(s)? All life on the planet? In the universe? And all of that is ignoring setting or campaign motivations his GM might want to be running the game for, or the desires of the other people at the table. "I want to be a druid that reveres elementals/builds iron colossi instead of cultivating animals/plants" isn't a character, it's just a bunch of mechanics.

[magicalmagicman]

That's not a goal though, that's just a means to an end. Why does he want to create the ultimate lifeform? What does he expect this lifeform do? What will it help him accomplish that he couldn't do alone? Is he trying to create a new race to serve him? Improve on perceived deficiencies in an existing one so that it can better survive on its own? Replace all natural life in a region with his artificial creation(s)? All life on the planet? In the universe? And all of that is ignoring setting or campaign motivations his GM might want to be running the game for, or the desires of the other people at the table. "I want to be a druid that reveres elementals/builds iron colossi instead of cultivating animals/plants" isn't a character, it's just a bunch of mechanics.

The guy is still figuring it out. He probably makes Iron Colossi on all of his characters and wants to do it with his druid too and made the thread to solve the fluff issues regarding a druid making an artificial unnatural monster. Why you ragging on him like he made a finished character concept? He's been making new druid threads everyday.

[Psyren]

I'm not "ragging" on anyone - I'm attempting to explain some of the reactions he's receiving. I've already said I'm okay with the concept, I'm just adding the caveat that "variant druids exist != I can make any kind of druid I want without falling." And that maybe filling in some of these blanks might help get more folks on board, since that's what he seems to want.

[Calthropstu]

just going off the op.

Ruleswise, so long as a druid reveres nature I see no problem with any other activities. I do see conflicts however, and a gm could easily test you to see which is more important.

You use constructs as an example, but let's do something else instead.

A faerie dragon has had its wings plucked. You have an item that would allow the faerie dragon a... semblance of its former majesty in the form of a pair of demon wings. The grand druid might be able to cast a regeneration, but the spell is costly and you know the dragon can't pay because the person who clipped its wings also stole its treasure horde. Money is tight right now, and with the inability to pay, it is unlikely the dragon will fly any time soon. Do you give the faerie dragon the demon wings forcing a bizarre unnatural union of bone and flesh, or do you let the faerie dragon go on its own business crawling on the ground barely able to survive.

You say your druid hates tools, but would he make a splint for a broken wolf's paw? That's a tool. Or is it "Law of nature Mr Wolf. Yousa gonna die."

There are plenty of ways to interpret "revering nature." Few of them will be wholly wrong.

[sorcererlover]

{Scrubbed}

[Xervous]

MoMF 9 picks up elemental wild shape 2 levels earlier than Druid assuming a 5 level pre-entry phase. The only dissonance there might be the lack of spellcasting. Considering a Druid doesn’t have elemental wild shape until 16! you’re one level off just hand waving the shapeshifting into Shapechange.

It does raise the question of what levels this character expected to be played at.

[magicalmagicman]

MoMF 9 picks up elemental wild shape 2 levels earlier than Druid assuming a 5 level pre-entry phase. The only dissonance there might be the lack of spellcasting. Considering a Druid doesn’t have elemental wild shape until 16! you’re one level off just hand waving the shapeshifting into Shapechange.

It does raise the question of what levels this character expected to be played at.

Shapechange is shorter duration at 10min/level. Wild Shape on the other hand can last all day and cannot be dispelled so a druid who avoids dead magic zones can stay wild shaped 24/7.

[Xervous]

Shapechange is shorter duration at 10min/level. Wild Shape on the other hand can last all day and cannot be dispelled so a druid who avoids dead magic zones can stay wild shaped 24/7.

The first is a hurdle to be overcome by persisting or tagging a few casts/preparations with extend. The other is a downside we could mitigate with dweomerkeeper which lends itself nicely to cleric and DMM persist but I do not believe the OP is at that level of detail yet for nitpicking.

[newguydude1]

i haven't been responding because if i respond i think ill end up getting an infraction again so i just not responding just to be safe.


The first is a hurdle to be overcome by persisting or tagging a few casts/preparations with extend. The other is a downside we could mitigate with dweomerkeeper which lends itself nicely to cleric and DMM persist but I do not believe the OP is at that level of detail yet for nitpicking.

i want to play druid. i played sorcerer, psion, artificer, and cleric. now i want to try druid.


lets take this backwards.

goals
i want elemental wildshape elder
i want elemental companion
on a different druid i want to enter master of many forms and go all the way to the 10th level of it.
reason is because i like both master of many forms and elder elemental shape. i always wanted to try it in a game. seems fun and awesome.

other goals
i want to help other npcs advance, for a lack of a better word, technology. i want to help them make iron colossus. i want to make an iron colossus myself. i want to help them make some kind of super aberration monster like an artificial worm that walks or gibbering orb or whatever.
i want to help npcs who graft. like if they want to make a 20 armed creature stitched with arms of 20 different monsters, as long as its not undead i want to help them.
i want to cast awaken construct on the iron colossus, give it the best feat combination possible, and set it loose on the world. its gonna call my druid mommy.

problems
druid reverance of nature conflicts with metal constructs or unnatural things.
not going druid robs me of elemental wildshape elder, elemental companion, and entry into master of many forms.

what i dont want to do
keep natures cycle of death and life going. those things under other goals results in immortal superior beings.

solution????
give me something that works if evolution angle doesnt. if its possible. if its impossible then i guess thats that. i become sad and never play master of many forms or play with elemental wildshape.



seriosuly?

wizard: im gonna fuse owl and bear to make owlbear!!!!
druid: you bastard. you are committing an unspeakable atrocitiy. how dare you defile nature with your perverted wizardry experiments!!! die!!!!


does any of those options solve this problem?

perhaps theres no reason for at least you to say anything more. i get it. you are someone who thinks druids must love plants. there is nothing that will change your mind. and all you're doing is brow beating this to me when everything you say has nothing to do with what im trying to do. which is sorcerer or wizard mindset with druid toys specifically elemental wildshape, elemental comapnion, and master of many forms. how many times have i repeated that i want to try these three things out to you and yet you keep saying other classes that cant use these.'

i say i want to use these three things in my next character. you spew some other class that doesnt have them.
i say i want to use these three things in my next character. you spew some other class i dont care about
i again i say i want to use these three things in my next character. again you brow beat some other class that doesnt have them and therefore i dont care about.
what part of i want to use elemental wildshape do you not understand????????????? how many more times do i have to repeat that i want to use elemental wildshape???????

if your not gonna help me try to get a construct loving character with elemental wildshape and master of many forms then yes, there is no reason for you to say anymore.

as you can see i have been quite vocal in the subject matter. if you want to help me please don't suggest i play a different class. please dont be unhelpful and say i should play another class again and again and again despite after i directly ask you to not do that.

thanks.

[Psyren]

I apologize, I wasn't aware that wildshape ranger had no way of becoming an elemental.

OP - is your GM open to any Pathfinder material? There are druid archetypes there specifically designed to let you skip all the animal/plant fluff and go straight to elementals if that's what you want, like Tempest Tamer, Elemental Ally, and Death Druid. Apologies if I suggested those previously.

[newguydude1]

I apologize, I wasn't aware that wildshape ranger had no way of becoming an elemental.

OP - is your GM open to any Pathfinder material? There are druid archetypes there specifically designed to let you skip all the animal/plant fluff and go straight to elementals if that's what you want, like Tempest Tamer, Elemental Ally, and Death Druid. Apologies if I suggested those previously.

no need to apologize. i like you in this thread. all your back and forth with magicalmagicman was great. fantastic. you were very helpful. i havent been saying any new half assed reverence stuff cause im thinking about all the stuff you said. you did what i asked which was help me come up with the fluff that lets me do what i want with a druid instead of telling me dont play druid. so you were very helpful.

dm doesnt like pathfinder so no.

i can skip animal stuff. elemental companion and probably aberration shape. havent decided whether i will use wild shape offensively or just for roleplay. im siding on roleplay.

ill also be grabbing summon elemental reserve feat. been looking up threads that optimize that. only problem i have right now is im not confident a large elemental animal companion is gonna be good enough until i hit level 15.

[gogogome]

This is by far the most bizarre thread I've read in a while.

On one side we have a person who wants the mechanics of the druid but not the roleplay, and is asking for help in accomplishing his goals. And the playground provided with many examples of official druids across all settings including Eberron, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and even Setting Neutral, who don't worship plants or animals. Negative energy, elemental planes, lifeless deserts, and I'm pretty sure there was also an eternal winter. Pretty standard stuff. OP asks something, and the playground provides.

But then on the other side we have one person who won't stop "brow beating" the OP to not play druid no matter how many times the OP repeated his wishes of playing druid, and even going as far as ignoring every single example the playgrounders provided throughout both this thread and the other thread all in order to force his view of druids on the OP's table.

I've been trying to understand Palanan's viewpoint but I can't. I just can't. It's so bizarre. Why would someone be so vehemently against druids not worshipping plants and animals to the point of ignoring the mountains of official druids doing exactly that and "brow beating" the OP repeatedly to not play druid no matter how many times the OP asked him to stop? I mean, the OP has made it amply clear that Elemental Wild Shape is his main goal and yet we have Palanan saying


As far as I can tell, wildshape ranger does the job with no issues whatsoever. Seems like a win all around.


This to me looks like the perfect solution, since it avoids every last one of the issues with using a druid.

no matter how many times the OP repeated his wishes of using Elemental Wild Shape.

It's... bizarre.

Could anyone explain Palanan's point of view to me? Why would someone view druids that don't worship nature as such a cataclysmic heretical world ending concept to the point of doing... well, this? How is it a "win" to force the OP to not play druid?

[magicalmagicman]

How is it a "win" to force the OP to not play druid?

I've been wondering about this too. Maybe he loves druids and the thought of a druid not loving nature would kill his love for druids?


I'm attempting to explain some of the reactions he's receiving.

Do you have any thoughts?

[Xervous]

This is by far the most bizarre thread I've read in a while.

On one side we have a person who wants the mechanics of the druid but not the roleplay, and is asking for help in accomplishing his goals. And the playground provided with many examples of official druids across all settings including Eberron, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and even Setting Neutral, who don't worship plants or animals. Negative energy, elemental planes, lifeless deserts, and I'm pretty sure there was also an eternal winter. Pretty standard stuff. OP asks something, and the playground provides.

But then on the other side we have one person who won't stop "brow beating" the OP to not play druid no matter how many times the OP repeated his wishes of playing druid, and even going as far as ignoring every single example the playgrounders provided throughout both this thread and the other thread all in order to force his view of druids on the OP's table.

I've been trying to understand Palanan's viewpoint but I can't. I just can't. It's so bizarre. Why would someone be so vehemently against druids not worshipping plants and animals to the point of ignoring the mountains of official druids doing exactly that and "brow beating" the OP repeatedly to not play druid no matter how many times the OP asked him to stop? I mean, the OP has made it amply clear that Elemental Wild Shape is his main goal and yet we have Palanan saying





no matter how many times the OP repeated his wishes of using Elemental Wild Shape.

It's... bizarre.

Could anyone explain Palanan's point of view to me? Why would someone view druids that don't worship nature as such a cataclysmic heretical world ending concept to the point of doing... well, this? How is it a "win" to force the OP to not play druid?

Elemental wild shape not being on wild shape ranger was already pointed out as semantics earlier when MoMF is in the mix.

[Psyren]

Do you have any thoughts?

I have no additional thoughts on this topic, other than I don't see any reason to not allow 3.P in the year 2020.

[Nifft]

I have no additional thoughts on this topic, other than I don't see any reason to not allow 3.P in the year 2020.

PF:Kingmaker was a bad play experience without the turn-based addon module, so spitefully turning away from Pathfinder out of spite might be considered emotionally valid.



(But I'm kickstarting the sequel so apparently I don't learn...)

[Psyren]

PF:Kingmaker was a bad play experience without the turn-based addon module, so spitefully turning away from Pathfinder out of spite might be considered emotionally valid.



(But I'm kickstarting the sequel so apparently I don't learn...)

The sequel has it built-in, so i think they took that lesson to heart :smallcool:

[gogogome]

Elemental wild shape not being on wild shape ranger was already pointed out as semantics earlier when MoMF is in the mix.

Ok so that explains half of Palanan's viewpoint. He thought Elemental Wild Shape and regular Wild Shape were the same thing.

Any insight about how it's a "win" for him to stop the OP from playing a druid?

[Batcathat]

Any insight about how it's a "win" for him to stop the OP from playing a druid?

To be fair, quite a few of the discussions around here (and, well, most of the internet) contain at least an element of arguing for the sake of arguing. Not saying that's defiantly the reason here, just that the "Someone's arguing about something for no clear reason! How mysterious!" attitude seem unwarranted.

(I'm most certainly no exception myself. How many pages did that "should classes be balanced?" discussion go on for? Arguing is fun.)