Need help understanding D&D Druids from an RP perspective

[Haruspex_Pariah]

I picked a Druid because it looks kind of cool. Unfortunately I am a complete novice when it comes to roleplaying so I'm basically playing the equivalent of a one-miniature wargame. Which is not to say that I don't enjoy studying spell lists and class features, but I do want to get more into the roleplaying side of the roleplaying game.

Now I know that a character's personality doesn't depend entirely on their class, but given that druids in D&D are supposed to be all about the mission to protect nature and the balance of the elements(?) it seems to me that it would be at least a little important to the character. If a druid character deviates too far from drudic ideals then can they really be a druid? At least that's my concern.

Would a druid save a helpless village for money? For the sake of doing good? Or can I just tie it into a vague notion of "balance"?

[OldTrees1]

Like many things, the diversity of characters within a class is great enough that there often is no answer to "Would a Druid do ___?"

D&D Druids are not necessarily "about a mission to protect nature" or "balance the elements".


A Druid generally has a deep enough understanding of natural lore and connection with the natural world that they can do druidic magic. Some Druids then conclude that the natural world should be respected and protected. Others conclude their control over the natural word means the natural world is theirs to order, use, and expend as they see fit.


Your character understands the natural world and has some kind of connection with it. What is their relationship with the natural world? Is nature like a parent to them? Do they consider themselves a steward? Is the natural world just an extension of their will?

What do they think about the power it gives them? Do they feel they have a great responsibility (if so, what is that responsibility)? Do they feel they deserve this power? If so are they deserving due to deeds/responsibilities or are they entitled to the power?

Nature might play a large role in their philosophic beliefs. This might be embracing a more amoral perspective (fewer or no moral claims) or they might say how people differ from the rest of nature imposes more moral responsibilities.

Since Druids are exposed to more types of life, maybe they have a different perspective on which living species count as "people" (this might not be as humanoid centric a perspective as other PCs).


However the biggest takeaway is, it depends on your character.

[Vahnavoi]

The first thing to realize is that "balance" is not vague in the slightest. Absolute, True Neutrality as defined in AD&D books as the alignment for Druids, is about creating a stable system where all of Law, Chaos, Good and Evil exist in modicum. Said stable system is the natural ecosystem of the Prime Material plane - plants, animals, the land, the sea, the sky. Extremist actions by sentient beings and supernatural forces disturb this status quo and need to be counter-balanced or eliminated, lest they destroy the entire natural world. "Extremist", in this case, means any position which says "screw the natural world, I want more than nature gives me!", whether such position stems from Lawful, Chaotic, Good or Evil inclinations.

The naive understanding of balance is often visualized as a pair of scales, where you place or take away weights from either side until the scales are balanced, but a more accurate way would be to visualize it as a feedback loop. (https://images.app.goo.gl/vPgeGgoKFqWESMd47) All changes are measured based on how much they deviate from the desired status quo and then commensurate action is taken to return to it. As a result, druids tend to be both ecologically, culturally and socially conservative. If druids feel radical, it's likely because you, as a player, come from a society where big cities and replacing natural landscapes with human-cultivated ones is the norm. Creation of large rule-of-law societies for benefit of mankind over other types of creatures is highly Lawful, so looked from that perspective, druids start to look like a bunch of anti-civilization luddite hippies. Which, admittedly, they can be, if civilization threatens existence of the natural world.

To give some practical examples of how to apply this attitude to scenarios you might encounter in a game:

So you have this helpless village. Will you save it for "sake of doing good"? Well, the actual things that's "good" to you is balance of the natural world. So, this village, if it's helped, what will it do to the natural world?

1) If this village is just the fringe colony of a larger civilization, then its destruction might not matter at all. Some settlers die, new ones come to replace them, rinse and repeat.

2) If it is instead helped, it might instead expand, bring in invasive species from other lands, hack down the forests and increase erosion of the soil, to the ultimate detriment of both the natural world and the villagers, as the villagers have to take increasingly extreme actions to keep their community afloat.

3) Or, it might be that these villagers are last of their kind. Letting them be destroyed would remove a keystone species from the area, leading to loss of diversity and stagnation, again, to ultimate detriment of both the natural world and the villagers.

In the first situation, a druid might just pass by the entire situation. The system oscillates in the short term, but is stable over long term. Doing something, might have more detrimental effect than doing nothing, so the druid does nothing.

In the second situation, the village is a threat. Rather than helping them, the druid might take active hand in the villagers' destruction. Helping them would be out of the question.

In the third situation, the destruction of the village is a threat. So the druid will help them. The money isn't the core issue, it's just a nice bonus insofar that it lets the druid keep doing druid things.

So which situation is it? That's not something you can decide in the abstract. It's what you, as a player, have to decide, based on the facts of the game situation you actually discover through gameplay. People with identical values but different knowledge of the world can still act differently. Three different druids coming to the same village might make three different evaluations just because they had different levels of knowledge about the situation. Only when they all have the same facts, can they reliably be predicted to act in the same way. Also, since we are talking of a dynamic system, the situation itself may change. The same druid coming to the same village at different points of time may go through all three evaluations and take all three actions. For example, first time around, the villagers might be an endangered species, so the druid helps them out. Next time, they may have expanded beyond their borders, so the druid destroys their outermost farms to reduce their numbers. Last time, the situation may have stabilized, with small villages coming and going, so satisfied, the druid no longer does anything.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

Thanks for the replies. It's definitely given me some things to work with that I hadn't thought about before.

It made me wonder if druids can be political schemers as well; because the actions of towns and kingdoms can have massive effects on the environment. Say a druid who manipulates a kingdom to remain in a state of civil war, because once it stabilizes it will expand and demolish pristine natural spaces. Or is that a little bit too much.

[Vahnavoi]

Druids in D&D were inspired by Celtix druids, who were a priestly class chosen from upper social classes and had a role in religion, education and the justice system.

So of course they can be polical schemers. In 1st Edition AD&D, druids were explicitly part of a singular institution, a secret circle ruled by an arch druid, and had their own secret language specifically for druidic matters. Teaching said secret language to outsiders was a punishable offense. If you aren't scheming with other druids, it implies you're too low rank or too disliked to be let into the circle.

[OldTrees1]

Thanks for the replies. It's definitely given me some things to work with that I hadn't thought about before.

It made me wonder if druids can be political schemers as well; because the actions of towns and kingdoms can have massive effects on the environment. Say a druid who manipulates a kingdom to remain in a state of civil war, because once it stabilizes it will expand and demolish pristine natural spaces. Or is that a little bit too much.

Yes, druids can be political schemers. Just like your example, or in many other ways.

A druid could be the mayor of a town completely surrounded by the "impassable dark forest" that prevents anyone from leaving. Meanwhile the druid sends bribes to the mayors of nearby towns to prevent nosy forest explorers or to silence any that discover the captive town.

The diversity of potential druid characters is huge, and that extends to those that are/are not political schemers.

[Seclora]

Druids, are bunch of folks who have become so attuned to nature that it gives them access to magic. Like a Wizard or a Bard, the Druid's powers come from years of study and training, although most often through an apprenticeship to an older, more experienced Druid, although sometimes through something more like an internship or group study program where they learn beside several other future druids or from several current druids. A group of Druids, called a circle, is made up of all of the philosophically associated druids who are aware of each other. As a DM, I tend to make a distinction between a local group of druids and a global one by referring to a local group as a coven, and the global philosophy as a circle, but not all DMs do so. At heart, a Druid is a wizard with street smarts and no student loans.

Druids are often associated with Balance, but like most book lore, you can ignore that if your DM allows it. Fluff is just what we stuff the mechanics with to make it comfortable, and lore is inherently fluffy. As such, a Druid who lives in a city and uses his connection to nature to direct that society away from harming nature would be valid (And probably enjoys hiking and camping). So too would one who lives on the edge of that society and rallies local fey and beasts to halt their expansion by force. But balance is a really broad thing, and for every druid trying to halt the approach of civilization to protect nature, there's going to be another who spent years studying nature and would really rather just get a drink at the local pub and putz about helping someone cut down a few trees to expand their field, justifying it as recentering the civilization v. nature divide. Balance is kind of dumb like that, and while True Neutral is the traditional druid alignment, it is not the only one. You can absolutely play a Lawful Evil Druid that spites local rulers by cursing their daughters and erecting massive walls of brambles around their castles, a Chaotic Neutral Druid who is concerningly fascinated by the philosophical implications of fire, or a Lawful Good Druid who mostly thinks that Squirrels are underrated and stops crimes by finding logical solutions to villain's wants/needs. Don't feel constrained, your plan is valid.

[Selrahc]

Druids also don't necessarily have to care for nature, or look to preserve it. They are characters who gain power from the natural world. The default characterization assumes this is mutually beneficial, with the druid protecting nature, and nature lending power. There's no enforcement of that relationship. A druid can be a callous consumer of natural power, they can be a deceiver stealing power under false pretences, a leech draining vitality from the world around them, or a dominant predator type concerned only about power rather than preservation. They can be a cynical con artist who worked their way into a circle to learn the rituals, but is only concerned with money, or a dreamer, who doesn't want to hurt nature, but is more concerned about their lost love, or saving their friends or becoming famous.

Don't feel locked into the default characterization of the class. Adventurers are exceptional, so however druidism works for the rest of the setting doesn't have to be how it works for your character.

[Clistenes]

If you take a peek at the 3.5 Eberron sourcebooks, you can see how different Druidic sects can be very different among themselves. They rank from "protect the world against extradimensional threats" to "befriend extradimensional fey", from "work closely with the people, trying to reach a balance between Nature and Civilization" to "kill all people so Nature can be free" and from "protect all the natural world" to "destroy the world so a new one can be reborn from the ashes...".

[King of Nowhere]

Thanks for the replies. It's definitely given me some things to work with that I hadn't thought about before.

It made me wonder if druids can be political schemers as well; because the actions of towns and kingdoms can have massive effects on the environment.

In my campaign world, which has more advanced and structured society than most, druids are advisors for sustainable development. Though the "pollution" is more of a magical nature

[Haruspex_Pariah]

Definitely a lot of cool ideas here, though I may have started a political tangent, which upon reflection may be a completely different playstyle than what our group is up for.

I've decided to figure out who my character is (backstory, motivations etc), and take the druid class as a component of the whole, rather than the prime driver of his actions. Maybe that seems a little obvious in hindsight, but eh this is my first character so I'll learn as I go.

[Vahnavoi]

For a first timer, just reading a few Asterix & Obelix comics and asking yourself "What would Getafix (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asterix_characters#Getafix) do?" would suffice.

[Clistenes]

For a first timer, just reading a few Asterix & Obelix comics and asking yourself "What would Getafix (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asterix_characters#Getafix) do?" would suffice.

Nah, real world Druids were more similar to D&D Clerics than to D&D Druids (can't expand on that because of site rules...), and Asterix & Obelix's Druids are different from both historical Druids and D&D Druids, being mostly physicians, herbalists, scholars and scientists...

[Vahnavoi]

Last time I checked, nothing stops a player from playing a D&D druid as a physician, herbalist, scholar and a scientist, so that point is moot. :smalltongue:

[KorvinStarmast]

My first ever druid, created in 1977, was called Derelix. (An obvious nod towards Getafix).

The original D&D Druid was a leader of berserkers/barbarians, and was an NPC. Note that before that supplement, Clerics were only Lawful or Chaotic; the Druid being a neutral priest was its significant difference to PC clerics. DRUIDS: These men are priests of a neutral-type religion, and as such they differ in armor class and hit dice, as well as in movement capability, and are combination clerics/magic-users. Magic-use ranges from 5th through 7th level, while clericism ranges from 7th through 9th level. Druids may change shape three times per day, once each to any reptile, bird and animal respectively, from size as small as a raven to as large as a small bear. They will generally (70%) be accompanied by numbers of barbaric followers (fighters), with a few higher-level leaders (2-5 fighters of 2nd-5th levels) and a body of normal men (20-50).
This got substantially fleshed out in Eldritch Wizardry (two supplements later): PC Druids were now formally a subclass of clerics, not a mix of cleric and magic-user.
Druids: Druids are a sub-class of Clerics. They are neutral in nature (as mentioned in GREYHAWK). They are more closely attuned to Nature, serving as its priests rather than serving some other deity.
Mistletoe takes a place of importance with them as a holy symbol or item as crosses and other like items do with other types of clerics.
Druids have spells which are in general peculiar to them, although some of their spells are similar to those of magic-users or clerics in general. Fire, natural forces, and living things tend to be their forte in this regard. Druids are not as involved with humans, or with helping them, as they are in protecting plants and animals. They cannot turn the undead, but once a druid becomes an "Initiate" he has the following innate powers: Identify pure water, identify plants, identify animals, and pass through overgrowth (briars, tangles, etc.). Upon reaching the 5th Circle druids then gain the power to shape change (as previously mentioned in GREYHAWK with regard to the Druid-type monster), and when changing from one form to another they lose from 10% to 60% of any damage previously sustained; in addition they are not affected by the charm spells of woodland and water creatures such as nixies and dryads.
Druids speak their own special language. In addition they also speak the common tongue. With each level gained, above the 3rd circle, a druid can learn one of the additional languages: Pixie, Nixie, Dryad, Elvish, Treant, Hill Giant, Centaur, Manticora or Green Dragon.

Druids are able to employ the following sorts of weapons: Daggers, sickle or crescent-shaped swords, spears, slings, and oil. They may wear armor of leather, and use wooden shields. They may not use metallic armor. Druids may use those magical items not otherwise proscribed to them which are usable by "all classes" and all those items normally usable by clerics, excluding all clerical items of a written nature (scrolls, books, etc.). With regard to fighting ability and saving throws treat druids as clerics, except that with regard to fire the saving throw is always +2 in the druids' favor.

Druids have an obligation to protect woodland animals and plants, especially trees. Unlike the obligation of lawful and good types towards others of this sort, the tendency of druids will be to punish those who destroy their charges, rather than risk their own lives to actually save the threatened animal or plant. Druids will not slay an animal if it can be avoided, and they can never willingly or deliberately destroy a copse, woods or forest —no matter how enchanted or evil it may be—although they may attempt to modify such a place with their own magicks.
That was enough to go on for basic druidical outlook.

E.G.G. observed some years ago, during a forum discussion (IIRC it was at dragonsfoot) that one of the appeals of druids to a fantasy game is that so little was actually known about them (in 1976 when they first came into print in a gamified version). As they left no (or few?) written records, they were only recorded by those who had met or seen them, and those records are of various quality.

Put another way, the Druid in D&D is very much its own thing and always has been.

RolePlay Wise, you answer is as good as anyone else's.

If the above isn't good enough as a point of departure ...

As Vahnavoi said:

nothing stops a player from playing a D&D druid as a physician, herbalist, scholar and a scientist,
Spot on.

[SpyOne]

I recently encountered (here on this board) a quote from Gygax to the effect that Druids were neutral because they routinely did things beneficial to society like help crops grow and convincing hostile wildlife to live away from settlements but also engagd in human sacrifice, thus routinely doing things that are good and evil.



Would a druid save a helpless village for money? For the sake of doing good? Or can I just tie it into a vague notion of "balance"?

Well, my 1st edition Halfling Druid Dex wouldn't save a village for money, but that's just because he's got piles of it. If he were broke, saving a village is something he might do.
He would definitely not do it "for the sake of doing good".

However, if evil has been growing in strength in the area, that's a problem. If "saving a village" means taking team evil down a peg, he's totally on board. If the goblins that are threatening the village are new to the area and overhunting the local wildlife, then they've gotta go, and Dex would happily join a party that was going to kill them for other reasons. On the other hand, if the village is new and the goblins have been there for generations, the village can get bent.

This can make Dex a useful envoy, as evil humanoids recognize that he isn't nessicarilly hostile, and he was able to save the party from a pointless conflict with goblins who were unrelated to the plot and totally willing to rat out the bigger monsters trying to muscle into the territory.

Dex would say he's all about getting along with animals and being kind to plants and stuff, but he doesn't mind eating meat and knows that a forest needs constant management, and that involves killing some trees to let the others become stronger.
He also definitely knows which plants to smoke.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Haruspex_Pariah
It made me wonder if druids can be political schemers as well; because the actions of towns and kingdoms can have massive effects on the environment. Say a druid who manipulates a kingdom to remain in a state of civil war, because once it stabilizes it will expand and demolish pristine natural spaces. Or is that a little bit too much.

As others have said, this is absolutely valid for a certain type of druid, and in fact is a great concept either for a PC or someone else in the game world, either a straight-up villain (depending on how they manipultae) or a greyer sort of antagonist.


Originally Posted by Haruspex_Pariah
Would a druid save a helpless village for money? For the sake of doing good? Or can I just tie it into a vague notion of "balance"?

Remember, druids are people too, so they can have ordinary human feelings and inclinations alongside their professional obligations.

It could make for some interesting RP to have these come into conflict—a druid who feels that the reclamation of a town by wild growth is “good” in the broader sense for the natural world, but who also has empathy for the people who might be forced out of their homes. A druid like this might try to find some compromise or middle ground to accomplish both objectives, which could lead to some very creative gaming.

Nothing wrong with playing a complex character, and druids can be as complex as anyone else—if not more so.