Is being a druid socially acceptable?

[newsance]

So recently I started a new campaign playing a lvl 1 druid. So far I'm loving it. I get to do the melee warrior things with my animal companion, while being a caster with a bunch of really nifty spells.

However, in our last session, we were roleplaying being held by the city guard for suspicion of trafficking illegal spell materials (not guilty).

The "magistrate" asked me what my class is, and I lied and stated that I was a Ranger. It was pretty plausible, so my DM gave me an easy bluff check, but the he asked me why I lied about it.

For one, I didn't want to let on to being a caster because of the spell components thing, but also...

I assumed being a druid would be held in suspicion- much like in real life the term "druid" conjures up ideas of unholy sacrifices, secret rites, etc. It seemed to me that this would apply- wouldn't people living in a buerocracy mistrust somebody who denies the authority of humanoid culture for nature, to the point of gaining divine powers?

Thoughts?

[Jack_Simth]

"What is this 'class' of which you speak? I am afraid I am a little unfamiliar with your social order. I neither have people bound to me, nor am I beholden to others, if that is what you are asking. If you are asking how I maintain myself, I range the wilds."

Granted, a little facetious.... but in character, a perfectly reasonable answer.

[Toliudar]

SUCH a campaign specific question. I've seen druids be everything from the equivalent of the spiritual head of a community (heal people, bless the crops, help defuse situations with predatory animals, AND high wisdom for good advice and a balanced outlook - yes please!) to being treated as, well, hippies in early 1960's North America.

Having a magistrate ask you for your "class" is such a metagame question anyway, there's already a breakdown in the reality of the situation. It's a bit like asking someone their hit points, isn't it?

[Orzel]

People don't have classes, they have occupations.

Druids are seen differently based ofn the setting and campaign. People who belong to a bureacracy see those outside it as crazy or wild (unless they hate the bureacracy).

[headwarpage]

I'm with the majority here. 'Class' just isn't an in-game concept. You have an occupation, or a social status, but those don't always connect to class, although 'Paladin' in particular tends to be both an in-game and OOC designation, and 'Druid' could be as well, depending on the setting.

As for what role druids might play, it depends entirely on the setting. In some settings, they could certainly be looked down upon for either being outside the 'system', practicing strange and dangerous magic, consorting with dark forces (and why else does a wolf follow him around, huh?), or any number of reasons. In other settings, or other parts of the same setting, they could be respected elders, spiritual advisors, or strange, but generally helpful, hermits. In some cases, one druid could be reviled while another druid in the same town could be respected, depending on what types of people they were.

[newsance]

Well, to be fair, the DM asked me if I was a Druid, not what my "class" was. I think that much more faithful to the game world.

[Sturmjaeger]

You could just say you're a priest, which is technically true. Druids are nature priests.

[headwarpage]

Ok, that's a little different. Druid is certainly a valid in-game designation for a type of person, who may or may not have levels in the Druid class, but usually will.

I'd say that if there are in-game connotations that go along with being a druid, they're probably common knowledge in the game world (at least among druids) and you should ask your DM what they are, so that you can roleplay appropriately.

[The Prince of Cats]

I assumed being a druid would be held in suspicion- much like in real life the term "druid" conjures up ideas of unholy sacrifices, secret rites, etc.

Really? I find that kind of insulting. (I am not allowed to say why; guess) I mean, druid (to me, being English) conjures up images of hippy new-agers in white robes dancing in Avebury...

[kamikasei]

Two things. Firstly, if members of your class are viewed with suspicion and/or mistrust in the game world, the DM should probably have told you so already. Secondly, there's no particular reason for someone in a D&D setting to associate "being a druid" with "unholy sacrifices and secret rites". Druids heal people, talk to animals, maintain forests, etc. There's a system of druidic orders and circles that may be more or less organized, depending on setting. From the point of view of the average NPC, druids are no more worthy of suspicion than are clerics, wizards, or rangers.

[Darrin]

I assumed being a druid would be held in suspicion- much like in real life the term "druid" conjures up ideas of unholy sacrifices, secret rites, etc. It seemed to me that this would apply- wouldn't people living in a buerocracy mistrust somebody who denies the authority of humanoid culture for nature, to the point of gaining divine powers?

Druids aren't necessarily anti-authority or anti-government. Lawful Neutral is a perfectly normal druid alignment.

Given that a 5th level druid could single-handedly increase a nation's agricultural output by 33%, which in turn has a profound effect on the national economy and their ability to field large numbers of well-fed troops, druids should probably be one of the most socially acceptable classes anyone could want.

[Indon]

Honestly, I'd say how the populace at large views druids is influenced by...

...How the druids act in regards to civilization, which is influenced by...

...the attitudes of the archdruids who control the groves and circles, mentoring lesser druids and often controlling their actions, visibly or otherwise.

So, I'd say, it varies highly depending on your campaign.

[Awetugiw]

Well, yes. The main point in wether druids are liked or not is not wether they make human sacrifices, because they (almost always) don't. The point is if they defend the forest by fighting civilisation.


If they do, you can be quite certain druids won't be very welcome in cities. (Of course, neither will city-dwellers be welcome in forests.)

Otherwise things should be okay, I think.

[The Glyphstone]

Really? I find that kind of insulting. (I am not allowed to say why; guess) I mean, druid (to me, being English) conjures up images of hippy new-agers in white robes dancing in Avebury...

My guess: You participate in secret rites and unholy sacrifices, and don't want to be associated with the hippy new-age wimps.

[Tengu]

Stupid (or evil) druids stay in the forest and fight everyone who comes in to hunt a deer or chop a tree, which results only in more death.

Smart druids keep an eye on the woodland villages and other communities close to the wilderness, and make sure by subtle and not-so-subtle means that they live in harmony with nature - you don't have to cut down the forest to make room for more fields if your fields already give almost twice the crop they technically should for some reason.

[Matthew]

Well, asking somebody what 'class' they are may meet a number of in game responses, depending on the campaign world.

Asking a character if he is a Druid or not seems kind of specific.

Even so, the real problem here is that you do not know how 'Druids' are viewed in the campaign world you are playing in. You should probably have asked the DM.

As for what constitutes a 'Druid', as has been pointed out, the D&D Base Class can encompass a great number of possibilities. You need to discuss this with your DM, not really with us (unless you are looking for suggestions).

[Jack_Simth]

Stupid (or evil) druids stay in the forest and fight everyone who comes in to hunt a deer or chop a tree, which results only in more death.

Smart druids keep an eye on the woodland villages and other communities close to the wilderness, and make sure by subtle and not-so-subtle means that they live in harmony with nature - you don't have to cut down the forest to make room for more fields if your fields already give almost twice the crop they technically should for some reason.

Until the population, working with the increased food supply, gets to the point where existing fields won't support them even with the boost.... or when there's enough of a market that people want to increase the size of their fields so they have more food to sell, and other things of that nature.

[Druid]

Why people always gotta be hatin on me?

[Closet_Skeleton]

Druids have a perfectly justified representation as anti-authoritarian human sacrificers because all we really know about them was written by the Romans and that's what the Romans said they were. Those guys with the stupid beards who get off on changing their name to Merlin don't really have any plausable link to real Druids.

To someone from a city being a Druid, Barbarian or even Ranger might be seen as primitive. Usually DnD assumes there is no inherent social stigma on anything except maybe Half-Orcs. I could see why you'd be justified in roleplaying in such a way. If the city you're in is highly religious (especially if they're monotheistic) they might frown on a priest of another religion but would treat a cleric in a similar way. Rogues and Bards are probably more likely to be thrown in jail and sorcerers would recieve distrust for having non-human blood.

[goat]

And Barbarians for smashing up the pubs.

And probably fighters for causing affray and carrying weapons with the intent of harm.

And wizards for accidently blowing things up while experimenting.

And monks, for looking at the guards smugly with their "More in tune with the underlying harmony of the universe than you" face.

And commoners for being poor.

Their jail cells should be packed.

[Kantolin]

Until the population, working with the increased food supply, gets to the point where existing fields won't support them even with the boost.... or when there's enough of a market that people want to increase the size of their fields so they have more food to sell, and other things of that nature.

Not much to say about the first bit... but for the second bit, once they expand to an uncomfortable margin, remove the boost. You're free to then come explain why. They'd have to triple their fieldsize to make up the difference, which almost certainly isn't worth it.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Personally, if I was the ruler/authority of a city of any kind that wasn't made of mud huts and trees, I would be very worried at the presence of a druid. They have that tendency to dismantle civilization in favor of nature and all.

[Vodun]

Well if the whole fighting civilization for the benefit of nature thing is really big for the druids in a campaign, I always figured that because humanity isnt exactly gentle with how it treats the land its on, that the Druids would be one of two basic templates.

A.) the druid and his fellow druids (if any) are fully aware of the fact that unless they are willing to actually go to war with civilized cultures and societies, that they will most likely lose the fight to preserve nature, at least in the long run. For example, we fight to save rainforests and habitats in our society today, but we have all seen the destructive power of expansion, and we can tell that we are gonna run out of space soon.

B.) The druid knows that he needs to fight to win, and therefore effectively becomes evil, at least in the view of civilization as a whole, doing things like destroying border towns, making expansions of nature into settled areas, things like that.

[The Valiant Turtle]

My opinion is that Druid as eco-warrior is way to modern for DnD. I don't know for sure when we started being aware of how much nature we were destroying, but I don't really think it was a problem until the last century or so. Until then, I think there was plenty of wilderness to go around. However, if there is a particularly large forest holy to Druids, they might be fighting for it. The idea of Druids helping crops which increases population which encourages urban sprawl is pretty interesting though, it might be fun to play with.

Definitely talk with your DM and see what he thinks. More importantly, get into your characters head and determine what kind of Druid he is.

[Enzario]

Just FYI, druids don't use spell components. Next time you're held in suspicion of having "illegal spell components" (just a question: what defines an "illegal spell component"? I don't think there are any spell components that require humanoid body parts, etc.) just laugh at the police and give them your mistletoe. Kiss them, then go out and pick some more. For free. Then laugh at the wizards who have to waste money on that sort of crap.

[Jack Mann]

In D&D, the environment rarely needs much protection from civilization. Nature, which includes dinosaurs, dire animals, fey, and magical beasts, is more than capable of protecting itself.

[Jack_Simth]

Just FYI, druids don't use spell components. Next time you're held in suspicion of having "illegal spell components" (just a question: what defines an "illegal spell component"? I don't think there are any spell components that require humanoid body parts, etc.) just laugh at the police and give them your mistletoe. Kiss them, then go out and pick some more. For free. Then laugh at the wizards who have to waste money on that sort of crap.

Some of their spells do.

Hallow and Unhallow, for instance. Freedom of Movement (although it's not an expensive one).

Granted, they don't use overly much in the way of spell components... but they do use them.

[Aquillion]

Well if the whole fighting civilization for the benefit of nature thing is really big for the druids in a campaign, I always figured that because humanity isnt exactly gentle with how it treats the land its on, that the Druids would be one of two basic templates.

A.) the druid and his fellow druids (if any) are fully aware of the fact that unless they are willing to actually go to war with civilized cultures and societies, that they will most likely lose the fight to preserve nature, at least in the long run. For example, we fight to save rainforests and habitats in our society today, but we have all seen the destructive power of expansion, and we can tell that we are gonna run out of space soon.

You're assuming a modern rate of expansion. Until the last few centuries, people couldn't reproduce and survive at a rate fast enough to do that much damage. They could destroy a few forests, yes, and over an extended period of time could deforest select areas (like, say, wide swaths of Britain), but being able to expand fast enough to run out of space completely is an entirely modern concept. In fact, the only way it could happen in D&D is if people used magic to augment agriculture, which might explain why druids don't do it (why would they want more humans?)

It might be an interesting plot basis in Eberron, though. They even have manmade wasteland areas to use as the setting, don't they? And their economy depends on dragonshards or whatever, an ultimately limited resource which is being used in increasingly large amounts.

[TheOOB]

To the average person, a druid is no different from a cleric of a nature god/ess. Assuming that the populas is progressive enough not to shun all magic users, they would probally enjoy the presence of a druid so long as they don't cause trouble. After all, druids can heal, predict the weather, deal with animals, and help crops grow. Towns may have a bit of trouble with animal companions/wild shape, but overall unless your an evil society hating druid, people would see you as fairly benign.

[The Prince of Cats]

My guess: You participate in secret rites and unholy sacrifices, and don't want to be associated with the hippy new-age wimps.

Define 'unholy'...

To be fair, this is the Giant's playground and, while I think a frank discussion of certain topics would be enlightening, I respect his decision enough to just keep my mouth shut and smile knowingly.