A druid’s neutrality isn’t anti everybody as some posts I’ve seen make them sound. Druids are always some type of neutral, and although they tend to be loners, some are found in what is known as a circle of druids. Circles generally do not ‘hang-out’ together and become some type of druid gang, they usually separate and each takes care of a specific assigned area or grove and they only get together with their circle on set days or holy-days. They do not try to interfere with any natural events and may actually find natural disasters like tornados and landslides beautiful and amazing. When so-called ‘intelligent’ beings start messing with the environment druids do not go all ninja and become assassins, they will attempt to find ways to stop the destruction of nature without aggression, if possible. Somebody felling trees to build a house is not a bad thing (to most druids), being a lumberjack that destroys entire forests to make a profit would be. Most intelligent beings are part of nature too and need to survive, so things like food, clothing and shelter are part of this survival and most non fanatical druids would accept this and may even help these ‘civilized’ beings so they don’t inadvertently destroy something they shouldn’t. They would much rather teach intelligent beings how to survive without destroying the environment around them than kill everybody who they see hunting or cultivating trees and stone for shelter. They would find those who seek to learn about nature a bit more trustworthy than those who do not, and would make a special effort to teach and help them as apposed to ignoring their ignorance and letting them wreak havoc on the environment.

If a major conflict or war occurs, (which is un-naturally destructive), druids tend to side with those that would cause the least harm to the environment, (majority of the time this would be the ‘good’ side). Now if in the course of this war, the people the druid or druids side with decide starting a forest fire or use of natural creatures as battle fodder will help them defeat their enemy, the druids would either abandon them or maybe even go as far as to switch sides of the conflict.

Druids are watchers and teachers. They are not spies or politicians. Watching is to make sure the environment isn’t harmed. It is not to gather information for another side of a conflict. Teaching is to remove ignorance of nature from those willing to learn, not to prove how smart they are or win some popularity contest. Most druids do not need to be kings, leaders or conspirators. They are already all of these things unto themselves as they are after all the lords of nature.

Granted all of this is just my opinion based off playing D&D since 1981 and there are now urban druids and blighters, but I’m not talking about them, I’m talking about your average D&D wilderness type druid.

Did you have a point? I agree with most of what you say in general, but it seems like specific things that don't hold to what you think should be generally true is causing this post.

There is a Circle of Druids in the module that has a very specific goal, and so they do stay together very often.

Some druids are assassins. Some are fanatical. Some are politicians. They don't keep to the general rules that you wrote out, but I'd like to think the best characters are the exceptions to the rules.

Oroborous Did you have a point?

Because there may be members who don’t know, and actually think druids dislike paladins because they are L/G just because you said so. This is not just wrong it’s ludicrous! Druids could care less about race, class or alignments, hence the reason why they HAVE to be some sort of neutral.

Oroborous ... Some are politicians. ...

The rest are true, yes. (Although a fair amount you listed are rare. Druidic assassinations are kinda on the fringe.)

But their oaths strictly and expressly forbid them from taking public office without express permission and order of the Grand druid. No druid councelors. Please.

I think you may have misunderstood something Oro has said elsewhere. Druids do not -hate- Paladins, however they -do- view them as extremists bent on throwing the balance out of whack, and are therefore potentially as dangerous as a Necromancer, if left unchecked.

Druids have the potential to kill characters, just like any other class. Saying that they "arent assassins" is kinda silly. Sure, you wouldnt see one being paid to kill someone (probably), but you can be darned sure that if one had a good reason to do someone in, that they would make it happen with the certainty of a hunting wolf.

Most of the factual information in your post I agree with, if this post is intended to tell people how to play their characters though, then I wholeheartedly disagree.

The DMs, in fact, have posted guides on how to play druids. If you feel that any current druids are not living up to the spirit of the class as is laid down by the DMs, then take it up with the DM team and that player. Making vague accusations and broad statements of your own personal beliefs, does nothing to help the supposed problem that you see. It tends only to make people dislike you for telling them how to play their characters in a nonconstructive, negative manner.

I agree, it seems to me you are trying to tell people how they should play their character based upon your own opinion. You are welcome to have your own opinion on how characters/classes should be played but I don't think you should be posting them on the forums as though it is law.

We all have our own opinion on how characters/classes should be played but we don't throw them around randomly unless someone specifically asks how (insert character/class) should be played.

If I have got the wrong end of the stick here however then I apoligise in advance (Damn internet)

Everyone is free to play a character as they see fit, but I do have to agree with him in one respect.... a druid politician? I'm not a Forgotten Realms authority by any account, but maybe a druid isn't the class for you. It's like seeing an elf with a dwarven accent, there had better be a damn believable explanation if you want your character to be taken somewhat seriously...

Oldaric

It's like seeing an elf with a dwarven accent, there had better be a damn believable explanation if you want your character to be taken somewhat seriously...

You mean the "Y'dunnae know wut yer talkin'bout, laddy!" Ripoff Scottish accent that everyone attributes to Dwarves? I honestly don't see why any race can't talk like this. Wild and Wood elves would, in my opinion, be just as well suited to it, or a moon elf that came from an area where that is simply how Common is spoken.

Remember, Common may be known by everyone, but that doesn't mean they all learned it from some stuckup Yale professor. You'll learn to speak a language with a mix of the accent caused by your own tongue and the accent employed by your teacher.

So, bad example. Sorry.

And while a druid may not, in my view, want to become an active participant in a local government (ie, as an elected member of the government) that does not mean that a druid is going to ignore the town politics entirely. It is in the druids best interest to know and understand -everything- that is going on in her area. Why? So that she can intervene when something unbalancing is about to happen.

For instance: A lawfully minded druid is living near a democratic city. This city has recently decided that it would clear cut a nearby forest to grant it's nobles large tracts of land to build their homes on.

Naturally, the druid is going to be annoyed at this clearcutting. However, since they are lawfully minded they will probably attempt to use the cities own political and legal environment to further her own cause before resorting to violence. This could mean a huge campaign to save the forest. It could mean going to the local leaders and attempting to find an alternative solution through political means.

Dwarven accents are meant to be revealing in terms of the races general characteristics, loud and rowdy, they prefer working with their hands, not stuffed up in some tower studying crumbling tombs. That isn't to say a dwarf couldn't speak like an aristrocrat, but I imagine it would be quite uncommon. As I said, there should be a good reason, like the elf was raised by accepting dwarves or some such.

I never said a druid couldn't be a politician under any circumstances, just that it was highly unlikely and there should be a reasonable explanation. It's the same reason we don't see the streets crowded with drow or duergars, kobolds or giants, the unsual has to be outnumbered by the usual, or the unsual then become an everyday occurence. Point is, these should be fairly rare, well thought-out characters, played by good RPers with golas and plans.

RIPnogarD Druids could care less about race, class or alignments, hence the reason why they HAVE to be some sort of neutral.

Errnt. This is where individuality comes in. Every character has his own persona, likes, dislikes, and so on. Examples!

- A Malarite druid who dislikes elves, halflings, and gnomes, because he sees them all as weak over-consumers. - A chaotic neutral druid who dislikes paladins, as they are too orderly. - A druid who dislikes wizards and sorcerers, as they can bring large scale destruction.

However, there are points that confuse me. Druids are generally of the belief that all things must be in balance, and that includes good and evil. Why, then, are there good druids who go out of their way to thrawt evil? You're fucking up the balance.

I had played D&D back in the early 80's myself and never really saw the druids as nature free-loving hippies.

There is a time for war and a time for peace. A time to love and a time to hate. If the herd gets to big a predator needs to cull the herd. If the city is overpopulated, disease, flood, or an earthquake will do well to reduce the numbers. If people are making unnatural machines or magical beasts, then they must be stopped.

They don't just wring their hands and hope for people to come around, they will do what they can to uphold the balance.

Is a city of surface dwellers in the underdark natural or part of the balance? Perhaps it is not natural but it certainly may bring about a balance of good and evil if it has a majority of good since the Underdark is populated by mostly evil beings. So if druids go out of their way to work for good, it is putting a balance into the Underdark, albeit one that never existed perhaps. Of course there are often a nice healthy amount of evil in the city, so ... oh well.

So in a sense druids in the underdark would find many reasons to dislike the existence of the people in an unnatural city of surface dwellers and find many reasons to find fault with them.

But it will still come down to each individual druid and how they see the situation. A time to write in Forums and a time to play the game.

Diagnosis

However, there are points that confuse me. Druids are generally of the belief that all things must be in balance, and that includes good and evil. Why, then, are there good druids who go out of their way to thrawt evil? You're fucking up the balance.

This is why there must be druids from each alignment axis. They serve to balance -each other- as well. You won't see a druid who hates another druid simply for being on the opposite end of the alignment spectrum. It is understood that it is needed. Instead, a good druid will simply work to balance the evil acts of an evil druid.

And Desu is pretty well square on. The only thing to add to it is -how- a druid will bring those occurrences about. They will all work towards the same end goal, but through different means based on alignment and background.

Im pretty sure it says in the players handbook somewhere that druids often prey on each other (or at least the more evil ones do)

Didn't Kotenku play a councilor druid? Maybe I'm mistaken. In any event, I think if you put time into thinking about your character as an individual with a good background and personality you can justify playing nearly anything.

Kotenku played a monkey councilor.

XD

ffs.

Cleric of Talontar. Named Gibbon.