Good, Evil, Nature, and Druids

[S'mon]

IMC - Nature is not Good or Evil in D&D Alignment terms, but can be both or neither. Druids and Druid organisations can be Neutral Good or Neutral Evil, but tend towards True Neutrality. You basically never get LG or LE Druids; CG & CE are rare but possible. The Lord Weird Slough Feg in the Slaine comic strip would likely be CE, and the Drune Lords as an organisation NE. But I think Feg was corrupted by alliance with the alien Cythrawls, as well as his own desire for immortality, and was no longer truly doing the Will of the Earth Goddess Danu. That didn't stop him drawing on the Earth Power though.

 

[Celebrim]

One can consider Gygax's favorite novels, and make reasonable guesses at how and why he wrote up various classes, spells, monsters, etc. in D&D. In the case of the Druid, I would bet long odds that Gygax was trying to write rules for the druids depicted in L. Sprague de Camp's stories about Harold Shea.

Which is to say, Gygax wrote a class and a spell list based on a few paragraphs about people whose main relevance to the plot is their interest in human sacrifice. IIRC the Harold Shea stories don't have *any* examples of druids casting spells, nor assuming animal form.

There is one major problem with that; Gygax didn't write the class: Dennis Sustare did.

I've seen some attempts to reconstruct what Sustare's sources were, but the truth is that Sustare himself didn't remember exactly what they were and its likely from variety of vague ideas coming from early 20th century fantasy literature, and the intention to make them masters of plants and animals, that he came up with the druid mostly whole cloth. Of the sources that Sustare has admitted to having read, Henry Kuttner's works seem to me the most likely source for the druid. It's possible Jon Peterson has made a careful reconstruction, but right at the moment I don't remember what his thoughts were on the druid. Only a handful of the ideas in the class could have possibly come from the historical record, including the identification with oak leaves and mistletoe, and the idea that high ranking druids had to enter into a contest with each other to be promoted. However, considering the sources of these ideas are unreliable, they probably bear barely more relation to actual druidic practice - whatever it was - than anything else.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is one major problem with that; Gygax didn't write the class: Dennis Sustare did.

Sustare?

No anagram? Not so much as backwards?

 

[Celebrim]

Sustare?

No anagram? Not so much as backwards?

I assume the origin of the 'Chariot of Sustarre'.

 

[pemerton]

does this match your understanding of True Neutral?

<snip>

Over all these Druids one presides, who possesses supreme authority among them. Upon his death, if any individual among the rest is pre-eminent in dignity, he succeeds; but, if there are many equal, the election is made by the suffrages of the Druids; sometimes they even contend for the presidency with arms.

<snip>

They likewise discuss and impart to the youth many things respecting the stars and their motion, respecting the extent of the world and of our earth, respecting the nature of things, respecting the power and the majesty of the immortal gods.

The religious teachings could be TN, or not - from what's said we can't tell.

But at least we have a canonical grounding for the need to fight a combat to gain an upper-level title!

Sustare?

No anagram? Not so much as backwards?

Would Chariot of Eratsus have the same ring to it?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Would Chariot of Eratsus have the same ring to it?

He'd at least've been trying.

Or, y'know Bel.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I play mostly 1e/HM or 5e...both have rather different interpretations of "Druid" and "Neutral". I generally re-jigger 5e druids (and all alignments) to be in accordance with 1e writing/rules/descriptions.

Neutral, as I see it, is all about survival and just living your life. Sometimes you need to risk your life for others so that you have a better chance of survival later on...sometimes you need to just sit back and let the gods sort everything out...and sometimes you need to do something in between. This is why I see all animals as "neutral"; they are unconcerned with such concepts as Good or Evil. Some animals may have a cruel streak, some may have more of a caring one. But when it comes down to survival they all do what they must.

Druids I run pretty much as 1e. I like it and I find it the most interesting. I play primarily in Greyhawk or one of my homebrew worlds (which have very much "Greyhawk'esque" Druid set ups). The only thing I modified was the number of higher level druids 'in the world' to be more of 'in a large area'. I distinguish large forests, mountain ranges, hills, swamps, etc as a 'world'. This is for all Druids up to 14th level. There is one level 15 druid per "continent". After that we get into the Hierophants, and that's a whole other kettle of fish.

So, in short, there are no "evil" druids or "good" druids although a druids action or lack thereof may be seen as or actually BE Evil or Good...but that's ok as long as it's serving the tenets of Neutrality and Nature. A druid that continues to do specifically Good or Evil things will get in trouble and start to loose his/her Druidic spells and powers. They will then be shown the error of their ways and the path (atonement) they need to take to get back in tune with the multiverse/nature.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Tony Vargas]

all alignments) to be in accordance with 1e writing/rules/descriptions.

Neutral, as I see it, is all about survival and just living your life. Sometimes you need to risk your life for others so that you have a better chance of survival later on...sometimes you need to just sit back and let the gods sort everything out...and sometimes you need to do something in between. This is why I see all animals as "neutral"; they are unconcerned with such concepts as Good or Evil. Some animals may have a cruel streak, some may have more of a caring one. But when it comes down to survival they all do what they must.

Nod, that's all part of 1e's concept of TN, but so's the whole 'maintain the balance' thing.

 

[uzirath]

Neutral, as I see it, is all about survival and just living your life. . . . This is why I see all animals as "neutral"; they are unconcerned with such concepts as Good or Evil. Some animals may have a cruel streak, some may have more of a caring one. But when it comes down to survival they all do what they must.

This gets me thinking. The sentences I bolded above could apply pretty well to most humans, right? But, maybe most humans are neutral? Could be.

There is also much debate among biologists about altruistic behaviors in various animal species. I read an article recently about humpback whales defending seals from a pod of orcas. This seemed to offer none of the usual benefits to the humpbacks (i.e., they can't expect reciprocal favors from the seals, nor are they helping their kinship group), so the researchers hypothesized that altruistic behaviors (defined as putting yourself at risk or expending resources for no gain) may be more deeply ingrained in many animal species. Would altruistic animals be "good" or do they require sapience to cross that line on the alignment graph?

And, of course, in a game world, one might define all animals (and plants, even) as sapient. In that scheme, would alignment apply primarily to how you treat your own species? So, for example, in most campaigns, you wouldn't judge a human as "evil" for slaying animals for food. Likewise, a sapient tiger hunting for food, wouldn't be evil either. But if it hunted other tigers? Or if it hunted humans?

Just musing aloud here.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

First, sorry for not getting back sooner...I no longer frequent these boards nearly as much anymore because of...well..."reasons". I find Dragonsfoot seems to fit me a bit better overall. Anyway...

This gets me thinking. The sentences I bolded above could apply pretty well to most humans, right? But, maybe most humans are neutral? Could be.

There is also much debate among biologists about altruistic behaviors in various animal species. I read an article recently about humpback whales defending seals from a pod of orcas. This seemed to offer none of the usual benefits to the humpbacks (i.e., they can't expect reciprocal favors from the seals, nor are they helping their kinship group), so the researchers hypothesized that altruistic behaviors (defined as putting yourself at risk or expending resources for no gain) may be more deeply ingrained in many animal species. Would altruistic animals be "good" or do they require sapience to cross that line on the alignment graph?

I'd actually put this more in line with psychology more than morality. The whales may really REALLY not like the sound of seals getting slaughtered. So...they try and prevent that due to purely selfish reasons. But we don't know for certain. Our human empathy WANTS to say "because humpback whales are good and loving creatures!"...the same way we see an animal trying to get food from someone and we attribute human emotions/actions to it.

I'd go with humpbacks just being selfish and not wanting to deal with dieing seals for whatever reason (sound would be my first guess). Purely selfish. Doing it for themselves...even if the end result is seals being saved. I do the same thing when I help a lot of people out (like buying the person's food for them who are directly behind me in a McD's drive through, or donating to some charity, etc). I'm doing it mostly because it makes ME feel good knowing that I made someone else feel good unexpectedly. Their happiness is almost a byproduct; I'm doing it to make myself feel good first and foremost. Selfish? Sure. Honest? Definitely.