D&D 5E Clerics vs Druids in an Animist Setting

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone. Taking a break from mechanics, I'm about to start the first campaign in my home setting for a long time. I've been running "generic D&D" for a long while, and lately have only been running modules. I'm switching back to my own setting for a sandbox game.

My setting is an Animist one. Everything has a spirit, and spirits that are revered and respected become more powerful. An ancestral sword may grow more powerful as its wielder spreads its legend, a dryad is the physical form of the spirit of an ancient oak, and physical parts of nature like rivers, mountains, and seas, as well as the sun and the moon, all have spirits. Ancestral spirits exist as well. Some spirits, like the Sun, Moon, the elements, as well as major ancestral spirits, are akin to "greater deities". "Gods" are largely benevolent spirits worshiped to thank them for or to request their blessings. "Demons" are malevolent spirits respected to stay their wrath (or direct it in the case of evil worshipers).

It's easy to figure out where clerics fall in here. Either a cleric personally follows one of the major spirits of the world (like the Sun), or they have a personal spirit they follow that represents their domain. Cleric magic isn't necessarily specifically granted by their venerated spirit; each spell is calling upon the spirits to aid them; this helps explain how a cleric who simply follows their family's ancestral spirits could become more powerful than said ancestral spirit.

But, what differentiates Clerics from Druids in a world like this, especially Nature Clerics and Land Druids. Do druids treat the spirits more as companions and equals, friends and allies to be respected rather than worshiped?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

But, what differentiates Clerics from Druids in a world like this, especially Nature Clerics and Land Druids. Do druids treat the spirits more as companions and equals, friends and allies to be respected rather than worshiped?

The distinction between Nature clerics and druids has always been kind of fuzzy, but this sounds like a good direction to expand upon.

What can you tell us about the culture(s) of the setting? Another avenue to consider is clerics being members of civilized society interacting with the spirits as opposed to druids living out in the wilds. Even a Nature cleric would be the sort of priest who tends to farmers and livestock, praying for fertility, blessing crops, that sort of thing, as opposed to a druid who might be apathetic or antithetical to organized agriculture. But if there's no agriculture and everybody's a hunter-gatherer, as is often the case in animist settings, this doesn't really work.

 

[cbwjm]

Sounds like an interesting setting. I think you've got a good idea as to the cleric/druid divide already. So you have clerics who work for the spirits (or a specific spirit) while druids work with the spirits. Sounds like a good divide to me.

You might also want to look at other spellcastings classes such as the paladin and ranger. Perhaps they share the same roles as clerics and druids in how they work with the spirits.

I expect a totem barbarian would also work really well in this instance. I guess your setting doesn't really change the subclass, but it does bring to the foreground that they are actually interacting with their animal spirits instead of just gaining an in game mechanic.

Something I thought of after reading the post by [MENTION=6683613]TheCosmicKid[/MENTION]. Another aspect of the Cleric is that their priesthoods would likely be the ones that common people that don't have a strong tie to the spirits go to in order to ask them to intercede on their behalf with the spirits. If a malicious or mischievous spirit is causing havoc on a farm or at an inn, or even in a palace, then the cleric is likely to be called upon to speak to the spirits.

 

[TwoSix]

Hmm....

1) Perhaps clerics venerate the major spirits (the Sun, Moon, etc), but have much more of a vassal-suzerain relationship to the spirit; druids have a close and personal relationship with a small band of less powerful spirits.

2) As opposed to the first idea, maybe clerics form personal relationships with spirits, while druids follow nature as a greater entity. In my own game, I've house-ruled Land Druids to absorb power from their environment, and their granted spells change every long rest depending on their current environment. A concept like that could work to show Druids as servants of a broader concept of Nature; likewise, Moon Druids can turn into a whole host of animal shapes because of their connection to a broader conception of Nature.

3) Civilization versus barbarism. Cleric magic is still very community oriented, with its stronger healing and inspirational buffs. (Compare the feel of bless to that of barkskin.) Maybe clerics are organized, and primarily serve to protect larger communities, and tend toward lawfulness. Druidism is much more of master-student or small circles type of organization, that's reclusive, and more chaotic.

4) Possibly a racial division? Maybe druidic teaching are an ancient magic of the elves, while clerical magic is a more recent tradition driven by humans, and their close relationship with their own mortality and their ancestors. (So clerical magic is very much associated with ancestor worship, and druidic magic with broader spirits of nature.)

 

[Xeviat]

Sounds like an interesting setting. I think you've got a good idea as to the cleric/druid divide already. So you have clerics who work for the spirits (or a specific spirit) while druids work with the spirits. Sounds like a good divide to me.

You might also want to look at other spellcastings classes such as the paladin and ranger. Perhaps they share the same roles as clerics and druids in how they work with the spirits.

I expect a totem barbarian would also work really well in this instance. I guess your setting doesn't really change the subclass, but it does bring to the foreground that they are actually interacting with their animal spirits instead of just gaining an in game mechanic.

Thanks! It's been at the forefront of my mind since I watched "Princess Mononoke" as an impressionable youth so many years ago. You gave me some things to think about, so here goes:

All magic comes from the spirits, but not all magicians gain their power the same.

The magic of Bards and Sorcerers is internal. Their power is their own, and they influence reality with it. Bards and Sorcerers are akin to many of the magical beasts of the world in that regard.

Clerics revere the spirits. They have one particular spirit or class of spirits they are especially close to, whether they are just aligned with them or they personally serve them. They are the intermediaries between mortals and the divine, and they typically serve people and seek to maintain some balance between the needs of people and the needs of the spirits. Their wisdom helps them to know what is needed to implore a spirit to aid them, and each spell cast is one such request.

A druids magic comes from the spirits, but where a cleric reveres one spirit, a druid respects them all. A druid's concern is more about the spirits and the balance of nature. Civilization is not specifically their concern, and often civilization is the enemy of nature. To a druid, the spirits are their allies and companions. Like a cleric, druidic magic is made up of requests of the spirits.

A monk's magic is internal. They would say all mortals are capable of such power if they developed it. The path of the monk is a path of spiritual perfection, and a highly enlightened monk is practically a divine spirit themselves. Some monks learn to befriend other spirits, such as the spirits of the elements or the spirits of the shadows, giving their own power in trade for their assistance.

A paladin's magic seems outwardly similar to a cleric's, but the spirit that a paladin worships is the spirit of a cause. These are often personified in the ancestral spirits of other paladins of their order. Their magic is deeply personal.

A ranger's magic seems similar to a druid's, but a ranger typically treats their magic as more of a trick which they understand how to do, rather than something spiritual. Rangers are generally respectful of the spirits of nature, but they don't often see themselves as one with it.

Wizards are typically viewed as disrespectful of the spirits by the other magicians. A wizard doesn't implore the spirits to aid them, they tell the spirits to aid them. A wizard's arcane ability taps directly into the magic of the world and bends it to their will. Wizardly magic isn't inherently evil or harmful to the world, but it is ambivalent towards the will of the spirits. The same goes for the magic of Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights, as theirs is simply limited wizard magic.

I'm not really sure about Warlocks. Warlocks seem like they'd be very similar to clerics in such a system. I think the difference is that a Warlock's patron differs from a Cleric's deity in that a Warlock's Patron is a physical being. I'm tempted to draw a more defined line between Clerics and Warlocks and have clerics follow "gods" and warlocks serve "demons", but I'm not 100% sold on that.

 

[Xeviat]

2) As opposed to the first idea, maybe clerics form personal relationships with spirits, while druids follow nature as a greater entity. In my own game, I've house-ruled Land Druids to absorb power from their environment, and their granted spells change every long rest depending on their current environment. A concept like that could work to show Druids as servants of a broader concept of Nature; likewise, Moon Druids can turn into a whole host of animal shapes because of their connection to a broader conception of Nature.

3) Civilization versus barbarism. Cleric magic is still very community oriented, with its stronger healing and inspirational buffs. (Compare the feel of bless to that of barkskin.) Maybe clerics are organized, and primarily serve to protect larger communities, and tend toward lawfulness. Druidism is much more of master-student or small circles type of organization, that's reclusive, and more chaotic.

I'm liking these two interpretations. #2 speaks to me a bit, viewing "Nature" as a greater spiritual being made up of everything. Where a cleric may think of terms like "light" and "darkness", druids see a greater force. So a druid doesn't specifically serve the spirit of the forest they live in, but they see the spirit and themselves both as part of a greater whole.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I'm not really sure about Warlocks. Warlocks seem like they'd be very similar to clerics in such a system. I think the difference is that a Warlock's patron differs from a Cleric's deity in that a Warlock's Patron is a physical being. I'm tempted to draw a more defined line between Clerics and Warlocks and have clerics follow "gods" and warlocks serve "demons", but I'm not 100% sold on that.

I think the pact is the key distinction. Warlocks don't serve their patrons out of reverence, respect, or even common interest. It's a purely transactional relationship: they give because they get something in return. And as a rule, the sorts of otherworldly beings who are offering this kind of self-interested deal tend not to be shiny fluffy lords of goodness and light.

 

[cbwjm]

Thanks! It's been at the forefront of my mind since I watched "Princess Mononoke" as an impressionable youth so many years ago. You gave me some things to think about, so here goes:

All magic comes from the spirits, but not all magicians gain their power the same.

The magic of Bards and Sorcerers is internal. Their power is their own, and they influence reality with it. Bards and Sorcerers are akin to many of the magical beasts of the world in that regard.

Clerics revere the spirits. They have one particular spirit or class of spirits they are especially close to, whether they are just aligned with them or they personally serve them. They are the intermediaries between mortals and the divine, and they typically serve people and seek to maintain some balance between the needs of people and the needs of the spirits. Their wisdom helps them to know what is needed to implore a spirit to aid them, and each spell cast is one such request.

A druids magic comes from the spirits, but where a cleric reveres one spirit, a druid respects them all. A druid's concern is more about the spirits and the balance of nature. Civilization is not specifically their concern, and often civilization is the enemy of nature. To a druid, the spirits are their allies and companions. Like a cleric, druidic magic is made up of requests of the spirits.

A monk's magic is internal. They would say all mortals are capable of such power if they developed it. The path of the monk is a path of spiritual perfection, and a highly enlightened monk is practically a divine spirit themselves. Some monks learn to befriend other spirits, such as the spirits of the elements or the spirits of the shadows, giving their own power in trade for their assistance.

A paladin's magic seems outwardly similar to a cleric's, but the spirit that a paladin worships is the spirit of a cause. These are often personified in the ancestral spirits of other paladins of their order. Their magic is deeply personal.

A ranger's magic seems similar to a druid's, but a ranger typically treats their magic as more of a trick which they understand how to do, rather than something spiritual. Rangers are generally respectful of the spirits of nature, but they don't often see themselves as one with it.

Wizards are typically viewed as disrespectful of the spirits by the other magicians. A wizard doesn't implore the spirits to aid them, they tell the spirits to aid them. A wizard's arcane ability taps directly into the magic of the world and bends it to their will. Wizardly magic isn't inherently evil or harmful to the world, but it is ambivalent towards the will of the spirits. The same goes for the magic of Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights, as theirs is simply limited wizard magic.

I'm not really sure about Warlocks. Warlocks seem like they'd be very similar to clerics in such a system. I think the difference is that a Warlock's patron differs from a Cleric's deity in that a Warlock's Patron is a physical being. I'm tempted to draw a more defined line between Clerics and Warlocks and have clerics follow "gods" and warlocks serve "demons", but I'm not 100% sold on that.

The more I read of your setting the cooler it sounds. It's funny, because how you're treating the ranger's magic in your setting is kind of how I treat it myself, less like spells and more like tricks that they can pull off.

I'm not sure what a good distinction between clerics and warlocks could be since they do seem to be two paths to the same power. Perhaps it could be as simple as saying that some spirits don't settle for worship and instead demand subservience granting power only to those who form a blood pact with them.

OR Warlocks are considered even worse than a wizard. The warlock doesn't just tell the spirits to do what they want, they trap a spirit within their own body, drawing upon their power to fuel their magical might.

 

[Bitbrain]

This is a really cool idea, thanks for sharing Xeviat.

 

[cooperjer]

Having ran Werewolf the Apocalypse for many years I'll pull from that game for a couple points. The clerics may not revere a spirit, but may see it as a tool to be manipulated or used for an effect. This may be more of an antagonist, but may also be a PC use of the spirits. As stated above, druids may also consider the spirits as allies in that they work together for an effect. Some of the classes may pull spiritual energy into them selves. This spiritual energy may be consumed and redirected or the energy may be a small portion of the spiritual environment from a large area and then redirected. Some classes may associate with only a specific group of spirits. Are some rangers going to limit their spiritual contact only to predators? Are some clerics only going to limit their contact to city/urban spirits? Would a fighter limit its contact only to spirits of armor and weaponry?

Regarding warlocks, I'll agree that a warlock is only working for a spirit via contract. The description in the PH gives me the impression that they are the rogues of the casters, but in a not so nice way. The bard is a rogue in a sense, in that is grabs spells from others, but this is generally done in a respectful way. In my opinion, a warlock is one that would steel a magical secret before the spirit knows it. If caught, the warlock will work out a deal to keep the magical secret.