Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Grassy Gnoll" data-source="post: 6556271" data-attributes="member: 6788652">Balance is the absence of sides. To explain, FWIW, in my view, Druids stand on the centre of the alignment see-saw, with one foot on each 'arm', their role a constant balancing act, weight shifting from one side to the other to keep the see-saw from tipping too far. It's almost as if Druid is a calling within a calling - whether taking nature cleric to the nth degree or nature wizard to the nth degree, it's the very fact of their taking it to the nth degree in and of itself that sets them apart from others and gives them their quintessential druidocity. But while 'taking it to the nth degree' may suggest an image of the extreme end of a scale (the seat on either end of the see-saw 'arm'), Druidism is the opposite, a search for the centre of things rather than the edge.So, too much chaos/wilderness needs balancing with a dose of law/civilisation. Too much of a good thing for the one could be seen as a bad/evil thing for the many, and vice versa. They need to see with equanimity both sides of the coin at once. This is why I feel true neutral is correct. If a Druid moved too far along one 'arm' or the other permanently (I stress permanently as by this thinking there is a certain amount of toing and froing as part of the balancing dance), they would cease to act as counterweights, the see-saw would tip in favour of one side and in allowing it to touch the ground they would be effectively 'choosing sides' - law or chaos, good or evil. They would become in essence just wizards with a nature focus in their spell choice. In my view, anyway. It actually makes Druids scary as, on any given day, they may choose to act to save the villager from getting eaten by the bear, or to kneecap the villager to help the bear eat, or sit and watch and get the popcorn. But, hey. That's just me.</blockquote>

Verification