The neutrality of druids

[Li Shenron]

I suppose most gaming groups have no problems with druids' neutrality, but what exactly is your view of it?

Generally speaking we always assumed that druids are "somewhat neutral" because nature is itself neutral: nature is a mix of laws and chaos, without being either good or evil.

There's something however that bothers me about some druids I've seen played. Some players seem to take their neutrality as meaning that sometimes they have to help good and sometimes they have to help evil... but I don't really get it fully. The rationale is along the lines of "keeping balance in the universe", but then there are NG, NE, LN and CN druids which aren't balanced themselves.

I'm not sure, I'd like to discuss about it, it is easy for me to think of a druid wanting to keep balance between order & chaos, but not so easy between good and evil, which are more about the means than the ends...

 

[Steverooo]

I hafta agree withya... I don't get it, either!

 

[Estlor]

Bottom line, I think you are on the right track with the neutral requirement as an extension of the neutrality of the natural world.

I don't think the concept it meant to imply a druid should help evil from time to time to keep a "balance of good and evil in the world." The idea is the druid is beyond such concepts as good and evil and doesn't view the world in those black and white terms. For example, a druid is unlikely to be moved to compassion to help victims who suffered from a tornado or hurricane because it is "the will of the green." In the strictest, D&D terms, you could consider this lack of compassion evil, but it has nothing to do with the moral concept of evil. A druid will not tamper with the natural order of things.

If anything, druids should be the most imposing of characters to approach because unlike, say, a paladin, you don't really know how they will react. They're distant... unconcerned. They're likely to get involved in something, but not for the same reason you asked them to, and they could very well end up running counter to the goals you hoped to achieve.

 

[Blue]

Some druids may actively "preserve the balance" - TN. But many are just in tune with nature, and that in itself filters out those with extreme philosophies - LG, LE, CG, and CE.

I've got an entire grove of CN druids in my game - I won't go into why (it's plot-important and my player read here), but it was a bit refreshing not to have to play the "they follow the balance", rather they have their our natural agenda, and CN describes it best.

Cheers,
Blue

 

[Castigator]

There's something however that bothers me about some druids I've seen played. Some players seem to take their neutrality as meaning that sometimes they have to help good and sometimes they have to help evil... but I don't really get it fully. The rationale is along the lines of "keeping balance in the universe", but then there are NG, NE, LN and CN druids which aren't balanced themselves.

This is I think a holdover from older editions of AD&D (2nd ?) when Druids were only allowed to be True Neutral and the Players Manual did infact have a line about "keeping the balance" and "helping both sides (good & evil) to maintain the balance".

It was stupid back than, it is stupid now. But some people still consider anything and everything from 2nd edition (if thats the one, I might be mistaken) to be the holy grail of D&D Gaming.

 

[Turjan]

I think the reason for the druid's alignment restriction is mostly a metagaming one. Druids wield divine magic, so there must be some mechanics that allow the GM to strip them from their powers. The inclusion of NG, NE, CN and LN in the group of allowed alignments serves more or less the purpose to make the game easier, as there is more wiggle room in the way how druids are played. There will be less alignment discussions, and the player behavior will be less disruptive to the group than it was often observed in 2E.

 

[Li Shenron]

This is I think a holdover from older editions of AD&D (2nd ?) when Druids were only allowed to be True Neutral and the Players Manual did infact have a line about "keeping the balance" and "helping both sides (good & evil) to maintain the balance".

It was stupid back than, it is stupid now. But some people still consider anything and everything from 2nd edition (if thats the one, I might be mistaken) to be the holy grail of D&D Gaming.

Interesting note! I have now to ask a few players in my group if they have 2ed manuals

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

The old druidic alignment restriction used to drive me up the wall. Though in most ways I prefer the old-school, I heartily approve of what opening there has been of the druidic alignments.

 

[KRT]

I think the idea of Nuetrality with druids was more akin to the nature idea of it. The animals of the forest are neither friend nor foe to anyone of good, evil, law or chaos. The animals followed their own path as did all nature. The druids generally follow this philosophy in that they would not consider the alignment of the persons they needed to kill in order to sanctify a grove nor do they care what alignment the individual is that they hire to do something for them. Ideals of a moralistic nature are alien to the druid mindset. They are all about cause and effect and the most direct path to a goal. Subtlety is used when the goal is to be subtle and for no other reason.

 

[eris404]

I never got the "keeping the balance between good and evil" thing myself. However, I think there was a missed opportunity in that. I think that druids being (true) neutral could have been played as making them damn scary. So druids would probably be helpful to good-aligned creatures/characters most of the time (because having good neighbors/allies is probably better than having evil ones), but if these creatures/characters do anything to anger them, watch out!