Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ohmyn" data-source="post: 7627624" data-attributes="member: 6999115">The 1E Druid was true neutral. That means not good, nor evil. It was even written in their class description in 1E AD&D that even if they observed any creature destroying their charges, they were still unlikely to risk their lives to prevent the destruction. This is because good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings, which Druids are not. Characters who are neutral by definition don't have any desire to kill the innocent, as that would be evil, but they lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. They're more like animals, who are the epitome of true neutral, where they'll kill to survive, and they'll protect their own pack, but they don't give a damn about anyone else. Some animals are willing to do more than others to protect their own, and are thus less likely to flee when the pack is threatened, but it was made pretty clear that AD&D Druids typically did not have this level of commitment to others.Why is a thief heading into undead crypts instead of local taverns? I can come up with a million reasons. Thieves can steal for money, or steal for the thrill. If the king offers a bounty that exceeds what they'd get from months in the tavern, that alone is motivation enough. Likewise, perhaps they're just hoping to find treasure, or perhaps they're just looking for the adrenaline rush of danger, which can be why they're a thief.The Druid? Druids absolutely do "shun" civilization. Consider the original lore that they're not typically willing to risk their own lives to protect their charges, which would consist of their human and animal followers alike. Now consider if there's no penalty to them wearing armor, but they refuse to do so because it's worked metal that is associated with civilization. The fact that they're willing to enter the battlefield but risk their safety to make a point over some taboo against metal because it's too much of a mark of civilization, but they're not willing to risk their safety to save the creatures that follow them, shows they shun civilization more than they care about even the lives of their followers.I could see them going into the undead crypt, as undead are inherently magical and unnatural, and thus a threat to nature. However, that's one of the few situations typical adventurers find themselves in that Druids would actually ever get into. Bandits in town? No inherent threat to nature. Kidnappings? No inherent threat to nature. They're not willing to risk their lives for their own charges, so why would they be willing to risk their lives for some random villager? How is the human village any less of a threat to natural balance than a random primitive tribe of goblins? They're willing to risk their own safety on the battlefield to make a point against the tools of civilization, but they're going to stand next to armored knights that are fighting off the leather wearing, pointy stick wielding goblins riding in on their pet wolves? A Druid being stuck in their overzealous ways simply doesn't work out well when adventuring.For the specific examples, the rest of the party is okay with their payment being a halt on woods advancement? Most low level adventurers are taking jobs to make a little bit of coin. You think the king is going to delay the advancement of their kingdom for a 100GP job? Good luck with that.Goblins versus settlement? I find it unlikely that goblins are more nature unfriendly than humans, especially since goblins are more primitive and therefore their behavior is more in line with the natural order that Druids prefer, as indicated by the fact that Druids have a taboo against the advanced technology of civilization. As soon as those humans rise up with their swords and armor, and the goblins rise up with their leather and sticks, I can only see one side the Druid would prefer.Elves vs. kobolds? Same thing. If the kobolds are just kidnapping some elven children, then how is that worth the Druid's attention? Unless the kobolds are performing some egregious affront to nature, there's no reason for the Druid to get involved.The problem is that it always assumes the Druid is able to see some way in which one side is worse to nature than the other. The main issue with this is that requires the DM to literally add some footnote into every adventure that emphasizes that the side that's supposed to be stopped is bad for nature. The issue there becomes if everything that is happening against civilizations from the outside ends up being the bigger affront to nature than the things that are attacking the people in these civilizations, then how the heck can the Druid's belief about civilization not be possibly swayed by their experience? If every situation deems that the civilization is the one that's more on the side of nature, and thus is the side that must be protected, that goes against their very belief structure.This all meshes better with the current model of the game, where the character has more freedom in their alignment, but it doesn't mesh well with any sort of forced belief, especially when that belief has no mechanical implications. Druids can be of any alignment, and therefore can have literally any belief system. Why is a chaotic evil Druid going to be as caught up in a silly taboo as a lawful good Druid is? Why do evil Druids from the Underdark that worship an evil nature deity have the same taboo as neutral desert Druids that get their power from nature, who follow the same taboo as the lawful good coastal Druids that get their power from a good deity (note that both the good and evil nature deities grant their clerics proficiency in the heaviest of armors)?With the amount of different beliefs that Druids can hold, and the fact that by nature of the game system a character can change so completely throughout a campaign that they could start as a lawful good Paladin and end up as a chaotic evil Oathbreaker, or start as a lawful good Life Cleric and end up as a chaotic evil Death Cleric, how the heck is it out of the spirit of the game to assume a Druid could make the decision to break their taboo, especially when unlike the other examples, the Druid suffers no consequence as a result?</blockquote>

Verification