. . .
Our group had a lively debate about the ethics of being a druid.Argument One
Animals cannot be exploited in any way for the personal gain of the Druid. . .Argument Two
There are many types of druids and not all have to be played the same way. There may be some druids that hold animals in such high regard that they would never sacrifice an animal needlessly. But the same rules do not to apply to all druids. . . It is not appropriate to apply strict rules about animals to all druids in the same way.Agree?/disagree? Interested in hearing other opinions.
A druid was a member of the priestly class among the Celtic peoples of Gaul, Britain, Ireland, and possibly elsewhere during the Iron Age. Very little is known about the ancient druids. They left no written accounts of themselves and the only evidence is a few descriptions left by Greek, Roman and various scattered authors and artists, as well as stories created by later medieval Irish writers.[2] While archaeological evidence has been uncovered pertaining to the religious practices of the Iron Age people, "not one single artefact or image has been unearthed that can undoubtedly be connected with the ancient Druids."[3] Various recurring themes emerge in a number of the Greco-Roman accounts of the druids, including that they performed human sacrifice, believed in a form of reincarnation, and held a high position in Gaulish society. Next to nothing is known about their cultic practice, except for the ritual of oak and mistletoe as described by Pliny the Elder.
The earliest known reference to the druids dates to 200 BCE, although the oldest actual description comes from the Roman military general Julius Caesar in his Commentarii de Bello Gallico (50s BCE). Later Greco-Roman writers also described the druids, including Cicero,[4] Tacitus[5] and Pliny the Elder.[6] Following the Roman invasion of Gaul, druidism was suppressed by the Roman government under the 1st century CE emperors Tiberius and Claudius, and it had disappeared from the written record by the 2nd century.
In about 750 CE the word druid appears in a poem by Blathmac, who wrote about Jesus, saying that he was "…better than a prophet, more knowledgeable than every druid, a king who was a bishop and a complete sage."[7] The druids then also appear in some of the medieval tales from Christianized Ireland like the Táin Bó Cúailnge, where they are largely portrayed as sorcerers who opposed the coming of Christianity.[8] In the wake of the Celtic revival during the 18th and 19th centuries, fraternal and Neopagan groups were founded based on ideas about the ancient druids, a movement which is known as Neo-Druidism. Many popular modern notions about Druids have no connection to the Druids of the Iron Age, and are largely based on much later inventions or misconceptions.
However, if you attempt to emulate nature, animals hunt/kill/eat other animals.
It depends on your druid's ethos. I have played a druid... maybe twice. Both times, they attempted to emulate predatory creatures in battle. It seemed a tried and true method in nature. Out of combat, they were very different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Veneration does not equates protection. One can venerate something while eating it. Or making things out of it.
Also, summoned creatures are not really-really harmed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've run a PC druid, that I've now converted to an NPC in a city. He was anti-urban development, desiring all humans to live as villagers and farmers and that all urban development be stopped. He came to the city as protestor rabble rowser, got arrested, thrown into a dungeon cell, was forgotten for 2 years. When he was finally released, he was a bit psychotic and now lives as a homeless wino in the ghetto parts of the city, where he cares for vermin and stray animals and hates people. He works to make the city deteriorate and brought to ruin, through erosion, spread of vermin wildlife. He definitely does not fit the concept of "urban druid" - in fact its opposite.
And I've never thought of a druid as the caretaker of the animals of the forest. Survival of the fittest is the natural way of things, thus a druid wants to enforce that so that the food chain is unmolested. Predators hunt, kill and consume prey, prey consume the plants and flora - maintaining the natural order is the duty for the typical druid. Protecting animals from each other is not a goal at all. Protecting nature from the exploitation of man is of paramount importance.
My current (as yet unplayed - Saturday is her debut) skinwalker druid/barbarian identifies as her totem wolf far more than as a humanoid. She therefore happily hunts and eats other animals (and humanoids - it will be interesting the first time the party paladin catches her at it, I foresee much fun interaction and opinions on ethics). As gamer-printer says, 'Survival of the fittest'. The weak are preyed upon by the strong and it was ever thus.
Perhaps a NG druid would be a protector of furry and feathered creatures, but a CN or NE druid is unlikely to see other animals as anything other than prey and/or predators.
On summoning animals to fight for you....
I've had a similar discussion on the Pathfinder Online boards about why it is automatically evil to animate lifeless bones to fight for you, but summoning living creatures (or other lifeless material) to do so is not.
It is not a question with an easy answer if each part of the ethical argument is analysed, but instead falls into the 'it's evil because the rules say so' category. The rules do not say that summoning animals to be slaughtered is evil, even in against overwhelming odds such as sending 1d3 mice in to attack/distract a leopard, so it isn't. A good argument could be made about 'ceasing to revere nature', but that isn't really the same thing as 'protecting individual animals'. After all, feeding mice to a leopard is revering the leopard, if not the mice.
Short answer - whatever you and your GM decide.
|
Would a druid really allow animals and summoned creatures to fight while keeping at the fringe of battle? Aren't animals used in this way being exploited by the druid?
If I decide to fight for a cause, If i have decided that violence is the only option, then from there on out the best thing I can do for myself, the cause, AND my animal companion is to fight as effectively as possible. For some of the brawnier druids that means fighting claw by claw with their partners. For me to try that would just be gettiing myself and Conan killed for the sake of sentiment. I would much rather keep the relative safety of distance and cast my spells unimpeded and get everyone out alive than see my friend die because I had too many sharp pointy objects in me to fully imbue him with the wrath of nature.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Humans are natural omnivores. Insisting on a strict herbivore diet is not natural. It's pretending to be something you're not.
Nature isn't nice. Druids should definitely not waste animals in battle, because that's disrespectful. But druids are the enforcers and generals of nature's army, leading troops (companions, summoned monsters) to protect nature. That sometimes means ordering troops into harm's way. But they shouldn't be squandering them. Waste not, want not.
I think the crucial question should be "WHY are we fighting X?" - does it do nature any good?
That said, it's not just a man vs. nature thing; not all druids want to exterminate humanoids. Druids mediate between mankind and nature, trying to find a place for both. They're maybe more on nature's side than on mankind, but they can prevent a lot of misery. By telling a king "I know you have population pressure, but you CAN'T chop down that forest, because then you'll cause trouble with monster habitats. Why don't we look for a better site elsewhere?" Of course, sometimes kings don't want to listen to fringe environmentalists. Which is when those environmentalists demonstrate what Earthquake does to the royal palace.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Role: While some druids might keep to the fringe of battle, allowing companions and summoned creatures to fight while they confound foes with the powers of nature, others transform into deadly beasts and savagely wade into combat."
Would a druid really allow animals and summoned creatures to fight while keeping at the fringe of battle? Aren't animals used in this way being exploited by the druid?
Our group had a lively debate about the ethics of being a druid.
Argument One
Animals cannot be exploited in any way for the personal gain of the Druid. Take a canary in a coal mine for example. If dangerous gases leaked into the mine, the gases would kill the canary before killing the miners, thus providing a warning to exit the tunnels immediately. A druid can absolutely not use a canary in this way. Druids are likely to be vegetarians’ and not kill animals for food if they have other options. Training an animal to scout for the party, when that animal could potentially set off a trap and die, is grounds for the druid losing their druidic powers.Argument Two
There are many types of druids and not all have to be played the same way. There may be some druids that hold animals in such high regard that they would never sacrifice an animal needlessly. But the same rules do not to apply to all druids. A Storm Druid could in fact sacrifice an animal to their god. Alternatively it is fine for a druid to have no god at all. A poster on theses boards describes a dwarven druid that considers the greater mystery of the earth. "Before the dwarves recognized the deities they knew rock, lava, gems and metals. The earth spoke to them and if you listened it would tell you its story". A dwarf druid played in this way is perfectly acceptable and it is reasonable for such a druid to enjoy a suckling roast pig. It is not appropriate to apply strict rules about animals to all druids in the same way.Agree?/disagree? Interested in hearing other opinions.
]
I have always seen Druids as protectors and students of nature but also very much a part of nature. A Druid wouldn't have any problem eating meat or putting an animal in harm’s way as other animals eat other animals and in a world full of monsters, animals will inevitably come across something big, scary, and dangerous at some point anyways. Plus an alpha male will put itself in harm’s way for a large variety of reasons as will just about any mother with young.
Also there are different kinds of Druids and you can play them differently as well. I play a Blight Druid frequently who believes that death is a natural part of the cycle of life and adamantly believes that things must die in order for life to flourish, grow, and prosper. He sees himself as the part of nature that everyone likes to pretend isn't there but is just as important as all the other parts. Death renews the soil and provides nutrients for future growth. Sometimes a forest catches fire from lighting but a new and vibrate forest grows from the ash. Additionally if nothing died new things would have no room to fully experience their own life (before it's inevitable end). With respects to this understanding of the cycle of life and the inevitability of death, my Blight Druid is a pretty wicked and some would say heartless individual but then he hates undead and outsiders because one is unnatural and the other does not belong in the material plane....he is also not a fan of aberrations.
You may be the spring rain but he is the bugs and fungus eating the remains of dead animals and turning them to mulch. You may be the verdant forest but he is what made the soil rich and fertile through the death and decay (or burning) of all that came before (he is also the gentle hand who spread the seeds of new growth)
I would say no to 1 and yes to 2. Druids revere nature. Animals eat each other. A Druid would have not problem with that but there are probably lots of different kind of Druids depending on alignment.
In my opinion most Druids are not environmentalist/vegans. They don't assume nature = good and humans are bad/outside of nature. A Druid would try to maintain a balance understanding that humans are a part of nature and thus need to eat, have shelter, seek happiness, etc. Thus an owl or canary does not have more value to a druid than a human. A canary in a coal mine is in the same danger as a canary in the wild, it is just different danger.
|
|
Sending a dog into a minefield would be disrespectful. Not enough to lose powers overnight, but it all adds up.
But sending a dog that's got a good chance (because he's well-trained and the right animal for the job) to scout - that's fine.
Druids are commanding officers in nature's army. That means sometimes sending beasts into harm's way for the greater good. But with respect for the beast; if he's risking his hide he deserves respect. No suicide missions.
If you think of your druid as a predator (lets go NE here for the more negative connotations of that), then I can easily think of one that is a 'protector of nature' but completely callous to animal lives. If they are a predator, then they need to protect their hunting grounds, and make sure others do not eat up all of the 'prey'.
Here is an interesting moral quandry though: could a Druid take the head position of a large scale furtrading/lumber company? Your first instinct might be to say 'no', but think of it more closely. If they are the head of the company with the rights to the area, then they set the rules. Thus, it would be easier to set up more sustainable practices (selective hunting, not cutting down trees under a certain age, leaving enough plant life to prevent erosion, etc.) So, while they might be encouraging the destruction of various natural resources on an industrial scale, would it be bad if they are doing so to mitigate the extent of the damage?
Here is a question, if a Ranger trains his companion to scout ahead and that animal accidentally sets off a trap, does that Ranger 'fall'?
Your GM has some odd rules. But if you're fine with them so be it.
Also, since you are playing a CN Druid you are going to do things a little different than say a straight Neutral Druid. We used to call that alignment Chaotic Nutty! ;D
As you say, not all druids are the same (and it's not even an alignment thing). There's a long list of what you're allowed, but some druids would certainly restrict themselves further.
Specific counter-arguments/additional thoughts:
Food chain, dude. Humans are omnivores, omnivores eat meat. The druid could probably take a Native American view at it; use as much of the animal as you can, maybe thank its spirit for its bounty of meat, hide and bone.
In my game worlds where I have druids, they help the local farmers out, teaching them things like crop rotation and irrigation techniques, often wandering around just to cast Create Water and such, as well as telling loggers about reforestation and such.
As far as summons go, I don't really think of them as being 'real animals'; they're just packets of magic shaped into forms the druid is familiar with (I think of all Summons like that; only Callings bring real creatures).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a question, if a Ranger trains his companion to scout ahead and that animal accidentally sets off a trap, does that Ranger 'fall'?
I just noticed something. There is no 'Ex-Ranger' section. The ranger can abuse nature all he wants and get off scot free.
Also keep in mind that a druid is likely going to view their animal companion in the same way that they view their PC companions. If the party's rogue died while scouting ahead it wouldn't affect your druid in a way that would make them lose their powers. I don't see the companion's death as being an abuse of their powers.
. . . There is no 'Ex-Ranger' section. The ranger can abuse nature all he wants and get off scot free.
That's because the ranger is powered by hatred. Mmm... tasty tasty hate.
. . . There is no 'Ex-Ranger' section. The ranger can abuse nature all he wants and get off scot free.That's because the ranger is powered by hatred. Mmm... tasty tasty hate.
A rather interesting point: are demon guts spicy? I would hope dragon meat is at least (well red dragon)
Training an animal to scout for the party, when that animal could potentially set off a trap and die, is grounds for the druid losing their druidic powers.
I think it depends on the animal companion. If you're doing that with with a sneaky cat wearing good armor and properly buffed by the party you're good. If you've lost 7 Fluffies this week and its only Tuesday, the powers that be may want to have a word with how you're exhausting the resources they're sending you. Even an evil druid is going to be against wasting valuable resources.
Failing to recognize one's place in the natural order is an affront to nature.
Real druids eat meat--after they hunt and kill it themselves.
Seriously, there are a jillion kinds of druid. There were a jillion kinds even back when druids had to be True Neutral and dueled to the death (or worse) for the privilege of gaining a level.
As for using animal companions: Same deal. A druid need only revere nature; how she does it is up to her. She can recognize that she is an instrument of nature's will and send armies of her children to their deaths if it furthered the natural order--after all, nature is far greater than any few of her creatures, just as a creature is far greater than the cells that comprise it. Or she can spend her life protecting sanctuaries and never subject any other creature to danger.
AD&D druids fit a narrow mold. Their role was often defined as nature's protector against encroaching civilization. Druids could magically befriend and train animals but using them for trap bait was specifically prohibited. The druid could protect a trained creature somewhat (barkskin, protection from fire) but the druid list didn't offer much at low level. Summoning creatures was not as prevalent (the earliest animal summoning spell was 4th level) and the creatures were drawn from the immediate region (if they did respond). For actual scouting, you were usually better off doing it yourself (shapechange) or shadowing the ranger or rogue. Basically, the druid was there to protect the wild. Nature could help and even fight but you would always be point man.
If you think about it, wouldn't natural be defined as 'anything that can happen without extraplanar forces involved'? If you hit a tree with an axe enough times, it falls down ... that's natural. Seems to me druids would be more apt to worry more about outsiders and some aberrations than animal husbandry.
Animal Exploitation : Gotta love how it transfers over to their armor/shield usage too.
Meerkat elders send their younger and less valuable members across roads and other dangerous terrain to act as scouts/guinea pigs, making sure that the way is clear for the rest.
Given that natural animals do it, why should your druid not play the same game? Always assuming that you class the trained animal as less important than the party gnome bard, of course.
Animal Exploitation : Gotta love how it transfers over to their armor/shield usage too.
And yet, the druid can wield all manner of metal weapons (daggers, sickles, scythes, etc.)--makes no sense at all.
What I gave to the player of a Druid PC in my home game
I do similar for Paladins and Clerics...I wish Pazio would come out with something similar for all deities and save all the "has this Paladin fallen..." threads.
I would go with 2.
I play a NG arctic druid, he is really not what someone would call a hippy treehugger. Humans are a social species so in general he values communities very high and since he's from the north, he sees survival against a cold and harsh environment as a constant struggle. When he summon a creature, he will not put it in danger unless it is for the rest of the group's benefit and he won't put it in a place he wouldn't go. As a caster, he is not in the thick of things but doesn't hesitate to go save the rest of the party because sometimes one must sacrifice himself for the rest of the group, a sacrifice he would never ask of anyone else.
If he were to fall, I would imagine he'd have betrayed his community/party members or he'd have let someone freely destroy nature.
Using fall as a club against players actions is bad form IMHO. It is at his best used as a story tool in collaboration with a player.
A rather interesting point: are demon guts spicy? I would hope dragon meat is at least (well red dragon)
I imagine red dragon meat is very spicy. Demon, on the other hand, I imagine taste like regret. Those poor unfortunate souls...
But yeah. There are no weak druids. Centuries of the circle of life to draw from has distilled the killing potential. Weak and unfit druids get themselves killed off. And after a few of the comments, I think I want to play a druid that only wears the skins of his dead enemies.
"Yes. This belt of teeth is made from abyssal skulls. However this rhino hide is actually made of troll skin. This hat of disguise... well I had to do something useful with that gnome bard... What? He wouldn't shut up!"
Humans are natural omnivores. Insisting on a strict herbivore diet is not natural. It's pretending to be something you're not.
Well, I wouldn't call it "unnatural"; we are omnivores, but we do not need meat to thrive. We need to eat vegetable matter (AFAIK) and we can make use of the nutrients in meat, but unlike say polar bears who are also omnivores, we do not need the meat to stay healthy. So it's completely natural to just eat vegetables.
. . . There is no 'Ex-Ranger' section. The ranger can abuse nature all he wants and get off scot free.That's because the ranger is powered by hatred. Mmm... tasty tasty hate.
I think it is because a ranger has no alignment requirements.
But if a ranger is powered by hatred, what happens if he takes elf and human as his favored enemies and then marries or has an affair with a half-elf?
I think it is because a ranger has no alignment requirements.
But if a ranger is powered by hatred, what happens if he takes elf and human as his favored enemies and then marries or has an affair with a half-elf?
Angry... uhhmmm... relations. I really want to answer that question, but I fear I cannot do so without saying something terribly inappropriate... actually several somethings.
And favored enemy, to me, though possibly inappropriately, is icy hatred (or possibly an overreacting, irrational fear). Its a methodical and systematic analysis of a group of creatures to understand how they tick and how to make the ticking stop. I think in 3.0 you could only chose your own race as a favored enemy if you were evil, but not so in 3.5.
Then again, I did mean "rangers are powered by hatred..." somewhat in jest.
Animal Exploitation : Gotta love how it transfers over to their armor/shield usage too.
That never made any sense to me. Metal is every bit as natural as animal hide.
I always figured that the prohibition against metal had to do with the process by which it is mined. Mining "damages" the earth and, like deforestation, can disrupt local ecosystems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always figured that the prohibition against metal had to do with the process by which it is mined. Mining "damages" the earth and, like deforestation, can disrupt local ecosystems.
Like killing and skinning an animal doesn't damage it?
And you're not really damaging anything, just moving it from one place to another.
The metal thing is basically a taboo. Whether you trace it back to the Celtic roots of the class or justify it as an unwillingness to defile the earth to make it doesn't really matter that much. As for the use of metal weapons . . . taboo is rarely rational. I once played a druid who refused to use any worked metal or stone at all. It made things a bit difficult at times, but it was a step closer to a "rational" taboo.
I'm all for removing the taboo or reinforcing it, so long as the mechanics are adjusted accordingly. Maybe a mini-archetype (similar to an oath or vow) for each option would be fun for some players? One trades trackless step or woodland stride for the ability to wear metal armor without taboo, the other trades the ability to use worked metal or stone for some nature-type perk.
I'd go with that, blahpers. Sticking to stereotypes should be an option, but I don't think it should be a requirement.