Looking through some Bestiary stuff and noting that a lot of Fey seem to be labeled as Good despite being really...... nasty.
We got Dryads who
Some keep one or more charmed humanoids in their
territory to fend off or lead away attackers.
It's
rumored that deep within Avi stan's
most ancient forests, groves of dryads keep
dozens of charmed admirers nearby-both to
protect their trees and to indulge at their whim.
So they use their Charm person spell like ability to convince people to abandon their past lives to risk their own personal safety protecting the forest? Not only that, but they use their magic to charm people into having sex with them and into believing they enjoy it?
I dunno about you, but that seems pretty CN or even Evil to me. Generally it seems the unlawful subjugation of another is considered evil, especially if it's to be used to sexually or physically abuse the unwilling. I mean I know that if I played a CG Bard and used charm person and suggestion to coerce people into sleeping with me that my GM would bump my alignment right down.
What do you guys think, are Dryads CG or a non-good alignment?
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern
for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make
personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others
and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others
actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some
evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have
compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the
commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his
conscience directs him with little regard for what others
expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and
benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has
little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when
people try to intimidate others and tell them what
to do. He follows his own moral compass, which,
although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free
spirit
Chaotic Neutral: A chaotic neutral character follows his
whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his
own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom.
He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and
challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character
does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to
be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others)
or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer). A chaotic
neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is
not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge
as he is to cross it.
Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society’s
restrictions and a do-gooder’s zeal.
I think there is a difference in level between "not nice" and using magic to coerce someone into abandoning their homes to protect a forest on your whims+being your sexual object.
Though in your campaigns you can do whatever you want man.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a difference in level between "not nice" and using magic to coerce someone into abandoning their homes to protect a forest on your whims+being your sexual object.
Though in your campaigns you can do whatever you want man.
First, the Bestiary clearly states that dryads are benign and they resort only to killing evil foes. Second, "charmed admirers" might as well be orcs, drow, goblins, bandits or whatever other Evil crap that happened to try and have a go at a dryad's tree. So, if you got charmed, you likely deserved it.
And if your GM is of that type of alignmentary absolutist, I'd consider finding a new one. He'll likely set you up for a "let an orphanage of goblin kids burn down or save them?" situation sooner than later, and we'll have one more fun thread about what alignments truly mean in D&D.
|
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Got some thoughts on dryads, but on the go. Still:
I really think dryads get given a huge pass on the basis of "fey logic/morality is different" and it's just sort of stuck and sticks out more and more as certain aspects of fantasy in general and the game in particular get examined more closely and reevaluated. Kind of like how love potions once seemed an innocent trope but are now seen as horrifying or have to be heavily reworked to not be so. Dryads seem to hold out against change on virtue of legacy for the most part, but interestingly that only seems to be the case for bestiary entries. Every dryad I remember showing up in PF adventures didn't keep a collection of charmed people while being presented as good. And those dryads that are mentioned as having lovers are also never described as having charmed them IIRC.
But yeah, good dryads charming beings to prevent danger I can see, but not so much the charmed harem collecting version.
Because good harem collectors respect consent and negotiated boundaries made free of coercion.
(my next character is totally not going to be a faun that tries to explain romantic ethics and morality to dryads and satyrs)
Second, "charmed admirers" might as well be orcs, drow, goblins, bandits or whatever other Evil crap that happened to try and have a go at a dryad's tree. So, if you got charmed, you likely deserved it.
Evil deserves to be enslaved. Gotcha.
Also, neutral and good lumberjacks in Andoran are often charmed away from home by Dryads and made to attack their coworkers for daring to make a living on lumber. You know, that thing that is needed to make houses for their village. So maybe not every person who cuts down a dryad tree is evil.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo should totally print a Dryad who helps the party, protects the local communities, leads wayward children back home safe, fights the evil fey, aids Good druids and rangers an at the same time keeps a harem of charmed oh hi Mikaze ORCS and keeps brutally treating them as sex slaves/cannon fodder AND leave her alignment out of the statblocks because giggles.
The ensuring alignment flame war would be nothing but glorious.
Also, neutral and good lumberjacks in Andoran are often charmed away from home by Dryads and made to attack their coworkers for daring to make a living on lumber. You know, that thing that is needed to make houses for their village. So maybe not every person who cuts down a dryad tree is evil.
In this case, the lumberjacks really are operating as "soldiers" in a war between the fey and the Andoran Lumber consortium (who are not portrayed as good guys in Pathfinder material).
You basically have guys who are destroying your home...I think its fair to fight back
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually usually end up playing Dryads off as ecoterrorists; charming lumberjacks to keep their coworkers away, sending plant monsters to harass nearby logging towns. They usually end up doing things that are rather awful - all for two reasons: defense of their homes, and because fey don't usually realize that people die when you kill them.
Players never know how to react when the "bigbad" that sent armies of stickmen to harass the logging camps ends up being a charmingly attractive feywoman tied to a tree, who is more than willing to treat peacefully with them so long as they don't threaten her woodlands excessively.
Got some thoughts on dryads, but on the go. Still:
I really think dryads get given a huge pass on the basis of "fey logic/morality is different" and it's just sort of stuck and sticks out more and more as certain aspects of fantasy in general and the game in particular get examined more closely and reevaluated. Kind of like how love potions once seemed an innocent trope but are now seen as horrifying or have to be heavily reworked to not be so. Dryads seem to hold out against change on virtue of legacy for the most part, but interestingly that only seems to be the case for bestiary entries. Every dryad I remember showing up in PF adventures didn't keep a collection of charmed people while being presented as good. And those dryads that are mentioned as having lovers are also never described as having charmed them IIRC.
But yeah, good dryads charming beings to prevent danger I can see, but not so much the charmed harem collecting version.
Because good harem collectors respect consent and negotiated boundaries made free of coercion.
(my next character is totally not going to be a faun that tries to explain romantic ethics and morality to dryads and satyrs)
it's why my dart gun just fires darts. Use of poison is evil!
I actually usually end up playing Dryads off as ecoterrorists; charming lumberjacks to keep their coworkers away, sending plant monsters to harass nearby logging towns. They usually end up doing things that are rather awful - all for two reasons: defense of their homes, and because fey don't usually realize that people die when you kill them.
i do much the same.
Wish you just removed the offending text, a good bit of my post was an example relevant to the discussion. Any chance you can just PM it to me so I can repost the relevant part?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's why my dart gun just fires darts. Use of poison is evil!
...oh wait, you said DART gun... never mind then...
My post was 90% on topic then one offhand remark to another poster
in the format of
*stuff of importance including multiple quotes from APs and my interpretation.*@poster
Oh BTW X
So because my post got deleted a lot of stuff that was actually useful to the thread was vacuumed.
Hopefully if Chris is reading they can PM me my lost post so I can repost my relevant info.
So they use their Charm person spell like ability to convince people to abandon their past lives to risk their own personal safety protecting the forest?
Okay, should they not charm people, and thereby have to give up their own lives and personal safety in order to protect loggers?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wish you just removed the offending text, a good bit of my post was an example relevant to the discussion. Any chance you can just PM it to me so I can repost the relevant part?
To be fair to the mods, it's not their job to make someone's post apply to the forum rules; its ours. Its their job to enforce it.
As for the dryads, as has been discussed, alignment is an ugly business. It might not work great in this instance like many others because the shades of gray are heavy. They are protecting their homelands by whatever means they think is needed and for all we know, they might think what they're doing to the charmed people is a gift to them (a very chaotic way of thinking). I like to think that the rules of the fae/fey along with what's good or evil in their books is going to be a bit alien to how WE see it. We're trying to apply rules to a group of people playing an entirely different game ... so good luck with that heh.
As has been stated by at least one developer, committing an evil act for that is perceived as the greater good is still an evil act.
Doesn't matter who does it since the alignment system works the same for everyone. Sure they may have a different outlook on life and what's right and wrong, but forcefully stripping someones freedom and future is most definitely an evil act.
Okay, should they not charm people, and thereby have to give up their own lives and personal safety in order to protect loggers?
So they use their Charm person spell like ability to convince people to abandon their past lives to risk their own personal safety protecting the forest?
Ok, so example.
My village is going to be under attack from another village in one week. In response I go to a smaller village than mine and through magic convince this small village that they need to come and help us in the upcoming battle. During the battle they are essentially my villages meat shields.
Was what I did an evil act?
In my mind I saved my village, kept a lot of my people from dying, and effectively drove away the attackers. Sure I broke a few eggs in the process, but at least MY people are safe.
A character with a good alignment would have a lot of trouble justifying this in any fashion. Sure the rules allow some leeway in committing evil acts as a good character, but this isn't some minor evil act. Life was not respected and the dignity of sentient beings was curbstomped.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
I'd say that while a Dryad could justify its actions it could never justify them enough to be considered good. Neutral definitely. Definitely not evil though.
Someone who is mainly Good and performs some neutral actions is still Good. It's not like dryads use their magic to re-enact Saw or something.
Never described their actions as neutral, I stated them as evil.
The only mention of neutrality is that their behavior matches Neutral allignments, not good or evil ones.
I think there is a difference in level between "not nice" and using magic to coerce someone into abandoning their homes to protect a forest on your whims+being your sexual object.
Though in your campaigns you can do whatever you want man.
First, the Bestiary clearly states that dryads are benign and they resort only to killing evil foes. Second, "charmed admirers" might as well be orcs, drow, goblins, bandits or whatever other Evil crap that happened to try and have a go at a dryad's tree. So, if you got charmed, you likely deserved it.
Yeah, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of A) Its okay to enslave and rape them if they're "evil", and B) saying something to the effect of "They deserved it."
You know who else captures and has involuntary sex with humans? Ogres. Nobody is jumping to their defense. Is it okay when Dryads do it because they checked the "Good" box in the alignment ticker, and because they are small pretty tree sprites instead of lumbering malformed horror movie cliches?
I think we're on a very similar wavelength.
|
I think we're on a very similar wavelength.I think there is a difference in level between "not nice" and using magic to coerce someone into abandoning their homes to protect a forest on your whims+being your sexual object.
Though in your campaigns you can do whatever you want man.
First, the Bestiary clearly states that dryads are benign and they resort only to killing evil foes. Second, "charmed admirers" might as well be orcs, drow, goblins, bandits or whatever other Evil crap that happened to try and have a go at a dryad's tree. So, if you got charmed, you likely deserved it.
Yeah, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of A) Its okay to enslave and rape them if they're "evil", and B) saying something to the effect of "They deserved it."
You know who else captures and has involuntary sex with humans? Ogres. Nobody is jumping to their defense. Is it okay when Dryads do it because they checked the "Good" box in the alignment ticker, and because they are small pretty tree sprites instead of lumbering malformed horror movie cliches?
Make that the three of us. Judge a person by the company they keep, and if a dryad is surrounding herself with charmed orcs to act as her harem... I don't care what the Paladin's Detect Evil is saying, Cold Iron needs to be employed post-haste.
Actually I like the idea of Dryads that use a combination of their beauty and charming/suggesting magic to manipulate mortals into abandoning town and country to protect their love's forests and trees.
I find it to be non-good, but far more interesting than alternatives.
What I don't like is that their supposedly good creatures while doing that.
Fey Revisited wrote:
It's rumored that deep within Avi stan's most ancient forests, groves of dryads keep dozens of charmed admirers nearby-both to protect their trees and to indulge at their whim.
Hmm… Since when is something rumored to be fact? Also, Charm Person wrote:
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.
Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
How do you know they aren’t charming people that would be more predisposed to helping them? You are making many assumptions that aren’t actually in the Dryad description.
Fey Revisited wrote:
It's rumored that deep within Avi stan's most ancient forests, groves of dryads keep dozens of charmed admirers nearby-both to protect their trees and to indulge at their whim.Hmm… Since when is something rumored to be fact? Also, Charm Person wrote:
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.
Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.How do you know they aren’t charming people that would be more predisposed to helping them? You are making many assumptions that aren’t actually in the Dryad description.
Counterpoint
If the PCs do not appear to want
to help them, Tiressia and
Falchos fall back on their fey
magic. Falchos uses his pipes
to cast suggestion (if
the PCs seem willing
but undecided) or
charm person (if they are
completely unwilling to
help), while Tiressia uses
her own suggestion or charm
person ability on anyone out of range of or unaffected by
Falchos’s music. Falchos follows this with his own spelllike
abilities if necessary, focusing on female PCs while
Tiressia attempts to charm male PCs. The two fey do not
otherwise attack PCs unless assaulted first.
It turns out that Dryads do, in fact, practice their magic on anyone. Not just people inclined to help them, but even random passerby! Not only that, but they will send you off to do potentially deadly quests once they magically coerce you.
Additionally, just using their powers to magically coerce people into fighting for them is actually worse than magical rape.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say it is a matter of legacy as well... But the question then becomes why they were originally pegged as good despite this (rape wasn't really legal in the fifties, you know?). I would say it is partly because dryads are mythological creatures with such myths about them, but also the idea that nature as embodied by fey is dangerous though not necessarily malicious. Also, I would say it is questionable that charming someone and making them your friend is worse than murdering them. At the very least, that is very modern thinking. Consider: The dryad doesn't really have any other weapons to defend herself with. If we can consider poison use acceptable for good people, something seriously condemned in 1st edition AD&D, I would say the wickedness of charming someone is mostly dependent on what you do with it.
Dryads are designed as creatures that WILL come into conflict with civilization. Their plight is not an issue that can really be solved amicably - it is either civilzation stands down or the dryads die. Consider this: Given that the loggers are most certainly human, some of them would feel moved by seeing a dryad. They also live off the forest, and dryads are a direct expression of something that nurtures them. Some would probably feel they did wrong to hurt a dryad, and some might choose to go AWOL to defend her. This expression of decency would of course be painted by the lumber bosses as dangerous, immoral, treason and whatnot - precisely the rumours described. Further, if a logger lives with the dryad for more than a little while, her alien nature would make itself known, and their relationship would be complicated. If the logger eventually leaves, it might be quite a bit easier to claim that she enspelled him than the truth.
Mythological creatures are reflections of human emotions, and are thus always simplified.
Offering up some good and cogent arguments for the Dryads there Sissyl, though if anything I'd say that your evidence further points toward my conclusion: That Dryads are neutral, not good or evil.
Offering up some good and cogent arguments for the Dryads there Sissyl, though if anything I'd say that your evidence further points toward my conclusion: That Dryads are neutral, not good or evil.
By the myths, dryads are the beauty of the forest, nurturing all sorts of life there. I think you have a way to go to claim that is neutral. Neutral toward humans and civilization, perhaps?
From the dryad's viewpoint, humans are orc-like savages who enter the home they're trying to protect mostly just to kill the trees and clear the lands for farming. Using mind-influencing magic on such invaders isn't a particularly ethical method, but neither is killing things, and 'good' characters do that all the time.
Let's use this example.
X is a man that truly loves humanity and does everything he can to further Human interests, however that love does not extend to aliens. In his quest to further Humanity he is forced to deal with aliens in ways that one would not consider pleasant. To Humans he is a good man, nurturing and kind, but to aliens he's a force of nature that should be avoided.
Is X good or neutral? To the humans most would say that he's good while most aliens would likely call him evil.
Reminder that Good is not always nice and pretty and Evil is not always mean and ugly.
Many Christians will say that the Devil appears, not as a horrifying demon, but a kind and charismatic temptation.
Once again I'm not saying Dryads are evil or good, I am saying they are neutral. They commit some good acts and some bad acts while protecting their own interests, which is a good way to describe neutrality.
Of course my simple hammer argument is also to just point at the core rule book where it says
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern
for the dignity of sentient beings.
The Dryad in Kingmaker, +the one described in the bestiary, did not display respect for life or concern for the dignity of sentient beings despite being of a good alignment, so either the alignment section of the core rulebook needs revision or the alignment of Dryads does.
From the dryad's viewpoint, humans are orc-like savages who enter the home they're trying to protect mostly just to kill the trees and clear the lands for farming. Using mind-influencing magic on such invaders isn't a particularly ethical method, but neither is killing things, and 'good' characters do that all the time.
I also generally have a problem with people using a good alignment wrong too, but that belongs in another thread.
Additionally I don't like the "viewpoint argument" because by using that argument a lot of things aren't evil.
"Orcs/Goblins/Whatever aren't evil because it's their culture!"
There are cases where two well-intentioned cultures come into conflict with one another over resources.
Suppose a paladin lives a normal city lifestyle, eating food from farms created by destroying the sacred glades of the dryads, cooked using firewood stolen from the remaining forests. Is that an alignment violation?
To be honest I'd prefer the dryads be considered neutral-ish too. I don't really like the 'this race is good-aligned' concept in the first place.
My theory is that the legacy of 'damsal in distress'. You have this physically weak woman trapped in the woods USUALLY outnumbered by the burly axe-wielders who are only interested in profit.
The game wasn't really designed with every decision being a moral quandary... it was a case of "Pretty woman needs help. She can't fight. She can't flee... What do you do."
So basically, they're good... because you're MEANT to help them. I don't really remember ever running across one in an antagonistic role... They're bound to their trees... Easy fight to avoid if you WANT to...
Also, with the greek myths, all the men were horrible lecherous dudes out to sleep with anyone or anything... Frankly I think the 'charm person' aspect was a dumb way to make it 'not the guy's fault' when they got back to the village. >.<
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also like to pop in and note that, as far as the rest of the game seems to be concerned, charming someone and convincing them to fight for you isn't presented as an alignment violation. It won't make you Good, but it won't drop you to Neutral (unless there's something I've not seen). The harem stuff, though, I'm... less inclined to defend.
In the end, though, that's why we have GMs: to rule in cases like this.
I'd also like to pop in and note that, as far as the rest of the game seems to be concerned, charming someone and convincing them to fight for you isn't presented as an alignment violation. It won't make you Good, but it won't drop you to Neutral (unless there's something I've not seen). The harem stuff, though, I'm... less inclined to defend.
In the end, though, that's why we have GMs: to rule in cases like this.
True. Free will is more on the chaos/Law line then it is Good/Evil Even Paladins can cast Geas as long as it's used in 'don't do bad things' use.
Fairytale creatures are whimsical, strange and often dangerous. I wouldn't try straightjacking them with the alignment system.
You're right, it would be better if most things had no printed alignment.
Dryads are generally benevolent however like many types of fairy they have a penchant for abducting those that they take a fancy to.
Kidnapping people is not a good act. Pathfinder defines good and evil based on the act, not the mentality behind it.
There is nothing particularly malevolent about it, they are the enchantresses of the enchanted forest and they do what they do because that is their nature.
If it is their nature to kidnap people with mind magic, and use opposed charisma checks to convince them to do things they normally would not do, then I say their nature cannot be good.
You can just call them Chaotic Good for their general behaviour with the exception of their dangerous seductive whims.
I'd rather call them neutral. It makes the most sense based of what you said.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. Consider this: Shelyn makes people fall in love with other people. This is obviously a violation of free will of the absolute highest order - and yet Shelyn is described as the most saccharine of goodie-goodie-two-shoes. Shouldn't she be utterly evil and monstrous for this playing with peoples' minds?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kidnapping people is not a good act. Pathfinder defines good and evil based on the act, not the mentality behind it.
So if my Paladin kidnaps an evil drow priestess in order to ransom her for 200 children who were about to be sacrificed to demon lords in an unholy rite, did he fail? Man, gaming with you must be difficult :)
Fey logic. Also, I suspect that James Jacobs would want to edit that part of the Dryad description in the future. Someone could ask him about it at the proper thread...