| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Allies to beasts and manipulators of nature, these often misunderstood protectors of the wild strive to shield their lands from all who would threaten them and prove the might of the wilds to those who lock themselves behind city walls."Allies to beasts." Sorry, you don't use your allies to sweep traps.
Really? Huh. I've been playing Barbarians incorrectly this entire time.
The "intro text" is not RAW or RAI. It's flavor, like the flavor text for the Core races. Otherwise, like Arachnofiend pointed out, barbarians (and many others) would end up with some pretty strict requirements.
The requirements to be a druid are under "Ex-Druids", and they are quite clear on this. Reverence of nature does not mean treating all beasts like animals at the petting zoo.
Basically - torturing animals is evil, using them as minesweepers when there are alternatives is usually evil. Is it against the druidic code? That's more complex than what a forum post could answer. To play devils advocate -
Neutral Evil druids are a thing. They aren't nice. They will harm others for profit, advantage, and maybe even entertainment. That is what defines evil. They will torture animals. They just might not torture specific animals they are attached to (animal companions, etc.). Same goes for people, they will torture people, just not ones they are attached to.
If the druid prefers living in a city to being in the woods, then the big hint is they no longer care about nature. Druids should prefer the wild to civilization. An evil druid just prefers to stalk their victims in the wild rather than hunting them down the alleys of a street.
With that said, if their environment is threatened, evil druids will still protect their territory. They may even look for such a flimsy excuse just to harm any perceived intrusions.
Big picture, it isn't against the druid code, though it is certainly not good. Strip mining a forest for some gemstones? Now that's against the druid code (and a neutral act to boot).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeaaaah, when it comes to "Must respect nature", animals are not synonymous with nature.Wild animals are 100% synonymous nature.
Animals are part of nature. Saying "wild animals = nature" is like saying "lake = water".
How else would blight druids get by only giving a crap about bugs and bacteria? It's arguably evil, but judging according to "natural morals", you're using what resources you have to survive. Just like any other beast of the wild would do.No. You're 100% wrong.
A blight druid is focused on the dead and decay of the natural world. They aren't allowed to have animal companions and they 100% are not focused on preserving animal life.
The devoted servants of nature corrupted, ruined, and destroyed, blight druids are the caretakers of lands ravaged by natural disaster. While some are devoted to reforming and reclaiming lands despoiled by the ravages of civilization, others seek out the more rapacious violence inherent in nature and feed the creeping rot and decay that brings an end to all things.
Um. Rephrase this. You declared I'm "100% wrong" (lots of "100%"s with you, interestingly, considering you previously tried to argue this issue had tons of shades of gray), then said a bunch of stuff that matches what I said.
Completely false and total sophistry.
Ooh, we're getting into insults. That was quick!
Animals are not druids. Animals are not bound to the druidic code. What applies and does not apply to animals has nothing to do with what applies to druids. It's irrelevant what animals feel about each other. What is relevant is what the rules say about how druids feel about animals.
So are druids required to stop animals from torturing other animals? Druids are apparently banned from taking part in the very nature they strive to protect, according to your logic.
"Allies to beast" completely shuts down any rationale that druids are free to dominate wild animals and use them as mine sweapers.
Depends on how you use your allies. Also, you aren't using rules text, so, yeah, this is completely pointless. Your entire argument hinges on the flavor blurb.
A blight druid is nature "corrupted" that means a different set of rules apply to their actions.
When you find the rules for blight druids that modify the "Code" you've made up, let me know.
100% irrelevant. What nature does to itself has nothing to do with a druids responsibilities.
A druid has no responsibilities. A druid reveres nature. How they choose to do that is their call.
Incorrect. A druid that is willing to harm other sentient beings to protect nature is evil. A druid that is willing to harm nature and use sentient animals as cannon fodder is not druidic.
Correct. A druid harming nature is not druidic. Whether or not they use animals* as cannon fodder, however, is irrelevant. Nothing in the rules says it matters. That said, animals are part of nature—they aren't synonymous. If all animals were gone, nature would continue in one form or another.
*It really doesn't matter if they're sentient—not even your thin inventions have any evidence a druid differentiates between a bird and a bug.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're completely misrepresenting the issue to create a straw man.Also, the blight druid is not the only druid allowed to not care about animals. It's just an archetype that makes it easier to play such a druid. There is nothing in the blight druid description saying, "Although all other druids are bound to love plants and animals, blight druids are exempt from this section of the Druid Code."
Probably because no such restriction ever existed.
*BZZZT*
Um, that's not a buzzword, you darn machine, that's lazy wording. Get it right! *Bangs on detector*
A druid does not stop nature from being nature. A druid stops non-natural things from interfering with nature.
Okay, this is the crux of the issue, so I'ma stop you there.
What stops nature from being nature? Does a wolf dying stop nature from being nature? Does using wolves as cannon fodder against enemy humans stop nature from being nature? Does wolves going extinct stop nature from being nature?
No. Nature goes on. As the great Roque Ja put it, to paraphrase, "Do you think the sun cares?" A whole forest could burn down and nature would go on. A mountain could collapse and nature would go on. A volcano could erupt and nature would go on. Dinosaurs went extinct, and you know what? Nature went on.
Not all druids hate cities specifically because they recognize that cities, too, are a part of nature. You really need to broaden your view of what nature is. Animals that have adapted to a dominant tool-using animal, such as swallows nesting in barns or under bridges, are nature. Diseases that have evolved to target humans alone are nature.
You are free to house-rule that nature is only what we humans define it as—"It's that beaver in that river, that beaver is nature, and if you interfere with it, nature dies."—but that is not in the rules. It is something you decided on to match your own, highly human beliefs.
Nature is much more resilient than a single species or a single forest, and many druids recognize that. That is why, to bring this back around to actual rules:
Nothing in the rules is backing you up.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said, there are infinite shades of grey here.
Wild animals are 100% synonymous nature.
No. You're 100% wrong.
Completely false and total sophistry
completely shuts down any rationale
This is antithetical to the base druid philosophy
they 100% are not focused on preserving animal life.
100% irrelevant
completely not understand the point of the druidic code.
The base druid is 100% an animal welfare activists.
Dominating an animal and using them as a trap sweeper is 100% a lack of reverence for nature.
Wrong.
Incorrect.
No, this is wrong.
Ah, the complex shades of gray I see. Truly, there is no right or wrong answer.
Evil druids are no more going to harm wild animals than they would burn down their own forest.
You're mistake is that you think evil is the same in everyone. It's not. The evil that a demon would do is not the same evil that a devil would do or an evil dwarf or an evil human or an evil druids. There are lines an evil druid won't cross because their requirement to revere nature creates a boundary they won't cross.
Interesting way to run them in your home game. To each their own, I suppose.
Interesting. I wasn't aware responding to your core assertion (to quote, "Wild animals are 100% synonymous nature. [sic]") was a "tangent". Would it also be a tangent to point out that "allies to beasts" could easily also mean domesticated beasts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems Edit is fussy tonight
To reply to N N 959 -
Why is evil different for a druid than for a street thug? To bring it back to rules, please look to this link and read about Neutral Evil -
Neutral Evil Alignment
To quote -
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusions that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
More to follow -
What's weird about this is you started off way less "100%" about it (also, I edited the shades of gray post to include more of these multifaceted arguments).
IMO, any druid that would purposefully dominate an animal or plant or vermin to trigger traps is violating the druidic code. Now, I could see both good or evil druids calling upon nature to protect or defend the druid in matters of life and death, but not as disposable cannon fodder. Having said that, there are infinite degrees of subtlety here. It's not a black and white issue with how/what druids will do with animals.
You really swerved towards the extreme over the last few posts.
The bottom line is, druids don't have to respect animals because animals are not mentioned under Ex-Druids. Until you can find a line under Ex-Druids that actually mentions animals, instead of just a thing animals happen to live in, "Ya got no case."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're a part of nature, yes, but so is grass. And you don't fall a druid for stomping on grass.
I'm kinda wondering if this is new type of alignment argument/paladin thread in a way :P
Oh, gods...it's...evolved.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there is a Druid Code that the Blight Druid breaks by being a Blight Druid it would be spelled out in the archetype, like how the Iroran Paladin is expected to have her own code rather than that listed for Core Paladins.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there is a Druid Code that the Blight Druid breaks by being a Blight Druid it would be spelled out in the archetype, like how the Iroran Paladin is expected to have her own code rather than that listed for Core Paladins.
Right! Or how the Redeemer is explicitly allowed to associate with evil people if she thinks she might be able to "change them".
Even if that were part of the druid code (it's not) many peoples have used their allies as cannon fodder. Same thing.
"Allies to beasts." Sorry, you don't use your allies to sweep traps.
Yeah! This thread is offensive to adventurers everywhere!
...
Hang on, I need to revive the best thread.
If I had a situation like this, I'd probably ask the player to come up with their definition of revering nature. Leaves room for things like Blight Druid and so on. I can certainly see definitions of revering nature that still allow for minesweeper bunnies, or even encourage it.
Guys, if N N isn't willing to deal with actual rules text, there's really nothing more we can do here. Seriously. Let's call it a day. And to try and help move things onto a more productive line of discussion, here's a question: Druids are often seen as fairly "nice" or sympathetic people; treehugger types. What are your experiences with "mean" druids in your games?
The most sinister druid I've ever played is actually not a druid. She's a homebrew shapeshifter class closely based off the druid. That said, I basically play her as a "spell-less druid". She's a pretty unpleasant sort, and very vicious towards things that hurt or anger her, but she does revere aspects of nature—she sort of follows N N's "wild things should be treated with respect" belief system, and objected when a party member wanted to pointlessly murder a trapped Great White Shark. It was rare, it was harmless, and she didn't really see any need to butcher it.
But her ex-employers who betrayed her? She let out a giddy "Hup!" as she pitched their unconscious bodies into the sea. And if that shark had bit her, she probably would have taken pleasure in choking the life out of it. If it weren't so darned big and scary, I mean. Thing was enormous.
Your fundamental error is that "many peoples"
...did you just try to make fun of another poster for a grammatical error? Glass windows, man.
A good metaphor here would be a druid bound to respect a mountain. Can she destroy the whole mountain and keep her powers? No, and she wouldn't be able to even if she tried. Can she destroy individual rocks on the mountain? Yes, and she's certainly capable of doing so. The rocks Are part of the mountain. They aren't the whole thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen lots of druids in play. Some druids have stepped over the line and lost their druidic powers, such as ones that went with PC decisions to strip mine a place for gold, or found themselves living in a city for whole campaigns without a second thought to the wilds left behind.
I've seen evil druids that still revere nature, yet use their powers to harm people and animals for fun and profit. One ran with a pack of wolves, hunting children that entered her forest, controlled domesticated animals to kill their owners, and even used tactics similar to trap finding with animals to show "nature finds a way". She's still a druid since as she protects her forest from intrusion, and she still identifies with her pack of wolves.
To say all druids would never harm an animal is simply restricting druids to lawful neutral, neutral good, or arguably neutral alignments. Seriously, there are chaotic neutral and neutral evil druids out there. They do hurt others.
On a tangent - look at Aquaman from the Superfriends cartoons. He mind controlled schools of fish to attack villain's submarines or other hazardous tasks. Somehow he is considered a hero? I know he's not a druid, yet he is a solid example of a character that utilizes and reveres (aquatic) nature like a druid should, and somehow he gets a free pass in forcing animals to do hazardous things and still be considered a hero. If we can consider him a prototype aquatic druid, how much worse would an evil Aquaman be?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aquaman: The best example ever of everyone underestimating a 20th-level druid.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's literally not in the rules. It's in the rulebook. Not everything in the rulebook is rules
I've noticed that people hate these type of restrictions and frequently look for ways to reject them because they want all the power, but fail to grasp that the class is so powerful because it's suppose to have very debilitating conduct policies.
Mm. Yes, you caught me. I want all the power. All of it. Nom nom nommy power nom.
My quote keeps getting eaten, this forum ate a lot of my edited posts - anyway -
To quote -
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusions that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
So why is a neutral evil druid that harms an individual animal for their own profit any different than a neutral evil street thug that harms elderly people for a few coins or even amusement?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My usual baseline for evil Druids is the Malarite Druids from D&Ds Forgotten Realms setting, since they were the first real example I saw. And they were very much fans of "Nature red in tooth and claw." A Malarite wouldn't think twice of using animals as cannon fodder, considering they hunt, kill, and torture animals as a holy duty.
As far as they're concerned, the first and only rule of nature is that the strong survive, and weak perish. An animal that lets itself be controlled, then gets killed by a trap has twice demonstrated its weakness.
Also, it's 100% the 100% of 100% that I am 100% right, and you are 100% wrong. 100%
2. I never said evil druids don't harm others. What I said is that they are 100% required to operate within the box of the druidic code. They don't get to ignore it because people thing being Evil is simply doing the opposite of doing good.
Garsh, this almost seems like wunna dem "STRARMAN" things I bin hearin' so much 'bout.
To say all druids would never harm an animal is simply restricting druids to lawful neutral, neutral good, or arguably neutral alignments. Seriously, there are chaotic neutral and neutral evil druids out there. They do hurt others.
You can also argue that even evil has things they care about that they use to justify their actions.
A good druid may try to work with a farming community.
An evil one annihilates them. The wrath of nature incarnate and uncaring.
(At least we don't really have anyone arguing that torturing animals isn't evil. What was that, an over 70% correlation?)
Mm, no, flavor text is flavor text and rules text is rules text. At best, flavor text is a suggestion. At worst, it's just there as "advertisement" to give an idea of what the class can be. This is a hollow argument.
Considering that no one in this thread has advocated torturing animals is consistent with the base druidic code
Beg pardon? You're the only one who's said torturing animals makes you lose your powers. You even made up a whole "druidic code" based on two words of flavor text in a completely separate part of the class description!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now that NN has gone from 100% of an argument to 100% funposting, I will now also have some fun, posting. This thread is now 100% about taking class fluff as rules!
Known as barbarians, these warmongers know little of training, preparation, or the rules of warfare; for them, only the moment exists, with the foes that stand before them and the knowledge that the next moment might hold their death.
Sorry, you're a barb, you made a battleplan so I have to strip you of your power.
Regardless, sorcerers live and breathe that which other spellcasters devote their lives to mastering, and for them magic is more than a boon or a field of study; it is life itself.
It appears your sorcerer has just walked into an antimagic zone! Let me look up the suffocation rules for you....
While many warriors strive to perfect their art, spending all of their time honing their skill at martial arms, others spend as much effort dedicating themselves to a cause.
You spent too long time training as a Cavalier, so i'm going to have you lose your powers.
my favourite:
Arcanists are the shapers and tinkers of the arcane world, and no magic can resist their control.
The arcanist takes control of your summons, no save! What? It's written right in the rulebook!
Never knowing what to expect, they prepare for everything, becoming masters of a wide variety of skills, training themselves to be adept manipulators, agile acrobats, shadowy stalkers, or masters of any of dozens of other professions or talents.
Wow guys, rogues are actually the greatest class in the rulebook! We missed this line all along! Any situation, just pull an item, spell or ability out of your hat and refer to this line -- because you are prepared for everything!
Considering that no one in this thread has advocated torturing animals is consistent with the base druidic codeBeg pardon? You're the only one who's said torturing animals makes you lose your powers. You even made up a whole "druidic code" based on two words of flavor text in a completely separate part of the class description!
I'll just point out that Druids had the exact same restrictions in 3.5 that they do in Pathfinder. I'll also mention that my copy of the Forgotten Realms Faiths and Pantheons book (which contains the writeup of Malar and mentions his druids and how they work) lists Sean K. Reynolds as the lead developer on it.
Granted, not sure what any of that has to do with my point about how I envision evil druids by bringing up a reasonably well-known example of them from a previous iteration of the game.
Ohhhh dear. Here we go. I'm out. I'm literally out. No mas. No mas.
Now that NN has gone from 100% of an argument to 100% funposting, I will now also have some fun, posting. This thread is now 100% about taking class fluff as rules!
Known as barbarians, these warmongers know little of training, preparation, or the rules of warfare; for them, only the moment exists, with the foes that stand before them and the knowledge that the next moment might hold their death.
Sorry, you're a barb, you made a battleplan so I have to strip you of your power.
Regardless, sorcerers live and breathe that which other spellcasters devote their lives to mastering, and for them magic is more than a boon or a field of study; it is life itself.
It appears your sorcerer has just walked into an antimagic zone! Let me look up the suffocation rules for you....
While many warriors strive to perfect their art, spending all of their time honing their skill at martial arms, others spend as much effort dedicating themselves to a cause.
You spent too long time training as a Cavalier, so i'm going to have you lose your powers.
my favourite:
Arcanists are the shapers and tinkers of the arcane world, and no magic can resist their control.
The arcanist takes control of your summons, no save! What? It's written right in the rulebook!
Never knowing what to expect, they prepare for everything, becoming masters of a wide variety of skills, training themselves to be adept manipulators, agile acrobats, shadowy stalkers, or masters of any of dozens of other professions or talents.
Wow guys, rogues are actually the greatest class in the rulebook! We missed this line all along! Any situation, just pull an item, spell or ability out of your hat and refer to this line -- because you are prepared for everything!
Okay I'm back in your sorcerer joke just made me make the creepiest f&#$ing laugh. Like, a "should probably call a doctor" laugh.