How would you RP an evil druid?

[Yqatuba]

I'm thinking like a social darwinist type.

[Java Man]

Two thoughts, an extreme ecoterrorist type, as in burning down the orphanage is ok so the land can go back to its natural state instead of having this unnatural building on it.

Second concept is to focus on channeling the dark side of nature, starving rabid wolves eating your baby are a part of nature, an evil druid might choose to focus on that. Plagues, drought etc..

[Thunderlord]

Why not an actual darwinist? Full on "Wild Shaping is the future!"

[BlarkNipnar]

How? I'll give you a set of commandments:
* The life that exists is an affront to the life that could; I will end it to bring a new burgeoning
* The blight of civilization should be purged for the contest of life to unfold
* I will bring a respect to nature by dismantling the false order of man
* I will die fighting tooth and nail for my status; for only the strongest should remain
* I will spare no one for mercy; for the weak do not deserve it

[Meirril]

Extreme Darwinism. Only the fit are suited to survive. Society protects the weak and defective. We must prove that only the strong deserve to live. Therefore we'll introduce disease and poison to the local food and water supply to weed out the weak and stupid. We'll encourage hags and other human predators who naturally feed on the weak. The druid will arrange attacks against charitable groups that support the weak.

Adventurers are a paradox. On the one hand, they are strong. But they also perpetuate the current situation where the strong protect the weak and often die to defend them.

A different kind of druid would be one that has a territory that he doesn't allow 'civilization' to intrude. Anyone that lives according to his beliefs he leaves alone. Anyone comes in wearing the wrong clothing, or baring strange things he kills and uses their unapproved items as totem markers of what not to bring into his domain.

[Valandil Ancalime]

Thanos...

Extreme Darwinism (survival of the fittest) is a good(I mean evil) start.

Alot would depend on backstory and what the druids goals are. My gaming friends tell the story of a guy they played with in 1st ed DnD. He played a druid (supposed to be NN, all about the balance) who would kill other PCs if the group wasn't balanced between good and evil.

[Dajur]

I'm thinking of that weird eco-terrorist chick who hangs around every cities downtown area park and would rather wipe out humanity so that the trees and plants can retake the planet.

[Douglas Muir 406]

Arnold over at Goblin Punch did a pretty horrifying set of evil druids a while back. Hang on a sec... yeah, here you go, just click. Enjoy!

Doug M.

[OmegaZ]

While the druid-based evil ideas are fun and thematic, I'd go with someone who is evil for "normal" reasons and just happens to also be a druid. Druids can be just as envious, greedy, wrathful, uncaring, manipulative, tyrannical, spiteful, etc. as any other class. Some specific ideas:

-Druid circle that has effectively enslaved several woodland communities. They command the plants, beasts, and elements of the wood, so why not use that power to keep the small towns and hamlets under their thumb? Recruit some of the locals to serve you in exchange for a larger share of resources/power and there you go.

-Manipulative druid who admires the fey, messing with people's lives just for the sadistic pleasure of it. Can be lustful (using other people for pleasure without any concern for the wellbeing of others), but doesn't have to be.

-Druid who lost their home due to some calamity and leads the survivors to find a better life, but has zero problem committing their own atrocities to ensure the survival of their people.

Hope these ideas help!

[Thunderlord]

Valandil Ancalime wrote:

Thanos...

Extreme Darwinism (survival of the fittest) is a good(I mean evil) start.

Alot would depend on backstory and what the druids goals are. My gaming friends tell the story of a guy they played with in 1st ed DnD. He played a druid (supposed to be NN, all about the balance) who would kill other PCs if the group wasn't balanced between good and evil.

Thanos is more of a Malthusian than a Darwinist but why not add it to the Evil Druid. "Civilization is growing at an unsustainable rate and must be kept in check."

[lemeres]

I remember making a rant for a more amoral druid-y type character.

"Many druid circles will preach about 'maintaining the balance'. But the only reason there is a balance is because so many forces are fighting against eachother.

Wolves eat the deer and stop them from stripping the forest clean. The volcano bursts forth to create new land. Every force in this world acts upon its own desire and tendencies, and the world is in balance because your pursuit might stop another. The deer learns to be swift of foot to avoid the wolf, and the mountain's weight holds back the bubbling fire of the earth.

So why deny your desire? You would deny your hunger, your drive that helps to stop the rampage of another?"

Another rant on the source of power and use/abuse of power:

"Most magic users use sheer force of will or clever little tricks in order to perform their arts. And clerics have to be slaves to a higher power. Why bother with all that? Power is all around you. Do you need to trick the hungry wolf to eat a rabbit? All you have to do is to show the wolf where the rabbit is. The powers of this world are waiting to pounce and unleash their might, and you simply need to know how to encourage them to do it in the place your desire"

[Tsukiyo]

Dajur wrote:

I'm thinking of that weird eco-terrorist chick who hangs around every cities downtown area park and would rather wipe out humanity so that the trees and plants can retake the planet.

Actually, you can make a pretty strong moral argument for eliminating humanity, given its pernicious effects on every other species on the planet.

I wouldn't necessarily say such a viewpoint is evil. It's just a utilitarian equation, really.

[MageHunter]

The definition of Good in the Core Rulebook is biased towards sentient lives. Things like animal torture is still evil, but humans always have priority.

Although Erastil and Gozreh obviously interpret that differently.

[Thunderlord]

Tsukiyo wrote:

Actually, you can make a pretty strong moral argument for eliminating humanity, given its pernicious effects on every other species on the planet.

I wouldn't necessarily say such a viewpoint is evil. It's just a utilitarian equation, really.

I don't think John Stuart Mill attributed much moral status to animals or plants. If sacrificing all plants and animals meant the survival of civilization, would it not be the best option? Surely druids would interject because they, and their gods, give plants and animals more moral status. The whole "evil" aspect could be the druid ignoring the debate and just going full eco-terrorist.

[BlarkNipnar]

Tsukiyo wrote:

Actually, you can make a pretty strong moral argument for eliminating humanity, given its pernicious effects on every other species on the planet.

I wouldn't necessarily say such a viewpoint is evil. It's just a utilitarian equation, really.

Simply untrue. It is not immoral for a human to kill a cow for food; even if there are more efficient means. Why? Because that action does not distinguish the human from any other predator on earth and those predators are not evil. Everything (including plants) competes for existence by destroying what's around it and increases entropy for its own purposes.

So what makes killing humans bad? Because it's the destruction of life for no useful purpose. As with all questions of morality, intent matters.

Even if you attempt an argument such as:

"but it's ok because they also destroy things"

you immediately erase the distinction not only from yourself and those that you're killing; but from all other beings that engage in entropic activities (which are all of them; by the second law of thermodynamics.) Which is to say that any such view is self-contradictory and hypocritical; which thusly means that it must be untrue (wrapping my argument in a nice bow.)

[Klorox]

Douglas Muir 406 wrote:

Arnold over at Goblin Punch did a pretty horrifying set of evil druids a while back. Hang on a sec... yeah, here you go, just click. Enjoy!

Doug M.

Thank you That's an angle I'd never envisioned, at least not to that extent.

[Klorox]

Tsukiyo wrote:

Dajur wrote:

I'm thinking of that weird eco-terrorist chick who hangs around every cities downtown area park and would rather wipe out humanity so that the trees and plants can retake the planet.

Actually, you can make a pretty strong moral argument for eliminating humanity, given its pernicious effects on every other species on the planet.

I wouldn't necessarily say such a viewpoint is evil. It's just a utilitarian equation, really.

MMmh, at that point, it's not just evil, it's self destructive, druids want for druid sects to keep on, being wardens and protectors of the Natural World, meaning that mankind (and other humanoid races) has to keep existing, even if kept in small numbers and a suitably primitive state...

and even so, not too few or too primitive, or they are going to be wiped out by the evil humanoids that have no respect for Nature either, and that is not desirable either.

[Douglas Muir 406]

...actually, Arnold's take on druids is so good (IMO) that I'll copy some of it here.

Overview:

Frequently, the picture you see of a druid is some green-haired boy scout cavorting atop a white wolf, or gazing soulfully into the eyes of a moose. They're depicted as serene bringers of balance and peace, who live in harmony with all life.

Nope. No. Nein. Druids are creatures possessed by the cold spirit of Nature.

Druids love natural spaces. It's even fair to say that druids feed on them. They feed on the snow that falls on ancient pines. They feed on the weevils gnawing on roots. They feed on the hunger in a wolf's belly.

Because these things are Natural, they are Good, for at least one definition of "Good".

Then what is Bad, in the eyes of a druid? Why, all the things that destroy the natural order. Rationality, math (druids hate math), language, money, metallurgy, fur trappers, philosophy. The philosophy of a druid is "no philosophy". And true, druids use language to talk among themselves, but it is always tinged with a bit of self-loathing for this reason, a reminder of their distance from Nature and from what is Good.

Nature is red in tooth in claw. Nature is hungry and rapacious. Nature is self-absorbed. Does a panther care about anything beyond it's own well-being? And because these things are Nature, they are also Druids.

Every druid's dream in life is to become a giant grizzly bear, fat and unchallenged.

Myth #1 - Druids hate fire.:

Druids love fire. There is no better way to raze a town than to burn it. Fire is the great equalizer. Druids love a dry summer storm. Thatched roofs ignite so readily under lightning strikes, like they've been waiting for the flame. Druids call to the winds, and the winds call back, blowing the inferno before them, across the town. Forest predators pad through the streets on quick paws. Farther back in the smoke, you can see the naked, blood-painted druids moving from house to house, methodically exterminating dogs...

Myth #2 - Druids hate to see a tree burn.:

Druids don't care about a tree. Druids care about the forest. And not even the forest-as-a-collection-of-trees, they care about the eternal forest, the forest that will exist long after all of these trees are dead, and also somehow exists behind them. The template from which this forest grew.

The pulse of Nature is one of death and rebirth... An animal is born, and is promptly eaten. Another animal is born, eats and grows, procreates, then grows old and is eaten. Chaos and apathy. This is Right and this is Good.

Forests burn. This is part of their cycle...

Druids bring balance wherever they go, but it is rarely the sort of balance that you are expecting. What's more abhorrent to Nature? A forest fire or farmland?

Civilized folk must be very careful when using forest fires to fight druids. Fires are useful because they deprive druids of food and animal resources. But on the other hand, fire is one of a druid's elements. Other things that druids can bend to their will: wind, rain, nitrogen fixation. Those who would use forest fires against the druids often live just long enough to see their forest fire turned against them.

Druids will sometimes set forest fires themselves. It's their greatest resource when a king sends an army into the forest after them, as kings invariably do. Druids guide the wildfire, and sometimes even extinguish it after it has done its job.

Myth #3 - Druids exist in harmony with all living things.:

Druids can barely live in harmony with each other... Even within a stable circle of druids there is tension. Like wolf packs, druids have their alphas and their betas. They have their breeding pairs and their marginalized members. Druidic power is invested in them in proportion to their standing, so advancing through the ranks of the druids involves killing your superiors (and usually eating them -- druids are frugal).

This is what the average person knows about druids: They are wild people who live in forests who will murder you on sight. Also, they're magic...

Sometimes the druids do not have the power to assert complete dominion over their forests, and so are forced to let travelers through. Even hunters might be tolerated (with occasional murders to keep them feeling unwelcome, but not so many that it brings armies and wizards down on their heads).

Druids hate elves only slightly less than the rest of civilization. True, elves have a very small ecological footprint, but they also build houses and wear shoes. And besides, elves have a lot of powerful spellcasters. Mostly elves and druids try to pretend that the other one doesn't exist.

When elves and druids do fight, it's godawful. Weeping treants marching solemnly into a bonfire, epileptic wolves gnawing off their own legs, that sort of thing.

Myth #4 - Druids want cities and forests to coexist in harmony.:

Druids hate cities. They hate the concept of cities.

Sometimes, when a trapper is filling his canteen by a creek and a druid drops out of the trees -- eyes wide and teeth bared -- and proceeds to murder the trapper with a sharpened rock, the trapper dies thinking that the druid hates him. But that's not true. The druid looks right through him and sees the city.

When the druid bites out the trapper's jugular vein, the druid can taste the dirty rainwater dripping off the gargoyles. When the druid pulls out the trapper's heart and eats it, he can feel concrete foundations crumbling between his molars. He didn't kill a man, he killed a piece of the city.

Because the druid knows that the Forest is not just a collection of trees. It is a spiritual place that everything will return to, if given enough time. And like the Forest, the City is also a spiritual place, greater than the sum of its cobbles. But the City doesn't come from the World. The City comes from the mind of Men, and that is why the druid takes extra pleasure in smashing the trapper's brains out with his rock.

If the druid had any sense of symbolism, he would eschew the process of eating the trapper's brains. But symbols are profane, another tool of the City, and so the brains are carefully scooped up with dirty fingers and swiftly eaten.

There's more (click through), and it actually gets darker. But that should give you the general flavor. (Arnold's blog is generally excellent, IMO.)

Doug M.

[Emo Duck]

I started playing a druid in a homebrew setting featuring a wasteland nation that recently came under the rule of a lich king. This sort of immortality is a Big Deal (TM) in-setting, so cults have sprung up in worship of this undead tyrant - even some of the wasteland druids have taken up this conviction.

I play it as a corrupted faith, where the character is essentially making excuses and bending his veneration of nature toward worship of death and entropy. If you ask him, he'll tell you that the coming of the lich king heralds the coming winter in a greater cycle, where all the world shall fall silent, life shall cease, be at peace and be free of thought. So he does his good works on behalf of the rotting sovereign. He is convinced that death and decay is the culmination of the natural order and seeks to enforce that belief.

Mechanically, the character is a swarm monger druid with the Shade of the Uskwood feat.

[Ryan Freire]

I'd look at some of the Iron Kingdoms mythology for inspiration into evil druids who could also be treated as protagonists. The Circle Oroborus is a really great "druid circle"