RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Each order is written for good/neutral druids only. Evil druids should be able to take these and still be able to corrupt nature in ways to endorse their views, like harshly training and breeding, animals, growing aggressive plant species that take over, creating unnatural weather to attack civilization, etc. Also the wild anathema is much less restrictive than the others, should be more in line. Finally, there should be some anathema either for all druids or at least some orders about unnatural creatures like undead and aberrations.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
if you are corrupting nature, your character by definition is not a druid (by game lore and mechanics). it's like having a cleric of (insert deity)who is preaching aesthism,
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think druid orders do allow for evil druids, but you can't corrupt or abuse or undermine that aspect of nature you are responsible for.
So a Leaf, Wild, or Storm Druid can relentlessly abuse animals.
An Animal, Leaf, or Storm Druid can be a corrupt tyrant who lords over a city-state.
An Animal, Wild, or Storm Druid can promote widespread deforestation.
An Animal, Leaf, or Wild Druid can punish their enemies with persistent unnatural weather.
But that aspect of nature you have chosen to devote yourself to, you are obligated to respect.
Something something designed for PFS, something something no evil characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, it's not totally different from how Clerics of Rovagug (who are universally CE) are prohibited from torture. Not because "torture is contrary to the goals of evil" (because it absolutely is evil in 100% of cases), but because it runs contrary to the goals of Rovagug- to cause as much destruction as quickly as possible.
Clerics of Norgorber, no matter how evil are prohibited from sharing secrets freely, even if doing so would further the cause of evil.
Clerics of Lamashtu are prohibited from curing a deformity, even if doing so would help an evil person do more evil.
Clerics of Urgathoa are prohibited from destroying undead, even if that undead creature is non-evil or standing in the way of that Cleric's goals.
Clerics of Asmodeus are prohibited from breaking a contract, even if it would be the evil thing to do.
Et Cetera.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
being evil and corrupting nature are not equivalent. you can easily make an evil druid. you can take a hard line one the encourcement of civilization. you can take a hard line with only the strongest survive. you can take any ends to justify the means, doing whatever no matter the cost to perseve your aspect of nature.
However you can't corrupt the aspect of nature you are supposed to protect and still be a druid. why would the diety or spirit that lend you its power stand for it? why would they stand idly by while you use the power they gave you, to corrupt the thing you are supposed to protect?
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Perhaps corruption is too strong even for evil druids, but they should be able to be order of the wild and and have draconian brutal animal breeding and training programs to bring out the best, most savage beasts possible to attack weak pathetic civilization with.
And while most games don't allow this type of PC (PFS or not), for the non-standard evil campaign, or simply the GM wanting to make an evil druid antagonist, these options should be there.
if you are corrupting nature, your character by definition is not a druid (by game lore and mechanics). it's like having a cleric of (insert deity)who is preaching aesthism,
That's flatly untrue. There are groups and archetypes that have corruption as a theme. Blight druids say Hi.
if you are corrupting nature, your character by definition is not a druid (by game lore and mechanics). it's like having a cleric of (insert deity)who is preaching aesthism,That's flatly untrue. There are groups and archetypes that have corruption as a theme. Blight druids say Hi.
blight druids aren't corrupting nature within meaning of the OP's post. they are druids that either take care of lands that have been damaged by death or disease, or druids that speed of the nature decay of a land. that's wholly differnt.
disease is a part of nature. a blight druid isn't corrupting nature.
corruption in that sense means disease which is part of the natural order of thing, a blight druid who spreads disease isn't corrupting nature, he's probably just evil.
a blight druid who made every animal immune to disease would be corrupting nature, or one that made everything undead. either of those would be corrupting if an order of the blight in p2 existed.
Poison Ivy is a good example of how you could play an evil Leaf Druid. Value plants more than people or animals. Bring vengeance to the city folk with the power of plants. Feel nothing for ending a life, but make anyone who so much as picks a flower pay in blood.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Poison Ivy is a good example of how you could play an evil Leaf Druid. Value plants more than people or animals. Bring vengeance to the city folk with the power of plants. Feel nothing for ending a life, but make anyone who so much as picks a flower pay in blood.
But she goes around and creates plant monsters - that's pretty corrupting to regular old plants.
You know what they say: "Nature is red in tooth and claw." Nature dosen't care about cruelty or "killing animals cleanly." Cats capture and cripple mice so their kittens can learn to hunt. Beavers damn rivers causing massive damage to other habitats. Lions and hyenas sometimes go to war, killing one another and leaving the bodies to rot.
The druid anathemas seem too... fluffy. Anathemas are fine for clerics when they help define what a particular god is about, but for druids they seem much more constraining. Especially where all druids are locked into one of 3 orders where clerics get eleventy billion gods to choose from.
Poison Ivy is a good example of how you could play an evil Leaf Druid. Value plants more than people or animals. Bring vengeance to the city folk with the power of plants. Feel nothing for ending a life, but make anyone who so much as picks a flower pay in blood.But she goes around and creates plant monsters - that's pretty corrupting to regular old plants.
That's a matter of perspective (an essential thing for evil to work). From her point of view she's empowering plants to be able to fight back against their human aggressors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait are we saying as an evil druid I'm suppose to burn down forest and kill animals? cause my translation of an evil druid is one willing to burn down villages and kill people for nature. Use nature for his own means as well depending on his thought process.
I played NE druid that was returning villages back to nature with multiple plant growth spells.
Few spells every night and I won war of attrition with settlers.
Didn't even kill a single one, even sent messengers every day that they should pack up and leave in peace, because that was now MY forest.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I agree with the OP. When I read the druid anathemas, my first thought was, "Darn, this kills a lot of villain concepts."
I get where they are going with this, but I also feel like it should be possible to master a particular aspect of nature and then corrupt it. For example, the Blight Druid from Feast of Ravenmoor (who is one of my favorite villains from a module!).