|
Linking a thread from the Advice forum: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43om3?New-Player-Druid-Build-Suggestions
Short Version: Can a Wild Order Druid PC fit into this campaign? From what little I know about this AP, the 'Becoming fully domesticated by the temptations of civilization is anathema to your order. (This doesn’t prevent you from buying and using processed goods or staying in a city for an adventure, but you can never come to rely on these conveniences or truly call such a place your permanent home.)' order anathema seems like it would be a significant issue with a 'building/expanding a kingdom' theme.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say its up to the GM (and the GM in that thread seemed like they were ok with it, so seems like its a moot point.)
However as more general advice, I think it comes down to what the group wants:
Does the group want to actively explore what 'civilization' means? Do they want the tension between a wild Druid spokesperson for the 'old ways' to be a constant RP opportunity. Do they want to explore what a wild/anarchy "kingdom" could look like? Then yes a wild druid could fit in very well, and you'd have a very different experience.
Does the group want a somewhat trope/meme Elven nature kingdom? And don't want to sweat the details with a GM who's ok with it? Wild druid should still be fine.
Does the group want to go full on "industrial revolution", yeah that's not going to work to well, in most cases.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's always going to be plenty of wilderness beyond the kingdom. You could also try to build a nation that tries to exist in greater harmony with nature, especially if you're trying to deal fairly with fey and "monsters." Now, is a Wild Druid ideal? Not necessarily, but that's what a session 0 and figuring out expectations of play is for.
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kingmaker, more than most Adventure Paths, is open to a wide range of character options, including a druid of the Wild Order. As long as all of the players are working together to build a kingdom, the sandbox nature of the campaign means that there's a lot of flexibility toward what kinds of characters are in said party. Not every PC needs to hold a position of rulership, and there's no advantage that a PC gains to their build for being a ruler at all, so if you choose to not have your PC be one of the rulers, you won't be at a disadvantage. But there's also room for you to take on a rulership role that seeks to use the kingdom to preserve areas of wilderness and nature within the kingdom's borders.
As for the non-kingdom building aspect of the Adventure Path, there's a LOT of stuff for a nature-focused character to do, with a significant amount of wilderness stuff going on.
You'll just want to work with your GM and the other players to make sure your druid will fit the group; a druid who sees all civilization as a blight and strives to destroy civilization to allow nature to continue isn't a great choice for Kingmaker–but frankly, isn't a great choice for most campaigns unless the whole party and the focus of the campaign is on board with that—same for the opposite; a character who wants to destroy all things natural and pave the world.
In first edition, my group had a druid PC. His goal was to ensure that the party's kingdom respected the natural world and built with it rather than against it. Of course, he turned into a murder hobo by session two, but the idea of a natural advisor still has merit.
This feels like a roleplay challenge a player would take on because they find it fun. It's much like some people will find playing a Paladin fun in a game where you get tempted to not do the right thing in the proper way. The Wild Order Druid in Kingmaker would think "I am no friend of civilization, but if I intervene here I can prevent civilization from encroaching on nature more than I can if I just went and lived in the woods and never talked to any of these people again."
The problem would be if the other players get annoyed when you are always the person arguing that you should not do the thing that they want to do. So you have to pick where you think it matters, which again is a roleplaying thing.
I don't think the "living in the village/city/whatever" is going to be a problem really, since you just refuse to establish a permanent home. Just sleep in whatever safe place that is around when you get sleepy.
Linking a thread from the Advice forum: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43om3?New-Player-Druid-Build-Suggestions
Short Version: Can a Wild Order Druid PC fit into this campaign? From what little I know about this AP, the 'Becoming fully domesticated by the temptations of civilization is anathema to your order. (This doesn’t prevent you from buying and using processed goods or staying in a city for an adventure, but you can never come to rely on these conveniences or truly call such a place your permanent home.)' order anathema seems like it would be a significant issue with a 'building/expanding a kingdom' theme.
I think it would work perfectly well especially as a spiritual advisor to the ruler of the nation. On the throne? That would be a little bit harder to work with, but I can imagine as a member of kingdom's council no problem. Just between helping and advising your character probably has a home outside the city proper as they live off the land and in nature when the nation has no immediate need of them.
I am the GM from the listed thread and am ok with. Further to build on what James said. As a Kingmaker backer I have the pdfs and the character creation has this to say for druids.
DRUID
Druidic traditions are strong in the Stolen Lands, particularly those linked to the First World. The worship of Gozreh and members the Green Faith are the most common druidic traditions followed in the region, while the animal, leaf, and wild druidic orders are the most appropriate choices for Kingmaker.
Emphasis mine, but the quote was written by James himself.
On top of everything else said just because a character makes a mechanical choice doesn't preclude them from making role play choices related to another.
My fiancée who will be playing said Wild Druid in that game very much wants to be a scary(intimdating) frontliner transfomed into a big beastie in combat and in antagonistic social encountes. However her personal morals and diplomatic goals as a character lean towards the leaf order and would in the kingdom and its settlements would strive to teach sustainable techniques to the settlers and citizens of the kingdom as to not ruin its natural resources and flora and fauna. Also, the stolen lands are HUGE 35,000² miles of wilderness. It would be extremely unlikely for a Country of that size to be fully domesticated. The current biggest city in the borders before the players Pitax is a small city with less than 10k population if ai remember right(maybe less than 5k). Even with the capitol the players build supposing to be considered a large city by rule the vast majority of the County/Kingdom will be wilderness. It would be a boon to such a kingdom to have someone with the environment in mind in the government to keep the citizens and settlements safe from nature and nature safe and sustained from civilization. Obviously gm table variety will happen but I don't see nature, Gorzreh, the green faith or whatever cosmic forces power such a druid taking their powers away if they are actually striving to protect and help nature.
|
|
Okay, I guess no one else is bothered by a character who has basically rejected civilization (at a personal level at least) joining a (presumably multi-year) campaign summarized as 'the players are working together to build a kingdom...'
I'm just seeing this as being 'Five brave adventurers band together to build a kingdom (and a druid who is never in town except when an adventure is starting* is dragged along every time for some reason)...' Having ended up as the 'odd character out' in campaigns where I just wasn't involved in the primary plot lines, I can tell you that this tends to get old pretty fast...
As I read it, the Wild Order druid isn't necessarily opposed to civilization existing or even expanding, but they have at the very least decided that civilization** is 'not for me.' Given this, there are still a lot of reasons why such a character would join a normal adventure, and most traditional APs should be fine once the 'world ending threat' is revealed (I may not like living in town, but that doesn't mean I won't try to stop the impending apocalypse), but working for years to actually build a kingdom that you essentially reject just doesn't feel right...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a distinction between 'civilization' and 'community' to be made here (maybe even 'society' but that is a lot more work to make that linguistic distinction). In this context, civilization means a lot more than a family (as in a wolf pack) or even general community (say, a herd or a flock) sticking together and working to benefit each other. I would not ask when or whether a wild druid considers a mere group of animals a 'civilization', but rather ask whether a group of human(oid)s becomes a civilization.
I don't have a clear answer, that way lies a lot of somewhat philosophical questions about what makes a civilization a civilization, but suffice to say it probably involves a combination of agriculture and how societies use their territory, as well as tool use, and perhaps the concept of codified governance (as opposed to creature-to-creature social dominance).
---
On the topic of the Wild Order, I don't think it's an automatic fit, but it doesn't seem unduly hard to come up with a character concept to play against type here. If people can imagine tragic undead clerics of Pharasma, I don't think the idea of a druid dedicated to living in the wild while building a kingdom is an impossibility.
It's not a natural fit, but there doesn't seem to be anything which inherently violates your anathema... refusing to become domesticated by the comforts of civilization does not explicitly bar you from any of the activities of settling a kingdom. Of course, you are thematically working to reduce your own habitat in theory, but there is nothing in the wild order which even requires you to hate civilization. That seems to be the most common assumption about a person who embraces the wild order, but it no where gives you an impetus to work against civilization in any form. The only guiding principle of the wild order is that you are free and wild, and rely on your own strengths, not the comforts of civilization.
If you can only find a reason why you might want to either settle a region, or at least help with such an initiative for your own benefit, and as long as you maintain your own primal wildness in the face of civilization while guiding those who are weaker and less inured to the vagaries of the wild, you should have no trouble.
Fairly sure a wild elf or lizardfolk run kingdom would be right up a druids ally. Living in trees or under water, using the environment instead of replacing it.
Even if you are the odd one out and everyone else wants ye old standard stone wall kingdom, you could be the Merlin to your groups Arthur, there to give advice on the off times and assistance during trouble.
