Is there a rule I'm missing that says CG Dryads can be Druids?

[Reksew_Trebla]

Amalya

She is CG, a Druid, and not a Planar Extremist Druid.

I know it makes perfect sense from an in-universe perspective, but from a mechanical rules perspective, this shouldn't be possible.

However, I do not own Fey Revisited, the book she was published in, so maybe they addressed this in that book. Would someone please let me know what I'm missing?

[Diego Rossi]

Nothing in the book changes the druids rules. It is simply an NPCs thing, they don't follow the PCs rules with 100% accuracy.

[Mysterious Stranger]

This is essentially a GM created character, so does not have to follow the rules. It kind of falls under rule 0. This is often the case with unique monsters.

[Reksew_Trebla]

Alright then. Thank you both for the help.

[Pizza Lord]

Just assume she has no access to her druid powers or abilities, including nature bond (but not weapon or armor proficiencies) and can't advance as a druid until she fixes it. They just have her prepared spells listed for when it happens.

That's following all the rules, but like the others have said, this is a specific, unique creature and individual and the intent seems to be that she is an exception (I also don't have the source material to read if there's a better reason listed within it for her).

[Diego Rossi]

Pizza Lord wrote:

Just assume she has no access to her druid powers or abilities, including nature bond (but not weapon or armor proficiencies) and can't advance as a druid until she fixes it. They just have her prepared spells listed for when it happens.

That's following all the rules, but like the others have said, this is a specific, unique creature and individual and the intent seems to be that she is an exception (I also don't have the source material to read if there's a better reason listed within it for her).

She is a "Sample Dryad" with one page of background, not a character in an adventure, so she is meant to be an example of "how it works", not a special NPC. It was probably an oversight, but one I would allow in play, while not allowing a PC Dryad unless it was a very specific campaign. A PC bound to a tree doesn't work well in a standard campaign.

[Melkiador]

That’s a really odd alignment requirement anyway. Frankly chaotic good feels more Druidic than lawful neutral.

[Reksew_Trebla]

I borrowed a copy of the book (my city library somehow had a copy) and unless I missed something, no, the Dryad doesn't have special rules saying it is exempt from the Druid alignment restriction. However, that same book also says that Nymphs often take levels of Druid, despite also being CG, so I'm inclined to believe there is a rule somewhere, whether or not it was ever published, that says Fey can be Druids regardless of what alignment they are, as long as they continue to revolve around nature, or something to that effect, because Fey in Pathfinder are stated to have a strong connection to nature and whatnot.

[Diego Rossi]

Melkiador wrote:

That’s a really odd alignment requirement anyway. Frankly chaotic good feels more Druidic than lawful neutral.

It is a very personal kind of evaluation.

I see a druid that adheres to a "survival of the fittest", "respect the rules of the local biome (i.e don't import extraneous species, don't breed animals in a way that makes them unfit to live in the wild or damaging for the environment)", "don't over hunt or deplete the soil by excessive farming", and so on, and imposes those rules to the local communities without unnecessary violence, can easily be LN.

A "hippie" druid can easily be CG.

The whole thing about the druids needing to be some kind of neutral is a heritage from 1st edition AD&D, and even there some deities had non N druids.

[Melkiador]

"survival of the fittest" sounds way more chaotic neutral to me. Or at most true neutral.

[Diego Rossi]

Melkiador wrote:

"survival of the fittest" sounds way more chaotic neutral to me. Or at most true neutral.

Depends on what you mean by "survival of the fittest". Biologically it isn't "cull the weak", it is "don't sacrifice the pack to save the weak". It isn't a supremacist argument.

For "Survival of the fittest" in a biological sense "first the women and children" is valid, as they are the future of the pack or tribe.
"Use the able-bodied warriors for a suicide last stand slowing the goblin horde while the old and infirm are carried away" isn't.