Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lordyuri24 12-09-03, 09:09 PM	I have been thinking about this long and hard, since my days in 2nd Edition, and I have consulted all my fellow gamers about it with no luck to an answer so I throw my moral conundrum at the likes of you guys. I have ALWAYS played a Druid (my characters are always at least half Druid). Furthermore I always play them (or try to) as True Neutral characters. My problem has come up many times where my characters attempts to try and balance all the forces of the world ends up with my DM deeming my character evil. The way I have always looked at a TN Druid is someone who is not indifferent from the two moral axis, but actually quite involved in them, but in a very particular way. Rather than fighting the good fight for the freedom of chaos or the order of law; and the power of evil or the humanity of good I have always thought of TN Druids as trying to keep all these forces in some sort of equilibrium. If a group of orcs decides they want to kill every Halfling in the world, that is massivly evil (outside the normal boundries) my Druid goes and Flame Strike's some Orcs. But also, on the flip side if a bunch of Lathendar's Paladins decide one day that devils suck, lets go kill them, my Druid would work to stop them. The simple fact is that my Druid always takes the side of the "underpowered" force of morality to try and keep everything in balance, and I have faced a lot of slack for this. When my Druid goes and stop a horde of orcs from eating a few Halflings my DM pats me on the back for keeping the balance as a TN character, and I am happy. But when my Druid goes and stops some Paladins from toasting my little hell-friends suddely I am CE and my DM smotes me by taking away my Wildshape, and I think this is nuts. Where is the line drawn between being TN, and being evil. I look at it that whatever force of alignment is underpowered a TN character works to keep them going, againt the overpowered force, thus keeping balance, but how would this transulate to good or evil. Me killing Paladins is a bad thing because I am working to save the balance between GOod and Evil and so I am evil? How does that work? Does anyone have any advice or critisism for my dilema?
MoogleEmpMog 12-09-03, 09:20 PM	First off, your DM is messing with the rules by taking away your Druidic powers for being Evil, even if he deems you Evil. Remind him that, all other issues aside, Druids can be Neutral Evil! No loss of wildshape, no loss of spells, no loss of anything. Second, what you're doing is logically Evil (complete moral relativism focused only on who is strong or weak) and possibly by Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms standards, it is treated as Evil. Only Dragonlance has a really comprehensible idea of active Neutrality, and in Dragonlance what you're doing would be Neutral and appropriate. Personally, I find the whole active neutrality concept a little bizarre, but you are playing to it as closely as you possibly can. If your DM doesn't accept it, that's his error. I would say, however, that, unless you're playing a solo game, that attitude would seem to be somewhat disruptive to most adventuring parties. Perhaps your DM's real objection is to your character disrupting party cohesiveness?
Leap 12-10-03, 08:57 AM	I think you may be misunderstanding druidness ;) They would not give two hoots (even in owl form ;) ) if a bunch of pallies went devil bashing............druids are dedicated to the wild places, that is why they are neutral............their place is to protect the natural balance, not the supernatural. Think of them as slightly less deranged versions of the unibomber / slightly more deranged versions of Earth First! ;)
JusticeZero 12-10-03, 10:19 AM	.....I dunno, i'd put Earth First in there with CE, as a rule.. I don't really see anything in so-called "active neutrality" that seperates it from good old fashioned LE or CE.. not NE, it's one of those that never touches NE. Very devoted to their own ideas of how the world should be, but completely untrustworthy and unpredictable and backstabbing. They act by a code, but that code is one of chaos. Every one of their plays toward "balance" rather than toward the wellbeing of real individuals pulls them inexorably into the depths of evil, far faster than their acts of unpredictable charity can affect.
Arilou_skiff 12-11-03, 04:34 AM	Devils are also a part of nature Leap :) However: Your DM is clearly in the wrong here. Although you must remember that no druid goes around switching sides nilly-willy (this tends to promote Chaos more than anything else) what you should do is look at the balance LONG-TERM.
Leap 12-11-03, 04:55 AM	Arilou – <I> Devils are also a part of nature Leap </I> [cough!] I beg to differ! Well, ok I CAN see your point. B*gger :( ;)
Morka 12-11-03, 09:44 AM	Originally posted by Arilou_skiff Devils are also a part of nature Leap :) Since Devils are Outsiders, I don't think they are part of nature. The same way, Celestials & Angels aren't part of the nature. And since Devils, being LE, are as much a treat to neutrality than a LG paladin, I don't think the druid should defend them. However, if the paladins group is attacking a village of Mongrelmen basically LN, or a group of CN Trolls, THEN the druid will have to stop the paladins. Usually, Neutral characters tend to fight more Evil creatures than Good ones, simply because Evil creatures are more likely to attack you.
Leap 12-11-03, 09:53 AM	They are a part of nature the same way rape and murder (representing the extremes people are capable of when they lose touch with balance) are, but, similarly are abominations (they are extremes that nature allows, and seeks not to destroy the possibility of, but who still need fighting BECAUSE they are imbalancing extremes).
the_heart 12-11-03, 11:07 AM	murder is an abomination to natural order and would not/ should not be tolerated. killing for need is not murder. arguably, rape for procreation could be seen as natural, and not an abomination at all. remember nature can be harsh and unforgiving, where the stong flourish, and the weak do not survive for long.
Leap 12-12-03, 04:28 AM	Remember also that a community made of mutually respecting folks who look after each other generally is better off, stronger, than a loner psycho ;)
Illithidbix 12-12-03, 06:54 AM	The whole “Druids must be at least partially neutral idea because nature is balanced” issue is (IMO) really badly thought out. In most cases Neutral represents a degree of apathy towards moral issues, not dedication to balance, and Nature is certainly not dedicated to balanced between good and evil, it simply doesn’t recognise it exists. A deer & wolf acts to survive and reproduce, not due to some form of idealology. If Druids have to have an Alignment issue then surely the are required to be non-lawful as they oppose large societies (and yes I know lawful can mean having a strict system of personal honour/ethics you stick to). In a sense Druids seem mostly chaotic as they oppose large soceitys however Chaos also implies self-intrest, which Druids don't really follow (somewhat ironically, because it seems to be the motivating factor in nature). Unfortuantly the "Law-Chaos" axis doesn't differentiate between society and personal. Personally I think Evil really only works as a deniel/lack of a moral system, Neutral is likewise a caring about morality, but not to the extent that Good does. (Although people with a "corrupted" moral idealology (that opposes the general moral conceus of minimising pain and repression) could also be classed under Neutral and Evil). Druids have a stong moral system, however it is geared to protecting nature, not people (which can clash with the "Good" system) hense I would think Neutral would work best. Imagine a war between a mostly good human nation and an mostly evil hobgoblin one, and a cult of Druids stuck in the middle of the forests between them. Under the old “Moral-Equalibrium-Netural” idea the Druids would systematically aid whichever side was losing at the time, to ensure neither “Good” nor “Evil” got an upperhand. which of course is going to prolong the war (almost indefinitely if the Druids are powerful enough). However War is perhaps the worst things to occur for environment and the natural order, people often forget about the sheer environmental damage that a prolonged war generates (mostly because the number of people killed), During a large War the economy and manufacturing abilities of a nation goes into overdrive to ensure that the army is well equipped, in fantasy settings for example forests are stripped of their resources to make more and more Weapons (and think how much wood a 10,000 arrows or siege tower would require to build). And then there is the issue of the sheer damage a large army or battle does, esp anything involving fire weapons (or wizards with fireballs). Why would the Druids attempt to prolong the war when rather blatantly it is devastating the very thing they revere, gain their power from and are sworn to protect? Likewise with the Paladin/Devil issue; Druids are very tied to “Earthly” nature and probably only care about Planar conflicts in how much it could end up spilling onto their world. While it is very conceivable for there to be some kind of “Planar Druid” who cares about the positve-energy/negative-energy state of the entire Multi-verse, the way they are commonly presented certainly doesn’t imply this (possibly a route to go down for plane-hopping Epic Druids…. hmm Far Realms Druid… interesting… :cool: ) . There is a reason why most druid spells concentrate on effecting/summoning normal animals rather than Outsiders. I just generally dislike the Alignment system in general (perhaps partly because I’ve done Undergraduate Ethics…), and I think this is perhaps the case when it really falls down, When it comes to moral dilemma type issues I would suggest that Druids should concentrate just concentrate on their interactions rather than, if you’re DM insists on Alignment thing drag him on here and let me beat him about the head with some basic reason. Alignment is meant to be a tool to aid role-paying, and like any rule it should be ditched when it becomes an encumbrance, and in this case I think it does.
Morka 12-12-03, 10:21 AM	For the same reasons of Illithidbix, I don't think druids will prolonge a war. If there is an invasion of hobgoblins, the druids will more likely fight them with the humans. But when the humans will finally stop the invasion, and begin to think of a "punitive expedition", now the druids will prevent them. They will say: "You win. Now get back to your cities.", instead of fighting them along with the hobgoblin. I see more the druids as Peace and Love hippies, than mercenaries who fight for whichever side is losing.
Arilou_skiff 12-12-03, 10:44 AM	*agreed* Also, a note about the Modrons (LN, but still neutral) "They are fearsome foes in battle, without Malice, Cruelty or Greed but also completely without Pity, Mercy or Compassion." The "Ideal" druidical order is one where everything is basically neutral, no good or evil of any form. The "second best" is where the good and evil extremes balance each other. A druid probably wouldn't care about a paladin smiting a few devils (there are lots of devils to go around! More devils can be arranged!) Someone committing genocide of all the drow in the world would warrant action however. Notice that the druid equilibrium is somewhat static: The balance tilting up and down like a seesaw tends to create Chaos more than anything else. For a druid, doing what is good or what is evil does not really matter: He can associate as freely with a band of marauding orcs as with a group of shining heroes. As long as they do not directly conflict with his goals they're okay. Also, this quote I think, sums up what it means by serving Balance perfectly :D "The Balance will be served, Shake your fist at the teeth of the hurricane, shout your defiance at the storm, break your world into a thousand pieces if you have the power. It does not matter for whatever you do there is another who will undo it. If not in this world than in the next. The Balance will be served." -Kaxanamos, Aurumach general.
PhaedrusXY 12-12-03, 02:16 PM	Originally posted by Arilou_skiff -Kaxanamos, Aurumach general. Just to point out, in case some on here don't know, an Aurumach is a type of Rilmani. Rilmani are the true neutral equivalent of devils, demons, and celestials, and they are devoted to preserving the balance in the multiverse.
Arilou_skiff 12-16-03, 04:42 AM	Maybe I should've said that...
pawsplay 12-17-03, 04:18 PM	I think it's enough to say that, rather than Good or Evil, Chaos or Law, a Neutral Druid acts according to his vision of what the natural order is and should be.
fuzzy1313 01-06-04, 01:58 PM	Originally posted by Arilou_skiff Devils are also a part of nature Leap :) Can my druidess trade her black bear companion in for an osyluth, then? ;-).
Elith E'Lyan 01-06-04, 05:22 PM	I would say the reason your DM sees your actions as evil, as opposed to neutral is probably the KILLING of the Paladins. Evil Orcs hell-bent on destroying the world are not going to be interested on being reasoned with. But Paladins would most likely be willing to talk about it. Explain that senslessly killing the devils who are not causing anyone harm (currently) rather than warning the devils the Paladins are coming, and then teaming up with them to destroy the do-gooders. I'd say it's one of the hardest parts about being a Druid character (and something I personally find appealing about playing one). Most "Heros" go around doing good deeds and saving the day. But that's not a very neutral thing to do. The way I would play the neutral but not evil card is by actuallying going Swiss on my party. They wanna do something "good" just for goodness sakes, I'd probably not help them. That means no heal spells in battle, no extra fighter (plus they have to put up with my rant on why they're doing things wrong.) I do also, for the sake of the game, rationalize a bit. But you can always remind the party that "The road to the Nine Hells is paved with good intentions". But I would certainly say that switching sides to which ever is weakest is by no means preserving the balance. That's sheer chaos, and has very little to do with balancing good and evil. And if it means betraying friends or allys, then really you're doing TWO evils.... betraying them and then probably feasting on their flesh while you're in wild shape :D But that's just my rant.
Arilou_skiff 01-07-04, 08:39 AM	Exactly, even simply giving a warning "Dudes, there's a bunch of a paladins coming this way, how about you guys just leave?" Is a better way. As said,a druid slook at the ENTIRE PICTURE. He might even help the paladins exterminate the devils... But he'll be sure to make it up somewhere else.
Sir Neil 01-07-04, 08:42 AM	1. While I applaud your DM for seeing through the great lie at the heart of the druidic code, (the ignorant idea that evil is somehow necessary), I disagree that you should lose your magic for it. Druids, and even the Dragonlance god Paladine, have been part of that snowjob from the beginning, and they still have power. 2. Evil is no more necessary to a functioning world than cancer is to a functioning organism. 3. Your DM's view of balance is similar to that found in Star Wars: Balance comes from an absence of evil. At the end of Return of the Jedi, the Force is in balance once again, with 1 light-sider and 0 dark-siders. 4. He also may feel that balance referred to is between the intelligent races and the environment. In that case, you would want your druid to encourage responsible agriculture and animal husbandry.
Illithidbix 01-07-04, 01:57 PM	Well I think people get far too hung out about Alignments, they should focus on the concept they have of their Characters personality and beliefs rather than some preset description of (frankly badly thought out) philosophical ideals. Alignment is meant to be a tool to help you with role-play, unfortunately lots of players see it as another rule they have to stick to, and unfortunately despite what the PHD says, it is so integrated into the D&D rules and cosmology that it is actually quite difficult to remove without some major rearrangement. I certainly find that I can't define my own personality and philosophical/political beliefs (I can identify parts with at least some parts of CN, NG, CG and even some LN), and I can't imagine anyone I know fitting perfectly into any alignment. If someone tried to Role-play me Alignment would be next to useless, so why therefore would it be any use trying to role-play? People in real life don’t think in terms of “Evil, Good and balance” (I certainly have never had anyone say to me that I shouldn’t help someone because “it would upset the balance between good and evil” so why should you’re characters? Like I said in my earlier post, the “Must be neutral” restriction for Druids makes no sense when you examine the whole "Neutral as Balance", as Druids care about promoting and Protecting nature rather than balancing some abstract ideals of Good and Evil. Role-play your character, not you’re alignment. When I roleplay my characters I try to ignore it completely (luckily my DM’s kind of agree with me, even if they are not quite so passionate about it) Sorry if that was a bit ranty. (Wanders of to write big post about how to cut out alignment completely from the system)
Lanoitakude 01-07-04, 11:23 PM	In D&D, it is clear the alignments aren't just rules. Alignments drive the multiverse. Good is actually manifest, it drives things, it empowers things, it has planes of existence devoted to it. Same thing with evil, chaos, and law. When a druid is asked "Which side are you on?" His resposne should be: "Side!? I am on no side, because no one is on my side." Neutrality for a druid is not caring about the eternal struggle between good and evil, but that nature remain intact. Nuetral people don't necessarily want to keep the balance. A druid wouldn't normally want to interfere in cosmic battles and issues, unless they will effect his world. A druid would most likely tend to combat evil, because evil is more likely to harm the wilderness. A true neutral druid would probably not worry about demons and devils, unless they come on to his turf. A TN character does not have to try to keep good/evil/law/chaos in balance, if anything, the character is free from those forces, and walks a "realistic" path, one that deals in the now. A DM is wrong to punish a druid for being evil, the druid is wrong to feel it is his job to interfere with cosmic affairs (unless it makes perfect sense for that character)
Arilou_skiff 01-08-04, 11:23 AM	Originally posted by Sir Neil 1. While I applaud your DM for seeing through the great lie at the heart of the druidic code, (the ignorant idea that evil is somehow necessary), I disagree that you should lose your magic for it. Druids, and even the Dragonlance god Paladine, have been part of that snowjob from the beginning, and they still have power. 2. Evil is no more necessary to a functioning world than cancer is to a functioning organism. 3. Your DM's view of balance is similar to that found in Star Wars: Balance comes from an absence of evil. At the end of Return of the Jedi, the Force is in balance once again, with 1 light-sider and 0 dark-siders. 4. He also may feel that balance referred to is between the intelligent races and the environment. In that case, you would want your druid to encourage responsible agriculture and animal husbandry. 1. That's correct, no matter what he should not loose his spells over it. 2. A druid would disagree: More like evil is as neccessary as is diseases as a whole (for population control and whatnot) for a species. Druids look at the large picture. 3. No it isn't. The force is unbalanced, and will probably swing over to the other side sooner or later. The force is in balance when there are either 1 dark sider and 1 light sider of equal strength or when the there are *none* of either. 4. That is a part of the Druidic code, but not the whole of it.
Sir Neil 01-11-04, 11:28 AM	2. A druid would disagree: More like evil is as neccessary as is diseases as a whole (for population control and whatnot) for a species. Druids look at the large picture. People are born, people die. That's the way of nature. Actual Evil, however, isn't. Natural: let some people die to avoid overpopulation. Evil: torture some people over seven years before sacrificing them to Cthulhu to avoid overpopulation. Hey, Mr. Druid. Pop quiz. The clergy of Pelor has started using magic to make sure orphens don't starve to death. How many of those orphens must be molested to balance it out? 3. No it isn't. The force is unbalanced, and will probably swing over to the other side sooner or later. The force is in balance when there are either 1 dark sider and 1 light sider of equal strength or when the there are *none* of either. Eh, you sure? I thought the consensus on the Star Wars board was that Anakin fulfilled the prophecy to bring balance to the Force when he killed the Emperor, thereby eliminating the Sith.
He Who Is 01-11-04, 11:51 AM	Or he brought balance when he eliminates all but two Jedi and thus leaves 2 Jedi and 2 Sith.
pres_man 01-12-04, 04:05 PM	When I started thinking about playing a druid, the first thing I decided was to rank the types of creatures by importance to my character. I came up with something like this from low to high Lowest: Constructs, Undead Aberrations, Oozes, Outsiders Dragons, Giants, Humanoids, Monstrous Humanoids Magical Beasts Highest: Animals, Elementals, Feys, Plants, Vermin All interactions were based on this ranking. Mainly my character was almost always hostile to undead and constructs, while almost always trying to protect animals, elementals, etc. This doesn't mean that killing animals and such didn't happen, just that is was not desirable. Intelligent races (humanoids, giants, etc) were usually dealt with depending on how they interacted with the environment. So if a group of paladins went to attack a group of devils, my druid wouldn't care at all, and probably wouldn't even get involved. If the paladins where torching a forest to drive out the devils (which I can not believe a paladin would do) then my character would have to stop them, not to save the devils, but to save the forest. Basically I see a true neutral druid being someone who finds a sick person in the woods and sees that he is being track by a pack of wolves. The druid sadly shakes his head but does not interfere, this is how nature is. This is not a good act, but I don't think it is an evil act either. It would certainly be evil to alert the pack to where the person was (unless the druid was a member of the pack and was part of the hunt). But letting "nature" takes its course is not evil. Actively helping known evil creatures is evil, though IMO (assuming no other factors blackmain, threats, hostages,etc.).
Arilou_skiff 01-14-04, 02:48 PM	Originally posted by Sir Neil People are born, people die. That's the way of nature. Actual Evil, however, isn't. Natural: let some people die to avoid overpopulation. Evil: torture some people over seven years before sacrificing them to Cthulhu to avoid overpopulation. Hey, Mr. Druid. Pop quiz. The clergy of Pelor has started using magic to make sure orphens don't starve to death. How many of those orphens must be molested to balance it out? Evil doesen't have to be vile to be evil... Anything that knowingly puts itself above others is evil. Read my earlier quote, the Balance *WILL* be served, if not in this world then in the next.
TranquilDarkness 01-14-04, 04:40 PM	First of all, I agree with the observation that the D&D alignment system fails on close inspection. Especially if it's compared to real-world ethical matters. However, within the D&D worlds it can work, exactly because those worlds have real manifestations of pure Evil and Good. Now, True Neutral can be accepted, I think, in three ways in D&D; -the guy who really doesn't care all that much, but has enough of a positive spark to stave off evil impulses. He will never be a hero, unless by accident, and neither will he commit to 'personal gain whatever the cost'. -the guy who cares about balance while accepting all its extremes; he will try to offset Good actions with Evil, Lawful behavior with Chaotic. -the guy who, as said above, sees the bigger picture and recognizes an active or passive role for himself. I think I'd place the thread-starters' druid as a one of the second type; and while slaying paladins to rescue some devils can certainly be labeled Chaotic Evil, it would be offset by his Lawful Good action vs the orcs. Thus maintaining inner balance.
Sir Neil 01-14-04, 09:14 PM	Originally posted by Arilou_skiff Evil doesen't have to be vile to be evil... ? Haven't you read Monte's treatise on D&D evil? It *does* have to be vile: sissified Care Bear evil doesn't cut it. I saw Kaxanamous' speech, and I noticed he totally has no point beyond, "Don't bother doing anything, it'll get undone eventually." How did this pessimist get promoted to general? True, the world isn't perfect (by which I mean LG), but if noone strives for it, it never will be.
Illithidbix 01-14-04, 10:09 PM	Sorry, but as much as I think Monte Cook has cool ideas for rules and spell, he really doesn't know how to do ethics and evil properly (nor do I think most D&D in general does). In the BoVD he portrays it in an overdone comic-book villain style that totally lacks any real feeling of horror. None of the example villains portray seem convincing particularly convincing characters and hence lack any real sense of menace and horror. He seems to start he seems to have some confusion between mental disorders and evil. Being evil and being mentally disturbed sometimes go together, but often the only thing disturbing about people who commit evil is that they do not care or value the lives and feelings of others. Not all evil is committed by half-mad perverts. Evil can also manifest as those fanatically convinced of their own righteous and the unrighteousness of others. Imagine overzealous Clerics and Paladins who have a policy of genocide towards all“evil races” burning and slaughtering villages of goblins to the last child. Interrogating people to reveal their sins and using ESP type spells to determine those with foul thoughts and “cleansing” (torturing and killing) them. The theocracy of Istar in Dragonlance is a perfect example of this, as are the Inquisition, the Nazi’s and the Taliban from real life. This elven ranger is a good example of that. Evil people don’t have to be emototionally or mentally disturbed, they can be coldly clearthinking and rational, trying to achieve reasonable goals, only not considering the fate of others as important. Leave out that factor and you can rationaise some truely horrendous things (if fact, that simple thing seems to be the key factor in most evil acts) Some of it is vastly inhuman, and doesn’t even recognise humanity (and co) as being anything more that insects. Lovecraftian type is evil in a different way because although it isn’t actually malicious it does not care about what it effects. I also fail to see why you have to stick to his conception of what evil is, it’s your game after all, you can modify the rules and flavour as you like. I still fail to see what balancing out Good and Evil has to do with protecting and knowing nature anyway.
He Who Is 01-14-04, 11:18 PM	How about the overly polite genocidal maniac. Someone whose polite, and well mannered.His prisoner's have suite instead of cells, and great nine course meals. He's a patient teacher, and and all around good person. Of course, he still tortures and kills the unworthy, but he always has a nice word and kind smile for them. THose type of people are just creepy.
Sir Neil 01-15-04, 12:13 AM	Originally posted by Illithidbix I also fail to see why you have to stick to his conception of what evil is, it’s your game after all, you can modify the rules and flavour as you like. Of course one can, but when one comes to the Wizards boards, one's assumed to be using the rules-as-written unless they state otherwise. For instance, does a fighter/wizard wearing masterwork steel full plate suffer ASF? In my game, no. According to the RAW, yes. That's why what Monte and James said are so important. According to the RAW, Evil=really the hell evil and LG paladin/rogues can sneak attack. BTW, I don't see how any of the examples you and He Who Is posted aren't D&D quality evil. I still fail to see what balancing out Good and Evil has to do with protecting and knowing nature anyway. Me too.
lordyuri24 01-15-04, 08:44 AM	Originally posted by Illithidbix I still fail to see what balancing out Good and Evil has to do with protecting and knowing nature anyway. This has never officially been adressed, but teh way I figure it is this: (as I posted it after brining this thread to another gamer friend of mine and discussing it) The idea of "The Balance" still seems foreign to me, but I am finally starting to get a grasp at what the original writers of the Druids were getting at when they invented it. After digging up every RP writing of Druids, ranging back up to 9 years across 4 campaigns and 2 D&D editions (as well as a non-D&D RP) I am finally starting to get what they are going for. The balance is not something tangeable, it is simply an extention of a Druid's oath to protect nature. A fellow poster on the Wizards Boards said, "remember nature can be harsh and unforgiving, where the stong flourish, and the weak do not survive for long." and after thinking about this long and hard this is what I think most people feel about the balance. It is simply the expresiion of Natural Selection: where the weak perish and leave the strong (ones best suited to survive) to procreate. But from this I realized that the Druid does not protect nature from animals and non-sentient beings, it is all the intelligent races doing the damage. This lead me to believe that the balance was not about trying to keep everything even in the world, it was about trying to keep everything that would threaten nature, from getting so powerful it could end what the Druids work to protect. In that sense the Druids (TN ones) don't fight to keep the balance because it is some intertwined power in the universe, but more because it seems to be an extension of their protection of the natural state of the world (and everything else, including the planes). "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutily" seems to just pound in my mind when I think of this, as it seems that the Druids try to keep it from happening, keep the power away from anyone who has too much and keep them from being corrupt. Earth's history has shown that those with power inveribly will do anything to achieve more, such as Hitler sending almost 1 Million troops to invade Russia, knowing the resistance they would face from the Russians and the Record Breaking Cold of Winter, because he felt he would be unstobbale if he could have Russia under his control. From there we can look at how the powerful exploit the most easily accessable resources of the world (the natural resources) simply through viewing the state of the environment today, as it's well-being has been at the bane of the industrial and corporate tycoons since the introduction of fossil fuel use. In my opinion the idea of "The Balance" was introduced to keep players focusing their Druids on trying to keep from happening in their world what has happened in our world as their central concern, the reason the Druids exist. This was finally dispelled in the creation 3rd Edition when the introduction of Druids as a core class required a little more flexibility in terms of character concepts. (Note that this is only my personal opinion on how the Druid has evolved, how they should be played, and why they should be played. This would often be considered Chaotic, and not TN. How I plan to work around this is quite simple, I have always though of alignment as why a character does something (motive) not how they do it (actions). A person who kills a 1000 orcs because those orcs wil kill 100,000 innocent people is Good, but the same person killing the same orcs by the same way for a sack of gold is Evil: alignment is why it happens not how. For Druids, this applies to the Druids' because although how they go about doing things is quite chaotic, it isn't WHY they do it. Druids would not go kill Asmodeus because he is a bad guy who kills people (Good), or just because it is something he hasn't done before just to keep life interesting (Chaotic), or because he wants to kill something (Evil), he does it because Asmodeus is overpowered and threatens "the Balance". (Note: The balance is supposed to be the mythical harmony with everything the Druids seek by making themselves Neutral.)
pres_man 01-15-04, 10:30 AM	This was finally dispelled in the creation 3rd Edition when the introduction of Druids as a core class required a little more flexibility in terms of character concepts. Yeah, I had a problem with the books description of druids as to why they would be adventurers. I finally made up some social classifications for druids in my game. 1. There are the druid's who have an area that they watch over, in the common tongue their names are "Protectors", in the druidic language they are called "The Trees that Walk". For as trees they stand patiently as the world turns around them. 2. There are druid's that travel, who view all of the world as their protected area. They help out any other druids and will stop wanton destruction whereever it occurs. In the common tongue they are called "Defenders" and in the druidic language they are "The Wolves that Wander". Most protectors were defenders at one time. Some mature and look for a peaceful life, others find an area that they are draw to stay at, still others are asked by older druids to replace them. Yet not all defenders take the mantel of protector, some wonder till the ends of their days, experiencing all of that the world has to offer. Other's like birds will migrate to far off regions, only to return to familiar territory time and again. 3. Lastly there are the novices. These are those druids that are just starting their training, they have survived the tests and have begun to learn the ways of nature. In the common tongue they are called "Apprentices", in the druidic language they are "The New Seers of Life". Most apprentices will leave their teachers when they get too powerful and become defenders. A few will stay to replace protectors too old and weak to care for their areas. Druids usually will approach the study of nature from two directions, those who study all the small details, ever delving deeper into the minutia of life. And those that look for the connections to everything else, looking farther outward. The former makes good protecters, the latter good defenders.
Arilou_skiff 01-16-04, 01:24 PM	Originally posted by Sir Neil ? Haven't you read Monte's treatise on D&D evil? It *does* have to be vile: sissified Care Bear evil doesn't cut it. I saw Kaxanamous' speech, and I noticed he totally has no point beyond, "Don't bother doing anything, it'll get undone eventually." How did this pessimist get promoted to general? True, the world isn't perfect (by which I mean LG), but if noone strives for it, it never will be. Monte's treatise is not the only shade of evil. What I mean is that evil is not always stark-in-the-face butchering psychotic evil. It can just as easily be the Evil in the Gray Suit, the evil you don't see because it has become so commonplace, the evil that doesen't consider itself evil, the evil that maybe brings the greater good (but is still evil!) An evil society can be perfectly stable, and even dynamic in some ways, a militaristic-theocratic-control-freak-style state ala. 17th century Sweden would be clearly labelled as Lawful Evil, yet the people who lived then did not bother much... They lived their lives, good and evil people side by side. A good person tries to fight evil wherever he can, but that does not mean he has to try to fight *everyone* that is evil. The evil shopkeeper that cheats his customers is not a big a threat as the serial killer, and the Evil Emperor of a vast militaristic Empire might be a cruel tyrant, but he might also be out of league of that particular good character. Evil is everywhere, and so every good character has to discriminate which evils he will focus on.
Arilou_skiff 01-16-04, 01:26 PM	Originally posted by Sir Neil Me too. Druids are the keepers of Balance, Nature is seen as an embodiment of Balance, thus they keep and protect it. And Karaxus was an Aurumach: They are the Exemplars of Neutrality. Asking why he thinks as he does is like asking a fiend or celestial why they think like they do: It is in their nature.
Sir Neil 01-16-04, 08:43 PM	Originally posted by Arilou_skiff What I mean is that evil is not always stark-in-the-face butchering psychotic evil. Ah. I agree, evil can be subtle, even genteel. A good person tries to fight evil wherever he can, but that does not mean he has to try to fight *everyone* that is evil.... Evil is everywhere, and so every good character has to discriminate which evils he will focus on. True, true. Hey, Mr. Druid. Fun fact: The percentage of cyanide necessary for drinking water to be "balanced" is exactly the same as the percentage of Evil needed for society to be "balanced". So why don't youse guys manage our natural resources so we don't overburden the environment, and let us paladins manage Evil, m'kay?
lordyuri24 01-16-04, 11:01 PM	Originally posted by Sir Neil Ah. I agree, evil can be subtle, even genteel. True, true. Hey, Mr. Druid. Fun fact: The percentage of cyanide necessary for drinking water to be "balanced" is exactly the same as the percentage of Evil needed for society to be "balanced". So why don't youse guys manage our natural resources so we don't overburden the environment, and let us paladins manage Evil, m'kay? And while you manage that foaming-at-the-mouth destructive evil yuo speak of who will manage the foaming-at-the-mouth destructive good you represent?
Sir Neil 01-16-04, 11:33 PM	Tjeck the BXD and SRD again. Foaming-at-the-mouth destruction != Good. “'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." Please remind me why everyone acting like that would ruin the world.
Tevish Szat 01-17-04, 01:32 PM	It sounds like your TN druid character has a lot in common with Rilmani, the Outsider epitome of TN in the same way that Slaad are the ultimate CN, Modrons LN, 'loths NE, etc. the rilmani ultimatly exist to preserve the balance between good and evil, law and chaos. if good is getting a real leg up, i can expect they would help evil. Of course, they'll throw their aid behing good just as quiclky if evil is getting ahead.
unusualsuspect 01-17-04, 06:56 PM	Originally posted by Sir Neil Hey, Mr. Druid. Fun fact: The percentage of cyanide necessary for drinking water to be "balanced" is exactly the same as the percentage of Evil needed for society to be "balanced". So why don't youse guys manage our natural resources so we don't overburden the environment, and let us paladins manage Evil, m'kay? [/B] You paladins don't have the best track record for managing evil, at least in reality. The spanish inquisition comes to mind. And if you want to believe that society doesn't need "evil", good for you. But belief, as much as we may wish, does not make something true. In fact, one foundation of chinese philosophy disagrees with you entirely (Yin & Yang). But then again, alignment in DnD is faulty, unweildy, and innaccurate. I suppose it would be entirely good for a band of paladins to commit genocide against every single evil creature on the world :rolleyes: As a side note, I think Annakin brought "balance" to the force by killing as many Jedi as he could, bringing force-users of dark and light more into balance. Lask i checked, a mechanical balance wouldnt consider a pound of gold "balanced" without a pound of coal on the other side.
Sir Neil 01-18-04, 11:27 AM	Originally posted by unusualsuspect And if you want to believe that society doesn't need "evil", good for you. But belief, as much as we may wish, does not make something true. Obviously you've never played MAGE:THE ASCENSION or PLANESCAPE. ;) Still, no-one's answered my question: Cap'n Wally himself “'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." Please remind me why everyone acting like that would ruin the world. And while yer at it, explain why you think evil is necessary. I suppose it would be entirely good for a band of paladins to commit genocide against every single evil creature on the world Doesn't anyone read these days? The BXD sets clear conditions for the Good use of violence. Namely: the target is actively evil; the goal is to prevent further evil actions; that one discriminates between combatants and civilians; and that torture and evil magic aren't used. Genocide fails in part 3 and is thus a no-no.
lordyuri24 01-18-04, 02:08 PM	Originally posted by Sir Neil Tjeck the BXD and SRD again. Foaming-at-the-mouth destruction != Good. “'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." Please remind me why everyone acting like that would ruin the world. The ultimate blind adherance to destroying evil is terrible. When all the demons/devils are gone what will they go after next? They will use every resource (thus destroying nature) to destroy what they feel is evil and chaos, a relative term. When the hells are quenched you can say by by to things like Chaotic people (erm, Elves) and Neutral people (can someone say Halflings and Druids). They will push the envelope of what to destroy (by what they classify as Evil and Chaotic) until the only people left are LG. Just because they have good intentions doesn't mean they are good people.
Sir Neil 01-18-04, 11:20 PM	Groovy. Now we make progress. *Blind adherence to destoying evil=LN (See St. Cuthbert) *Destroying everyone who isn't LG is Evil So what yer saying is the druids are afraid that if everyone was Good, the people would start acting Evil? Wow. I thought I was paranoid. ... uh, are you familiar with the math symbol "!="? It means "does not equal", so my initial statement should be read, "Foaming-at-the-mouth destruction doesn't equal Good." That may not have been clear.
horndgod 01-19-04, 01:18 AM	I should point out that the druid that switches sides to support the current underdog is not a chaotic person. He has a code, namely, to support the underdog. If he randomly decided who to support then he would be chaotic, and his actions may appear chaotic to an outside observer, but dedication to principle makes him anything but.
lordyuri24 01-19-04, 09:15 AM	Originally posted by Sir Neil Groovy. Now we make progress. *Blind adherence to destoying evil=LN (See St. Cuthbert) *Destroying everyone who isn't LG is Evil So what yer saying is the druids are afraid that if everyone was Good, the people would start acting Evil? Wow. I thought I was paranoid. ... uh, are you familiar with the math symbol "!="? It means "does not equal", so my initial statement should be read, "Foaming-at-the-mouth destruction doesn't equal Good." That may not have been clear. LN has no care for good-evil, he is neautral on that axis and thus neautral when persuing goals in that field. A LN person would be obsessed with Law at all costs, he would have no care for right and wrong, just lawful and unlawful. It is evil by our standards, but when there are only LG, CG, and CN people left the Paladins need to smote someone, so they will rid themselves of the furthest evils. That is the whole point, Druids are afraid because they know what will happen if they let the alignments go whirring out of control. If either good or evil becomes severely unbalanced then a whole mess of bad things could crop up and bite people on the butt. But when talking about killing a Succubus it is, according to the Paladins. That is a very thin line, and it would be hard to throw in things that aren't necessarily evil into that "it is ok to destroy" mix.
Sir Neil 01-19-04, 09:32 AM	Originally posted by lordyuri24 ...the Paladins need to smote someone.... Actually, after Evil is gone they can just go home. In fact, that's exactly what Sam the paladin does in LotR. That is the whole point, Druids are afraid because they know what will happen if they let the alignments go whirring out of control. If either good or evil becomes severely unbalanced then a whole mess of bad things could crop up and bite people on the butt. So druids believe things could be bad if Evil was gone. Since we know things are bad while Evil is here, you'll understand if I take their beliefs with a grain of salt.
TranquilDarkness 01-19-04, 10:11 AM	Sir Neil, ever heard of the phrase 'without darkness, what would be light'? you said; "Actually, after Evil is gone they can just go home. In fact, that's exactly what Sam the paladin does in LotR." Actually, it would be all the more likely that as soon as there would be no more actual Evil then the focus would shift towards Neutrality as an opposing alignment. And then Chaotic vs Lawful Good. No Good can come of it.. :( Being Good represents a respect for sentient and free life; why does that not include the free choice to be and remain Evil? Disrespecting and wanting to remove the opposition seems so...Evil. :smirk:
badger3k 01-19-04, 01:31 PM	Originally posted by Sir Neil Tjeck the BXD and SRD again. Foaming-at-the-mouth destruction != Good. “'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." Please remind me why everyone acting like that would ruin the world. Here's a scenario. All the paladins and heros band together and slay every evil thing in the world. World peace. Armies disband becuase there's no need of them. People start addressing their other problems. One of them is population deaths- without wars and fighting, less people will die. With more healing available also, less babies will die, and more of those who are less capable of survival will in fact survive. Populations expand, and the need for room and farmland increases. Even supposing that some don't start looking at their neighbors, where will the farmland come from - the wilderness, of course. So, to help the people, the forests have to go. So do the animals - after all, it's for the greater good right? I'm sure some will be put in zoos. But then, what happens when that isn't enough. By this time, magic will be available to eradicate disease as well, so we can continue the population increase. Where will it end? Ocean to Ocean cities and farmland (tamed nature? Unnatural!) So an end result of the deaths of millions of animals and plants result from doing good. Does that make it an evil act? Look at the present course of the world and the wilderness that's left (and shrinking still). In our world it's hardly the result of pure good, but the end results could be the same. From looking at one aspect (even just narrow it down to the desire to keep babies alive, a good thing unless they're orc babies) - too much of a "good" thing can have a harmful effect on nature - especially if you look at it from the angle that its natural that some die. Apparently they weren't strong enough. It sure sounds evil, but its more of viewing it in a larger context then most people can or want to. Its the way a TN druid would look at things. The main concept seems to be that forces should be in equilibrium. A TN (of any sort) would try to balance it all out, but shouldn't go back and forth between sides. The druids in the war example, IMO, would probably prevent either side from using the forest as their battleground, and may even act against the winner in some way (the "go home" idea, or even harsher). The druids would see the hobgoblins (or whatever they were) as necessary for the Grand Scheme of Things. They might act to ensure that some survive if they are defeated by the humans. Ditto for the reverse. They would probably prevent a total victory of either side, since that would "tip the scales" too far one way, perhaps promoting some other force elsewhere in the world. The Recluce books make for an interesting idea of balance. An interesting idea of the Balance (adding to the Recluce ideas) is that everything, even the gods, are accountable, even if they don't know or believe in it. If magic became an overwhelming force, perhaps the reality would change to allow more anti-magic, or magic would "leak" away. Similarly, perhaps if evil was killed off, their counterparts would start dying off. Then the world would go to a neutral state, perhaps awaiting the birth of new gods and demons. If Paladins killed all the evil, they might lose their powers, or as they killed off the lesser evils, there would be a greater one getting more powerful elsewhere. As for "So druids believe things could be bad if Evil was gone. Since we know things are bad while Evil is here, you'll understand if I take their beliefs with a grain of salt." Well, its more that they know the things will be bad if Evil is gone. They use a totally different view of what the bad is. Good and Evil is different from good and bad. What's good for Good might be bad for Evil, or might be good for Evil too - good and bad are relative terms, unlike Good and Evil. Other than that, I have to agree that the alignment rules are intended to set up the "Good vs Evil" of heroic fantasy, but I still can't figure out how comitting genocide is good in some cases. The PHB states that "'Evil' implies...killing others." (p104 3.5). Nowhere else in the PHB does it state that a Good character can kill (even the descriptions of the alignments state things like "oppose evil" "fights evil without mercy", and "waylays the evil baron's tax collectors" make no specific mention of killing, although it is implied). So, the whole alignment system seems to be flawed from the get go. Just my opinions, YMMV.
strange_person 01-19-04, 10:00 PM	Here's the good-evil axis as best I understand it. If anything I say is contradicted, directly or by implication, in the core rulebooks, please point it out to me. 1. Everyone looks out for themself, and there companions, family members, and anyone else they are obligated to protect. A smart paladin or demon will retreat from a fight it cannot win. Exceptions are rare. 2. Good seeks to help others as well. If good people had there way, everyone would get food, healing, etc. Details may vary, and limited resources may force individuals to pick and choose who they help, but they'll generally try to do as much to help as many as possible, overall. A good charachter will take any reasonable measures to try to resolve disputes peacefully, giving up diplomacy and attacking (that is, NOT doing subdual damage) only when it's clear that the opponents will not be reasoned with. 3. Evil seeks to harm others. If evil people had there way, people would be killed, hurt, or at least inconvenienced unnecessarily. Details almost always vary: most are malicious only to a chosen group, and will only attack that group when it wouldn't put them at any serious risk. An evil charachter will take any reasonable measures to cause harm (physical or otherwise) to it's target, and will generally cut and run when things start getting dangerous. This includes helping those it considers allies to escape.
Sir Neil 01-20-04, 09:17 AM	Originally posted by TranquilDarkness ever heard of the phrase 'without darkness, what would be light'? Sure. Nothing I've said invalidates it. If I wanted to, I could go out and commit Evil right now. I can clearly visualize what I'd do. In fact, I've got the knife in my lap right now. Do I actually need to go out and commit Evil so everyone can contrast it with Good, or is the knowledge that both exist enough? *puts knife away* That's why I maintain that Evil deeds aren't necessary. Actually, it would be all the more likely that as soon as there would be no more actual Evil then the focus would shift towards Neutrality as an opposing alignment. And then Chaotic vs Lawful Good. Except that isn't what happens. Not in LotR, and not in D&D. The Shire is scoured of evil, Kings Aragorn and Eomer secure their borders, and finally the people of the West live happily ever after. In the Silver Marches (FR), the dominant alignments are Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic Good. They don't go crusading against their neighbors. Lawfuls and Chaotics aren't brawling in the streets. They are content to live Good lives in peace. Since the books provide evidence that a victorious Good wouldn't destroy the world, we can conclude that druids are just using their baseless fears to promote their morally bankrupt religion. Being Good represents a respect for sentient and free life; why does that not include the free choice to be and remain Evil? Disrespecting and wanting to remove the opposition seems so...Evil. Oh. Then you won't mind if I went to yer local kindergarten and murdered each child. Slowly. While I make their parents watch. And then I'll move on to the next school. You wouldn't disrespect my free choice to be and remain Evil by interfering, would you? badger3k In your first senario, you've forgotten about the demihumans. Since the elves're CG, they'll still be around, and they're the most ecologically conscious race; the dwarves are LG, and live underground. The dwarves can turn any mountain into a skyscraper, and the elves can make sure everyone's got enough to eat. Human husbandry. "I still can't figure out how comitting genocide is good in some cases." It's not. ...eh, who said committing genocide is good? strange_person, the first one is classified as Neutral. Everything else was spot on.
TranquilDarkness 01-20-04, 09:53 AM	Sir Neil, on the grounds of differing philosophies, I don't think we will agree on this :) What I'm trying to say is that in the absence of True Evil your act of picking up a knife and *thinking* about would actually become the next Evil act. And somebody Good would want to remove you, and your knife from their world. In your examples of the Shire and the Realms you provide slices of time, mere moments on the time-line. And sure, things can develop for a while in the absence of Evil. In the long run, I think it can't. And wanting to stop Evil from happening in a kindergarten near you works for me; I have no pressing need to stop you from being Evil. I might wanna stop you from acting Evil, though..
Sir Neil 01-20-04, 08:00 PM	Originally posted by TranquilDarkness ...on the grounds of differing philosophies, I don't think we will agree on this That could be true. But the quote below suggests we can find common ground; even if we can't this discussion's given me something to ponder while waiting for my shift to end. :) And wanting to stop Evil from happening in a kindergarten near you works for me; I have no pressing need to stop you from being Evil. I might wanna stop you from acting Evil, though.. Ignoring the notion that a person can be Evil without performing Evil deeds, reconsider the druid's actions regarding the paladins: He didn't just permit me to do Evil at the kindergarten by rationalizing that killing is part of nature, he shot up the cops so I could finish. I think that's why his DM ruled him Evil.
TranquilDarkness 01-21-04, 03:59 AM	Ah, keeping your mind occupied during work is at least as important as finding common ground :D And there is no argument about shooting the cops; killing paladins to stop them from killing demons is evil in my book, too. However, that brings us to the next interesting question; what if the demons are and have been inactive (even though they can't be up to much good) for some time, and the druid hinders and tries to dissuade the paladins from hunting the demons? Would that be Evil?
Sir Neil 01-21-04, 09:29 AM	Originally posted by TranquilDarkness However, that brings us to the next interesting question; what if the demons are and have been inactive (even though they can't be up to much good) for some time, and the druid hinders and tries to dissuade the paladins from hunting the demons? Would that be Evil? Probably not. Inactive evil isn't a legitimate target for exalted violence, anyway. The only way I'd rule it as Evil is if he was secretly in league with the demons: dissuading the paladins so the demons could launch a surprise attack (as opposed to dissuading them on religious grounds).
lordyuri24 01-21-04, 04:59 PM	interesting question; what if the demons are and have been inactive (even though they can't be up to much good) for some time, and the druid hinders and tries to dissuade the paladins from hunting the demons? Would that be Evil? By the book, it would be consodered VERY evil. Demons=Evil, the book makes no question about this. Paladins=Good, the book makes no question about this. WHen a Paladin goes to smote a Demon then the book says this is a good thing, gods kills evil, no matter the circumstances. It doesn't matter if the Succubus that Paladin is trying to kill is your mother who has taken a Vow of Peace, it is still evil and any attempt to stop the Paladin from killing it is bad. This is where the Druid's fear of extreme good stems from. Paladins MUST destroy evil, that is why they are around. They do not care about the situation of the individual creature, if it is redeemed then good for it, it will find a good place in Limbo, it is Evil (by the most loose of standards, racial stereotyping) and must be expunged. It is this zealousness that makes Druids dislike good; they believe ALL life on the planes is sacred (including creatures like Illithid, Slaads, and Ta'narri) and that it should not be destroyed unless the creature itself has done something to merit it's destruction. And let me ask you this: is a wolf evil for killing a deer to eat? What if it ate 10,000 deer? Probably not, it is just filling it's role in nature and feeding itself. What if it wondered into vilage and ate your grandmother? Is the animal then evil? It is just filling it's most basic needs, and your grandmother just happened to be there. So why is it different for a demon? They are just doing what demons naturally do, this is why they are around. Should we smote them just because their race just happens to like to kill things? I mean, I am sure in ANY campaign setting you would find humans kill more people than ANY other race, with either Dwarves or Elves in second; so why not go and kill them? They are just a race of killers, SMOTE AWAY GOOD PALI! Just because Demons are classified as evil they must be killed by the forces of good. This blind adherance to smoting evil is what Druids are afraid of. Good is like the media, when it focuses on public enemy number 1 (Things like Demons and Devils) it goes insane trying to expunge it. What if somewhere a Nymph seduces a husband and his wife gets the local Paladin to stop the Nymph (adultry is evil you know). All of the sudden the Paladin starts a crusade and soon every Paladin has run into the forest killing every Fey in sight, because they are "evil". This is what Druids fear in good.
Sir Neil 01-21-04, 07:59 PM	Originally posted by lordyuri24 Just because Demons are classified as evil they must be killed by the forces of good. This blind adherance to smoting evil is what Druids are afraid of. Er, what you describe is not acceptable behavior for Good characters. BXD: "A paladin smiting a blackguard or a blue dragon is not committing an evil act..." however, "... the mere existance of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm." ... [creatures] should not be destroyed unless the creature itself has done something to merit it's destruction. :uh-huh: The alignment fairy doesn't just fly down and randomly mark creatures "Evil", they earn that alignment every step of the way. Actions dictate alignment! (DMG 3.0; 144) The only exception are animals, who lack the capacity for alignment; and dragons, who start play aligned despite being 0 years old. :rolleyes:
lordyuri24 01-22-04, 09:56 AM	The alignment fairy doesn't just fly down and randomly mark creatures "Evil", they earn that alignment every step of the way. Actions dictate alignment! (DMG 3.0; 144) The only exception are animals, who lack the capacity for alignment; and dragons, who start play aligned despite being 0 years old. :rolleyes: Yes, but are you sure that EVERY demon your Paladin slays is Evil? As a race, they are quite evil, but you always have a few that aren't.
Korhal IV 01-22-04, 08:31 PM	Originally posted by badger3k Here's a scenario. All the paladins and heros band together and slay every evil thing in the world. World peace. Armies disband becuase there's no need of them. People start addressing their other problems. One of them is population deaths- without wars and fighting, less people will die. With more healing available also, less babies will die, and more of those who are less capable of survival will in fact survive. Populations expand, and the need for room and farmland increases. Actually, prosperous people have fewer children. Look at the world in 1400s - every woman started giving birth from age 14 to age 32, if she lived that long. Look at the world today - almost all the First World nations (with the possible exception of the USA) have negative birth rates, and steeply declining populations. Initially, you are correct - people will think the world is a better place now (it is so literally in your example), and the returning soldiers will father many, many children. Those selfsame children, however, will grow up and have fewer children, so they can focus love, attention, and wealth on those kids. It may sound a bit sketchy, but it's true. A look at Europe will tell you so. Btw, Unusual Suspect - to paraphrase a quote I saw around here, reality and realism go out the window when the gelatinous cube starts slithering down the dungeon hall.
Sir Neil 01-22-04, 08:48 PM	Originally posted by lordyuri24 Yes, but are you sure that EVERY demon your Paladin slays is Evil? As a race, they are quite evil, but you always have a few that aren't. "As there will well be abberations in nature, a chaotic good orc, or drow, is of possible interest to the player who wants a challenge for the PC--virtually every hand will be against such characters. Having demons and vampires of similar stamp is so much nonsense, comparable in my mind to a grass-eating lion or a friendly wolverine...." Gary Gygax, En World, 11/01/2003 Demons are Always Evil. Gary said it. I believe it. That's that.
lordyuri24 01-22-04, 10:07 PM	Originally posted by Sir Neil "As there will well be abberations in nature, a chaotic good orc, or drow, is of possible interest to the player who wants a challenge for the PC--virtually every hand will be against such characters. Having demons and vampires of similar stamp is so much nonsense, comparable in my mind to a grass-eating lion or a friendly wolverine...." Gary Gygax, En World, 11/01/2003 Demons are Always Evil. Gary said it. I believe it. That's that. Tell that to Salvatore.
Arilou_skiff 01-23-04, 06:47 AM	Originally posted by Sir Neil "As there will well be abberations in nature, a chaotic good orc, or drow, is of possible interest to the player who wants a challenge for the PC--virtually every hand will be against such characters. Having demons and vampires of similar stamp is so much nonsense, comparable in my mind to a grass-eating lion or a friendly wolverine...." Gary Gygax, En World, 11/01/2003 Demons are Always Evil. Gary said it. I believe it. That's that. Game, Set, Match. You're wrong. There have been redeemed demons and devils in D&D canon, just as there has been fallen celestials. They can be counted on the ´fingers of a blind butcher, but they exist. Among the billiions of milliions of demons one or two might be good. They exist.
Sir Neil 01-23-04, 09:03 AM	Originally posted by Arilou_skiff There have been redeemed demons and devils in D&D canon, just as there has been fallen celestials. They can be counted on the ´fingers of a blind butcher, but they exist. Among the billiions of milliions of demons one or two might be good. They exist. Sure. Are they common enough to make Lord Yuri's question, "how does your paladin KNOW that demon is evil," valid? Of course not. Lord Yuri, which of Salvatore's FR books had a non-Evil demon?
lordyuri24 01-23-04, 09:58 AM	Originally posted by Sir Neil Sure. Are they common enough to make Lord Yuri's question, "how does your paladin KNOW that demon is evil," valid? Of course not. Lord Yuri, which of Salvatore's FR books had a non-Evil demon? I am not sure about a demon but I do seem to remember him referring to a non-evil Drow once or twice, but that could just be me becoming senile.
Arilou_skiff 01-23-04, 12:06 PM	Originally posted by Sir Neil Sure. Are they common enough to make Lord Yuri's question, "how does your paladin KNOW that demon is evil," valid? Of course not. Lord Yuri, which of Salvatore's FR books had a non-Evil demon? Even one of a trillion billions is still a chance. It's still not 100%.
Sir Neil 01-23-04, 08:48 PM	Originally posted by lordyuri24 I am not sure about a demon but I do seem to remember him referring to a non-evil Drow once or twice, but that could just be me becoming senile. Yer not just senile; I know there are a few non-evil drow in the Realms, and Gary's quote mentions it can be an interesting role to play. (Just don't try it around Arturick.) It's the Planescape-inspired "demons are people too" crap I'm ranting against. Regardless, supposing a paladin DID come across the ONE demon in the universe who ISN'T evil, why would they fight? As a player, I'd be a little suspicious when I charge a pit fiend and he tells me he's reformed and refuses to fight. That's when the scenario starts smelling like a set-up, and I begin checking about illusions and polymorphs. Unless one routinely portay Good as stupid, in which case the problem will fix itself when your group quits.
lordyuri24 01-23-04, 10:36 PM	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sir Neil Regardless, supposing a paladin DID come across the ONE demon in the universe who ISN'T evil, why would they fight? As a player, I'd be a little suspicious when I charge a pit fiend and he tells me he's reformed and refuses to fight. That's when the scenario starts smelling like a set-up, and I begin checking about illusions and polymorphs. [QUOTE] And what about the non Demons? Aren't Paladins supposed to smote ALL evil? How does a Paladin determine if someone is evil?
Sir Neil 01-24-04, 09:13 AM	:confused: The first power they get is detect evil, and Sense Motive is a class skill.
JohnSnow 01-30-04, 03:52 PM	Yes, Sense Motive is a class skill. And the Paladin should have a high wisdom and put max ranks in sense motive (it's his most IMPORTANT skill, given his code), which means that bluffing him is TOUGH (or should be). So, let's see... Detect Evil + Natural Talent at determining if you're being lied to = Human Lie Detector. Now, since I've gotten drawn into commenting on the subject....Neutral as philosophy is actually pretty simple... Good, evil...who's to say? Anything can be justified under the right circumstances. Now this doesn't means Druids (or neutrals) can't kill evils....or goods. This sort of action is PERFECTLY justified to the druid. This doesn't mean they engage in active evil...that's the action of a neutral evil druid....attempting to preserve "the natural order" by rooting out powerful goodness. But expedience-killing is perfectly justified in a moral philosophy that denies the existence of good and evil (or more accurately, refuses to render value judgements on the subject). TN Druids act "naturally." In other words, semi-self interested. Animals don't "Kill" for fun. They kill for food. They fight for space and survival. If you try to kill a druid, he'll fight back. If your actions are threatening the natural world, he'll try to stop you. You can't convince the druid to go kill a dragon because "it's evil." "It's rampaging through the countryside doing whatever it wants to"...that'll get his attention. Animals aren't making moral decisions. They can be killed if they're a threat or for food, but not wantonly slaughtered. And TNs think of sentients the SAME way. And for the record, only evil believes in wanton slaughter (i.e. genocide). Paladins would no more wantonly slaughter all orcs than they would slaughter all cute fuzzy bunnies. The Paladin who slaughters all orcs without remorse is no paladin (and not Lawful Good). On the other hand, some druids may be paranoid enough to worry about this. Meaning they might do questionable things. Of course the Druid who slaughters paladins (who don't threaten him) isn't exactly being Neutral so much as Neutral Evil or Chaotic Neutral. Because he's not acting in a "natural" way. To properly play a TN, ask yourself, "how would an animal respond to this situation?" That more or less covers the philosophy.
flyingmoose 02-01-04, 04:10 AM	I'm two tired to read the whole thread so I'll just post two answers to the original question. 1. There's two versions of True Neutral: TN Passive and TN Active. You seem to be describing TN Active which a lot of people have trouble with. Actively seeking balance means screwing over the good guys sometimes, and to many minds, screwing over the good guys at all means Evil. If you just switch to TN Passive, and focus less on balance of good, evil, order, and chaos and more on protection of your own nature, it should straighten out. 2. Just play Neutral Good. Not many people have trouble defining that. If your DM starts trying to shift you to LG or CG (or worst yet, back to TN), then he's a [donkey]hole and you should find a new DM. 3. Take Subdual Spell (Tome & Blood). Burninate the bad guys and unconscionate the good guys (or just unconscionate everybody and let the rest of your party coup de gracinate the bad guys)inate.
lordyuri24 02-01-04, 10:19 AM	Originally posted by flyingmoose I'm two tired to read the whole thread so I'll just post two answers to the original question. 1. There's two versions of True Neutral: TN Passive and TN Active. You seem to be describing TN Active which a lot of people have trouble with. Actively seeking balance means screwing over the good guys sometimes, and to many minds, screwing over the good guys at all means Evil. If you just switch to TN Passive, and focus less on balance of good, evil, order, and chaos and more on protection of your own nature, it should straighten out. 2. Just play Neutral Good. Not many people have trouble defining that. If your DM starts trying to shift you to LG or CG (or worst yet, back to TN), then he's a [donkey]hole and you should find a new DM. 3. Take Subdual Spell (Tome & Blood). Burninate the bad guys and unconscionate the good guys (or just unconscionate everybody and let the rest of your party coup de gracinate the bad guys)inate. You really need to read the thread: 1) If I switch? The whole of the Druid class is based on your TN Active, switching would be quite counterproductive to the whole of the Druid philosophy. 2) Um, I am the DM (sometimes). And just because someone wants to take on a bit of a challenge in alignment doesn't mean they should be punished, playing TN has some great benefits and shouldn't be thrown aside because you can't understand it's nature. 3) Why not have it the other way around? Good is almost always the more powerful force in the multiverse, so why not burninate it? (Rather than get caught in some sort of moral conundrum just burninate them both, and get TN)
Illithidbix 02-01-04, 07:25 PM	I still totally disagree, for the same reasons as I stated in my first post on the thread. Druids are Divine spellcasters who interact with and revere nature (in some form), they are not some idiotic people who try to balance the levels of Good and Evil in the multiverse (for one thing what would their average life expectancy be if they interfering with everyones plans? Such an approach really doesn’t suit the survival instinct so prevalent in nature). I’ll take my usual anti-alignmentist position and say it shows the limitation of the system that forces you to shoehorn your beliefs into one of 9 rather broad and unrealistic philosophical viewpoints. The active TN position is in my opinion, utterly ridiculous, I have never in my life heard anyone say “Oh, there’s too much good in the world, it needs to be balanced out with some cruelty”, and neither do I ever expect to here it. And why would someone as down-to-earth and survivalist as a druid ever adopt it? If you have to bend a character’s viewpoints into such an unlikely belief structures, you are not going to be role-playing a very realistic character, and quite frankly it is a very good idea to just ditch it. (Note when I say realistic, I still of course mean it in terms of D&D worlds, except perhaps thought through a bit more rigorously) In my view, if you want to role-play a druid, or anyone else “realistically”, then just dispense with thinking in terms of alignment and start thinking in terms of personal beliefs system and ideologies and how this relates to more general cultural viewpoints. For example, in Paladin vs Devils example, I would say the average Druid, being someone who reveres nature, would not care about the abstract ideals upheld by the Paladins or the diabolical intent of the devils, however they would probably be very concerned with either party causing destruction to the natural order with their interplanar conflict, and on a more personal note my not wish the Devils to triumph due to their tendency to corrupt and inflict unnecessary amounts of cruelty on everything they encounter. Likewise, DMs should reward people for role-playing their character, not how well they can fit their character into one of nine paragraph long descriptions.
Leap 02-04-04, 02:57 AM	Hmmm or maybe good and evil people live incomplete lives; the former for the benefit of others, the latter for private power….they give up the regular things the rest of us value (home, love, family, a bit of luxury etc) for an exceptional amount of a “higher” cause (think of the charity worker who gives up home and family to go work putting water pipes in for 3rd world shanty towns, or the workaholic power-hungry greedy executive …… they both sacrifice love and family for something they see as “higher” value)……..a druid, like most neutrals, just says this is complete tosh and that we should live a full natural life as part of the world rather than these two loopy opposites dehumanising themselves (giving up much of what makes them human) and destroying the natural healthyness of the world by doing so……… Well thats my 2cp worth
Arilou_skiff 02-04-04, 04:08 AM	Originally posted by Illithidbix I still totally disagree, for the same reasons as I stated in my first post on the thread. Druids are Divine spellcasters who interact with and revere nature (in some form), they are not some idiotic people who try to balance the levels of Good and Evil in the multiverse (for one thing what would their average life expectancy be if they interfering with everyones plans? Such an approach really doesn’t suit the survival instinct so prevalent in nature). I’ll take my usual anti-alignmentist position and say it shows the limitation of the system that forces you to shoehorn your beliefs into one of 9 rather broad and unrealistic philosophical viewpoints. The active TN position is in my opinion, utterly ridiculous, I have never in my life heard anyone say “Oh, there’s too much good in the world, it needs to be balanced out with some cruelty”, and neither do I ever expect to here it. And why would someone as down-to-earth and survivalist as a druid ever adopt it? If you have to bend a character’s viewpoints into such an unlikely belief structures, you are not going to be role-playing a very realistic character, and quite frankly it is a very good idea to just ditch it. (Note when I say realistic, I still of course mean it in terms of D&D worlds, except perhaps thought through a bit more rigorously) In my view, if you want to role-play a druid, or anyone else “realistically”, then just dispense with thinking in terms of alignment and start thinking in terms of personal beliefs system and ideologies and how this relates to more general cultural viewpoints. For example, in Paladin vs Devils example, I would say the average Druid, being someone who reveres nature, would not care about the abstract ideals upheld by the Paladins or the diabolical intent of the devils, however they would probably be very concerned with either party causing destruction to the natural order with their interplanar conflict, and on a more personal note my not wish the Devils to triumph due to their tendency to corrupt and inflict unnecessary amounts of cruelty on everything they encounter. Likewise, DMs should reward people for role-playing their character, not how well they can fit their character into one of nine paragraph long descriptions. I don't think a druid would actually "say" there's too much good in the world, to a druid *balance* is *good* (If we try to separate "Good and Evil" and "good and bad")
Grizley 02-18-04, 08:00 AM	The whole idea of druids defending demons and attacking paladins is just dumb. Even if you play a TN druid you are not defending some mystical balance between good and evil. The ONLY thing that matters to you is nature. That makes you TN. If a human town is growing too large you may ally with evil goblins to contain it, assuming the town wont listen to you. You would be more likely to help the goblins stalk and hunt the loggers not actually attack the town though. If a tribe of evil trolls is killing and eating all the animals of the forest you might help a good aligned group of adventurers destroy them. The TN of druids is not some sort of alignment straitjacket, or a liscense to act evil and good or however you want at the time like you sound to be playing it. It is very specifically a total devotion to nature with no reguard to any other forces, consequenses etc. If you can answer the question "Does my action help nature" with a yes every time you act you are playing the druid alignment perfectly.
Citizen Philip 02-18-04, 05:52 PM	Nature is the medium by which all life good or evil require in order to exsist. You need the air, you need the water, you need the plants and you need the animals. A Druid is concerned with making sure the medium, nature, continues to thrive so life can continue to exsist. A true neural Druid. Nature is the medium by which all life good or evil require in order to exsist. Those of a good nature learn to understand that nature is the medium by which they exsist. As a Druid I will protect and help those that understand this balance. A neutral good Druid. The force of nature is indifferent and uncaring. Good and evil are both equally subject to the force and strength of nature. Those that try to defy the unbending force and will of nature must learn that it cannot be stopped, it will not be contained. The strong will survive. A neutral evil Druid. --- A druid is concerned with the continuation of the "medium" of life. The medium of life can be considered the natural world, and in some cases the planes (for a Planar Druid). Killing Paladins or Devils doesn't have any direct connection with the conservation of the medium of life, however, how those forces choose to engage each other - COULD - have adverse effects, which can cause a Druid to action. I don't allow any Metadruids, aka Metagaming Druids, who need to feel like a deity by sticking their hands into situations, by constantly switching allegiance as being conducive or related to Druidic nature. CP
Turrens 02-20-04, 05:01 PM	Hmm. This is an interesting morals debate. I think something is being overlooked though. Killing an innocent is evil. No excuse. No justification changes this. Good alignment=innocent. And before anyone misquotes me I am not talking about innocent in terms of law. I mean in actions. If someone has never hurt another they are innocent.
Turrens 02-20-04, 05:01 PM	Bah humbug...... double post........ :(
lordyuri24 02-20-04, 05:40 PM	Originally posted by Turrens Hmm. This is an interesting morals debate. I think something is being overlooked though. Killing an innocent is evil. No excuse. No justification changes this. Good alignment=innocent. And before anyone misquotes me I am not talking about innocent in terms of law. I mean in actions. If someone has never hurt another they are innocent. A devil has never hurt anyone (regardless if it will or not), is it lawful to kill it? What about an animal? Bears kill things to survive, should we kill all of them? Or a Rogue kills the tyrant ruler of a country, should we kill him? Saying that anyone who has hurt someone is guilty is too wide, technically a Paladin hurts people so is (by your logic) a prime target to be killed to uphold innocence.
badger3k 02-20-04, 05:47 PM	Originally posted by Turrens Hmm. This is an interesting morals debate. I think something is being overlooked though. Killing an innocent is evil. No excuse. No justification changes this. Good alignment=innocent. And before anyone misquotes me I am not talking about innocent in terms of law. I mean in actions. If someone has never hurt another they are innocent. So killing a paladin can be good, since a paladin who has even so much as hit someone is not innocent, and therefore does not qualify for the 'innocent' label (thus making it not an evil act). I believe you meant that hurting someone for selfish or evil reasons would qualify as "evil" or rather "not innocent". The argument could be "innocent = good alignment" (although I disagree with the argument). The way you state it implies that a good character cannot hurt another being (at least if they want to remain good - since if good = innocent, not innocent = evil). Besides, per the PHB, all killing is evil (p 104 of 3.5).
Fox Lee 02-21-04, 11:38 PM	Originally posted by TranquilDarkness Actually, it would be all the more likely that as soon as there would be no more actual Evil then the focus would shift towards Neutrality as an opposing alignment. And then Chaotic vs Lawful Good. No Good can come of it.. :( Hang on... if the Lawful Goods vanquish all of the (various) Evils, and there are only Goods left in the world, and then the Lawful Goods start killing other (Chaotic or Neutral) Goods, doesn't that mean that the Lawful Goods are now acting in an Evil fashion, thus restoring the balance and providing plenty of "smoting" opportunities for the new, fresh-faced Lawful Goods of tomorrow? Your vision of these events is entirely possible; however, it doesn't take into consideration that once a Lawful Good being stops acting in a Good fashion, it is no longer Good... in fact, if it's killing other Good-aligned beings purely out of facism and smite-happiness, it's probably Evil. Ultimately, what you envision is a vicious circle, which would probably make good sense to a "Balance Above All Else" type of Druid.
Fox Lee 02-22-04, 12:21 AM	Originally posted by Citizen Philip Nature is the medium by which all life good or evil require in order to exsist. You need the air, you need the water, you need the plants and you need the animals. A Druid is concerned with making sure the medium, nature, continues to thrive so life can continue to exsist. A true neural Druid. Nature is the medium by which all life good or evil require in order to exsist. Those of a good nature learn to understand that nature is the medium by which they exsist. As a Druid I will protect and help those that understand this balance. A neutral good Druid. The force of nature is indifferent and uncaring. Good and evil are both equally subject to the force and strength of nature. Those that try to defy the unbending force and will of nature must learn that it cannot be stopped, it will not be contained. The strong will survive. A neutral evil Druid. I very much like your descriptions here - they represent Druids quite well IMO. But whattabout a Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Neutral Druid? They exist too, though people tend to forget them (in favour of simply lumping all Druids in with the side-switching militant greenies of 2E). Personally, I think the rigid adherence of 2nd-Ed-style Druids to their own "nature first" code and self-imposed set of rules, combined with their apathy toward moral issues, makes then LN rather than N (on that note, it's not called "True Neutral" any more, at last check, but simply "Neutral" - to my understanding, this is a deliberate indication that Neutral is not the "TN" alignment as it is represented in 2E). They very clearly follow a set of laws - just because these laws are not of civilised society, doesn't mean that the character themselves cannot be Lawful. Sure, they are dedicated to preserving Nature's way, which roughly equates to (actively) supporting Neutrality on the moral axis - but they do this because it is part of their code. It's the Law of Nature, but it certainly is a Law. 2 cents, next please.