|
|
|
Gunz
|
 Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 17:29 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Location: The City of Fallen Angels, Ca
|
IronAngel wrote: That explanation in R&L is to be viewed as a "A Druid can be like this", not as "Druids cannot be anything but this." All in all, it's pretty hazardous to make statements about what's impossible, because it takes but one counter example to disprove you. I'm speaking in general here. It get's to be a bit annoying to have to mention that after every statement so I don't. Though I made that pretty clear. IronAngel wrote: Personally, I like to think of druids as sages who understand nature in its entirety, but aren't content to merely theorize: they will take part in nature, as well. Druids in my mind aren't primarily "protectors", "overseers" or "worshipers" of nature, they are simply part of nature and recognize that. In fact, it would be quite blasphemous and arrogant to declare yourself a protector of something far greater than you, something you are a tiny part of, something that controls you instead of you having any control over it. Arrogant, maybe, but blasphemous? Hardly. Is a police officer or a dude in the Army arrogant for saying they protect their country? Is it blasphemous to say such? I would think not. Druids are a part of nature, of course. They love nature so much that they live and die protecting it. Druids -are- primarily protectors. That's what they were given their powers to do. IronAngel wrote: To a druid, religious practice and everyday life is not seperate, with the exception of some annual rituals and such. Also, I don't see why druidism should be restricted to plants and animals: "nature" as a word refers to the entire existance of the world which we percieve (as opposed to the world of ideas which we can only imagine or understand). That makes humans a part of nature, rocks, buildings, science and death a part of nature. The elemental forces, even moreso. I suppose druids are a bit limited in FR, thanks to their poor selection of deities I agree. That's why there are so many different Druid's. As I mentioned. There are Forest, City, Town, Village, Jungle, Desert, all kinds. And yeah, rocks, people, that is a part of nature and a properly knowledgeable Druid would recognize that. Hell, they have spells to be able to talk to rocks. Weird... but they do. IronAngel wrote: Destruction of nature isn't so alien to the concept of druidism, either: destruction itself is natural, and nature is locked in an endless dynamic of destruction, change, rebirth, etc. To put a stop to this, and cherish a static equilibrium (such as in the forests of Arvandor, perhaps) might be favorable to some druids, but an affront to others. Destruction of nature is only natural, unless it is done with unnatural means and with unnatural goals. (What those might be, I'll leave out of this discussion as it goes into the realm of speculation.) I agree fully. But we're talking about Druids and Rangers setting fires to forests here. Natural disasters are natural. Most Druids would help in the recovery, but if it's natural, they let things happen until they get too out of hand. If the isle of Amia were about to be wiped out by an unusually large, but natural, storm, I'd be willing to be there would be quiet a large number of Druids who would try to help stop it from wiping the isle clean of life. IronAngel wrote: One example that was brought up is forest fires: they are actually necessary for a forest to remain vital. There's nothing unnatural about them, and they don't destroy the entire natural world.
If I were to play a druid, he would see the evil of felling forest to settle a town not in the act of destroying woods, but only in the stasis it might bring upon the land. If the community was dynamic, vital and interacted with all nature, he wouldn't mind. On the other hand, he would oppose well-kept parks and preserved forests as artificial and static.
Come to think of it, Finder Wyvernspur would probably be my deity of choice, for a fresh take on druids. He is, after all, the god of rot and corruption, but also the rebirth that follows (and the cool dinosaur people, but that's just the icing on the cake!). We're talking about Druids and Ranger burning down forests specifically. And that's what I've been referring to. There would have to be a -damn- good reason for the forest to be burned down if a Druid did it without them falling. Finder doesn't support Druids, btw. But I agree he would make a fine choice if he were legit. Kelemvor too. I would love to play a Druidic Kellie, that would be awesome. Silly really, that he doesn't support Druids since he upholds a major aspect of the balance. Osiris would probably be the closest choice for something like that. Cori wrote: Iron laid things out pretty damn well.
As a response though to the whole "Talos & destroying things" example, and how it fits with druids: druids respect what is natural. If a mighty storm fell upon the isle, wreaking havoc and destruction, but it was a natural storm, the druids would respect that, and let things play out.
If a great and mighty storm was unleashed magically upon the land, a druid would call that abhorrent. Unnatural. And they'd strive to put an end to it.
A druid of Talos might influence a natural storm, making it more deadly, and directing it at a certain target, such as perhaps a city which expands and pollutes with no regard to nature. But they wouldn't, as a druid, influence a storm to be more deadly, and direct it upon a forest that is in balance. If the forest was corrupted or blighted, then yeah, they might see a mighty cleansing as the best cure. But otherwise, they wouldn't do it just for "the fun of it", nor because Talos happens to be a god of storms. Not as a druid. That's exactly the point I'm trying to get across. A Druid doesn't destroy on a massive scale like that just because. In fact, it would have to be for a -damn- good reason. Galenson wrote: o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o wrote: Selvec Darkon wrote: I'll put it simple.
Druids protect and uphold the aspect of nature they worship. Correct, and burning down a forest makes for a whole aspect of nature to be destroyed. That, would never be done by a Druid without losing favor of their god. Depends on the deity. If it was Talos, destruction would be a great thing and gain you more favour. Incorrect. A Druid protects, that's the main thing in their job description. Look up blighter, that's your guy.
Druids gain spells by protecting nature. Blighters gain spells by destroying it.
_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth
|
|
|
|
 |
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 18:00 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
You repeat the thesis that "A Druid is a Protector." How is this so? What if I say, "No he's not" and go on to create a Druid PC who doesn't view his task as one of protecting nature? Druids don't gain spells by protecting nature, they gain spells directly from their deity, on whatever terms the deity happens to see fit.
I think the comparison to the police is pretty undruidic: I doubt a policeman views the state in the same light a druid views nature. How could a druid ever hope to protect nature, considering that his actions are determined by the mechanical laws of nature and he is nothing but driftwood in the stream of the world? In fact, there can be no threat to nature that isn't of nature itself, because nature encompasses everything. If natural beings, whose cause and origin is in nature, "destroy nature" by cutting trees or spreading a plague, how is that unnatural? That which is born of nature can never be anything but natural.
There's some skewed sense of proportion in thinking of a forest fire as large-scale destruction. Nature encompasses not only a forest, not only a continent, not only the planet, but the entire universe with several worlds. Burning down one forest, from nature's perspective, would probably go unnoticed. Of course, a druid wouldn't do it without reason, but I can think of several reasons one might do it.
But that's just my view on nature and druids, one possible view that doesn't exclude other interpretations
Anyway, it's a bit pointless to speak "in general": the only thing we can know about druids in general is what we can read in the books. Apart from that, we should expand and research the borders of the possible, rather than flock to the average and mediocre without actually producing any new information. That is to say, it's pretty pointless to answer "Druids in general wouldn't do that" because:
1) "Druids in general" doesn't exist as an entity that would or wouldn't do anything: everyone is an individual, and there is no hive mind.
2) It doesn't answer whether it could be done by those who aren't part of this imagined "in general."
3) We don't have statistical information on the Realms. We simply don't know what Druids in general do or don't do. Everything we do know comes from the books, and therefore you really should quote the sources you base vague statements on, so that they can better be defended and convince more people.
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kjetta
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 18:33 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2006
Location: A Clean, Well-Lighted Place
|
|
Could be, but they all dress in green and brown!
_________________ To err is human; to forgive divine, but VENGEANCE IS MINE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gunz
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 18:35 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Location: The City of Fallen Angels, Ca
|
IronAngel wrote: You repeat the thesis that "A Druid is a Protector." How is this so? What if I say, "No he's not" and go on to create a Druid PC who doesn't view his task as one of protecting nature? Druids don't gain spells by protecting nature, they gain spells directly from their deity, on whatever terms the deity happens to see fit. Well sure you can, that doesn't make it right by lore. I can make a Paladin right today and be as chaotic as a A.D.D kid on sugar. That wouldn't make it right by lore. That's not a very good argument there. A Druid gains spells to protect nature because that's their job. So, in a sense, they do gain it by protecting. If they destroyed and destroyed and didn't protect, they wouldn't get their spells. A Druid is pretty specific as to what they do, but not how they go about it. IronAngel wrote: I think the comparison to the police is pretty undruidic: I doubt a policeman views the state in the same light a druid views nature. How could a druid ever hope to protect nature, considering that his actions are determined by the mechanical laws of nature and he is nothing but driftwood in the stream of the world? You're assuming now that all Druids are uber spiritual people weirdo hippys. There are Druids who are pretty damn militant. A Druid is a protector because he protects. Plain and simple. There's nothing generally arrogant or blasphemous about it. Maybe to you, in your logic, somehow it is. If I protect something, I'm a protector of ____ in some way. Am I not? It really is that simple. Can you dissect it and start being pick about it? Sure. But it's hardly blasphemous. IronAngel wrote: There's some skewed sense of proportion in thinking of a forest fire as large-scale destruction. Nature encompasses not only a forest, not only a continent, not only the planet, but the entire universe with several worlds. Burning down one forest, from nature's perspective, would probably go unnoticed. Of course, a druid wouldn't do it without reason, but I can think of several reasons one might do it. There's no skewed sense of proportion. You're destroying a whole localized ecosystem. That's a pretty big deal, is it not? There should be a damn good reason to do so for a Druid. IronAngel wrote: Anyway, it's a bit pointless to speak "in general": the only thing we can know about druids in general is what we can read in the books. Apart from that, we should expand and research the borders of the possible, rather than flock to the average and mediocre without actually producing any new information. A general question was asked, a general answer was given. There's nothing pointless about talking in generalities. Not everyone knows everything on the books so it's not pointless at all. IronAngel wrote: That is to say, it's pretty pointless to answer "Druids in general wouldn't do that" because:
1) "Druids in general" doesn't exist as an entity that would or wouldn't do anything: everyone is an individual, and there is no hive mind.
2) It doesn't answer whether it could be done by those who aren't part of this imagined "in general."
3) We don't have statistical information on the Realms. We simply don't know what Druids in general do or don't do. There -are- things a Druid would and would not do, actually. A person is an individual, sure, but if that person decided it was a fantastic idea to, say, raise the dead, he would no longer be a Druid until he atoned. There kind of is a hive mind. Not in a sense that they all agree, but in a sense that they generally follow certain guidelines. That's what Arch Druids, High Druids, Elders and Hierophants are for. Not all Druids follow them, of course. But, a lot of them do respect and obey their wisdom. And, frankly, some of the ones who disobey would be killed for not in extreme cases. More specific cases were already discussed when they were brought up. We can't possibly sit here and come up with all the different possibilities for a Druid to burn down a forest. Well, we can, but I sure as hell won't be the one to do it. That takes too much time. Address what's being addressed, that's it. If you'd like to address all kinds of possibilities, by all means. We may not have statistics, but we do have number in factions and we do know what these factions do, The Druids of Neverwinter Wood, The Emerald Enclave, Druids of Tall Trees, Druids of Wealdath Forest, etc. etc. That's pretty solid information to base things off of if you're looking to make a Druid. IronAngel wrote: Everything we do know comes from the books, and therefore you really should quote the sources you base vague statements on, so that they can better be defended and convince more people.
I can quite easily turn that around and say the same for you. And I have quoted a few times to give an idea of what I'm talking about already.
_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 18:49 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
I'm not sure what you're arguing, really. If you're talking about "the stereotypical druid", I don't think it's a very interesting subject. We all know the druid stereotype, it's more interesting to analyse how accurate it is, and what kind of cases would be possible to deviate from the stereotype.
There's a lot of vague statements and hear-say in your post, truthfully. If you want to claim all druids are primarily protectors, I want to see clear (Realms-specific, preferrably) quotes from official or other credible sources (such as authors' blogs), and clear reasoning to support why this has to be the case. You must be critical towards the sources, because it's you role-playing, creating characters and stories, and the responsibility of a believable character is on you. The books give examples of what's possible and usually the case, but they cannot say anything about what we can do in our game (and whether it's lore correct - lore doesn't end where the letter of WotC ends, because the Forgotten Realms is an actual world that exists within the collective imaginations of the fanbase, not just in writing).
Why can this demand for sources not be turned against me? Because I don't make universal statements or try to apply blanket generalizations over unique characters. When I suggest a possibility, I don't have to prove that it would or does happen; it's enough that it might happen, if there is no grave argument against it. I am quite content to leave the option in the air. You, however, have the burden of disproving me if you want to claim it's not corret, or that it's impossible. As you can see, I carefully made sure not to assume all druids conform to my idea of druids. I was analysing nature and druidism partially from my own perspective, partially from the perspective of the druid of Finder Wyvernspur I imagined to get IC perspective into the matter.
Since we can't cover all cases, what purpose does it serve to say that "No, druids don't destroy nature or burn down forests!" if we know it's an inaccurate generalisation? Shouldn't you more accurately say, "It seems atypical to druids at first glance, but some might find spiritual meaning in doing so" and possibly mention a few examples of individual druids and how they would view the matter.
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
xordae
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 19:20 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2005
Location: Germany
|
|
To be honest, I just used the Axe as a metaphor for overly hippie-like behaviour. "Don't cut down that bush!" "Don't hurt that drow!" "Would you like some cake and sing with us?"
About this protector or not protector business.. the bit of experience I have with druids comes really only from NWN and the Baldur's Gate series of games. In all those instances Druids are protectors and preservers of the natural environment vs. the expansionist attitude of "city-folk". That doesn't mean that a druid has to be like this, it just displays what most Druids do. Sort of like a sect. I mean.. assuming you don't grow up with Druids and learn from them, then your Druid could most likely care less about what the "city-folk" does and instead assume the role of a shaman, witch, herbalist or hunter for his own well-being, for example. As long as his chosen environment isn't threatened, he has nothing to worry about.
Then again I'd also support a character who does not even have a concrete idea about what god he follows, but instead, since his powers have manifested, a god must have felt that this Druid filled his field of expertise nicely. But that's sadly in the past, you do need a deity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gunz
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 19:36 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Location: The City of Fallen Angels, Ca
|
IronAngel wrote: I'm not sure what you're arguing, really. If you're talking about "the stereotypical druid", I don't think it's a very interesting subject. We all know the druid stereotype, it's more interesting to analyse how accurate it is, and what kind of cases would be possible to deviate from the stereotype. We don't all know the Druid stereotype, actually. You'd be surprised at the things some people do and when I ask the OOCly they had no idea and actually had no plans to ever do something like they did had they known it was atypical or against the Druidic path. This topic was asking a simple question. if you want to analyze it till you're fingers and eyes hurt, you're free to do so. That's not what was called for. My simple answer was no. When further thought about it was, generally and almost always no, and if yes, there would be a -damn- good reason. IronAngel wrote: There's a lot of vague statements and hear-say in your post, truthfully. If you want to claim all druids are primarily protectors, I want to see clear (Realms-specific, preferrably) quotes from official or other credible sources (such as authors' blogs), and clear reasoning to support why this has to be the case. You must be critical towards the sources, because it's you role-playing, creating characters and stories, and the responsibility of a believable character is on you. The books give examples of what's possible and usually the case, but they cannot say anything about what we can do in our game (and whether it's lore correct - lore doesn't end where the letter of WotC ends, because the Forgotten Realms is an actual world that exists within the collective imaginations of the fanbase, not just in writing). Quote: A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description). This is all over books that talk about Druids in the realms. If a Druid did nothing but destroy nature they would no longer revere it there by falling. A Druid respects nature for all that it is. A Blighter would not care, that's the guy you want to look at. Last I checked, Amia followed realms lore and in parts here it didn't, it was made clear in postings. It's not a very smart thing to do, as a DM, to say that people can disregard lore and make things up if they want. That's a pretty bad impression and suggestion to make to players, imo. IronAngel wrote: Why can this demand for sources not be turned against me? Because I don't make universal statements or try to apply blanket generalizations over unique characters. When I suggest a possibility, I don't have to prove that it would or does happen; it's enough that it might happen, if there is no grave argument against it. I am quite content to leave the option in the air. You, however, have the burden of disproving me if you want to claim it's not corret, or that it's impossible. As you can see, I carefully made sure not to assume all druids conform to my idea of druids. I was analysing nature and druidism partially from my own perspective, partially from the perspective of the druid of Finder Wyvernspur I imagined to get IC perspective into the matter. Again, a Druid of Finder is not a possibility. And again, I originally said it wasn't possible, true, but I corrected myself and said it's highly unlikely, and it is. IronAngel wrote: Since we can't cover all cases, what purpose does it serve to say that "No, druids don't destroy nature or burn down forests!" if we know it's an inaccurate generalisation? Shouldn't you more accurately say, "It seems atypical to druids at first glance, but some might find spiritual meaning in doing so" and possibly mention a few examples of individual druids and how they would view the matter. I did say that? Again, I -originally- said it wasn't possible. I corrected myself and said that it's highly unlikely and would need damn good reason. That suggests atypical, no? I think so. xordae wrote: Then again I'd also support a character who does not even have a concrete idea about what god he follows, but instead, since his powers have manifested, a god must have felt that this Druid filled his field of expertise nicely. But that's sadly in the past, you do need a deity.
Aye, that is sadly true. But nothing is stopping people from making a Druid who doesn't worship a god and "gets his spells from nature itself" but really actually gets his spells from, say, Silvanus or Chauntea because they like their actions and such.
_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 19:57 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
What is this topic arguing about?
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisitelyme
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 20:32 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 26 May 2009
|
|
For what it is worth, I am with Gunz on this. Iron's arguments are sound and valid but I think Druids are really the most unique class in D&D, and have quite many quirks and peculiarities about them. One of the examples would be that they are the only class with a very specific restriction related to something completely In Character, which is Druidic. No matter where they get their spells from, if they shapeshift or not, if they are Good or Evil, they CANNOT teach anyone Druidic lest they are expelled. It comes to exemplify that in fact there is kind of a Hive behaviour with druids, as each and all of them are expected to have some patterns of behaviour. It is also said in the official source books that all druids belong to the loosely connected (but connected still) "Druidic Society", which means there have to be things all of them are expected to see from a certain point of view, or at least that is the way I understand it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 20:56 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
"Revere" does not mean "protect", and "protect" as understood by druids of a fantasy world certainly doesn't mean the same thing an urban internet role-player of the 21st century thinks it means. Well, it might, but not necessarily (or even probably). A Druid of Talos might certainly feel reverence towards nature (because that's what revere means - a completely subjective feeling you have towards something, and it cannot be evaluated objectively from the outside) as he revels in a thunderstorm killing animals, burning trees and homes alike, and ruining crops. For him, destruction through natural phenomena could be the ultimate display of nature's power, and he might seek to replicate it out of deep reverence. Would most druids do this? Probably not. Could some? Yeah, and that's what's relevant. You have done more than answered a general question in general terms: you've consistently claimed that a druid must protect nature, no matter what. But not only can this protection take many forms that we wouldn't even recognize as protection, it also is not a requirement for reverence, or for worshiping a deity who can grant you druid spells.
It is perfectly within every player's rights to "make up" new lore for the world. That's what you do when you create a new character. It is the extent to which you go that determines whether you're out of line, and DMs will tell you if that's the case (though hopefully your common sense tells you that first). Certainly, we should encourage you to explore the limits where creativity and certain rules finally clash, even at the risk of the occasional crossing of that line, rather than encourage everyone to stick to a happy medium.
As for Finder being a viable druid deity, I think he is. No source explicitly states he isn't, and common sense is allowed. As is, we have no accurate list of nature deities. We have two different lists, both of which have errors, and are contradicted in several places (particularly when it comes to rangers, which doesn't directly affect the druid matter but seriously questions the lists' credibility). You need to remember that the designers are just humans, with their own limited opinions and the potential to err. There are many arguments for Finder allowing druids. For one, his church is/was very small as it is described in the two books, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that not every possible worshiper type has yet appeared in reality. That is to say, while there may be no druids in the dozen or so divine casters that follow him by now, it does not mean such a follower would be metaphysically impossible. And secondly, his portfolio (as per F&P) is literally the "Cyle of Life", which pretty much describes the typical druidic faith. I would say the same for a few other deities that WotC haven't given druids: The Elemental Lords, Lathander, Kelemvor all come to mind. Eilistraee and Solonor, too. I guess it boils down to taste, in the end.
I don't think people should give the impression of a monolithic druid culture, or monotonous anything in the Realms or role-playing in general, because it's diversity that makes the game even remotely interesting. Trying to encourage stereotypicality (if that's a word) and discourage creativity seems like dreary nay-saying, to me.
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisitelyme
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 21:24 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 26 May 2009
|
|
I for one like playing two heavily stereotyped classes the most, namely Bards and Druids. And I love the fact that they are stereotyped just so I can (or rather must lest I fall asleep playing) twist the stereotype and come up with something interesting (for me) out of them. Druids are very challenging to play IMHO because I see them having many many things that they ALL see, if not similarly, from the same plateau at least. How they act towards or react to those are more related to the personality/alignment/roleplaying of the character than to their classes. So in a nutshell I do think that druids as a class have more similarities as a group than any other class, and that doesnt rule out the uniqueness of any character.
Something I meant to write about Colanah's original question. In my opinion any character more related/connected to the Divine (clerics, paladins, CoTs, BGs, Druids) should get slapped if they go against their Deity's dogma's, at the DMs', not the characters'/players' discretion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dwagin
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 21:33 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Location: The Land of Nod
|
|
If your way is good for you, and those you surround yourself with others with, that is fine, IC.
Sanctimony and denouncement of alternative views as heretical is perfectly fine, IC.
I don't find preaching to anyone else about their RP or how things -should be done- unless citing an example how you do things should be done by a player, it smacks of elitism.
In my opinion the staff and staff alone have the First and final word to say on the appropriateness of RP, and I have only seen such word given so when RP is clearly absolutely wrong according to dogma or hard fact in Lore.
To a Talosian druid, it could very well be the fury and destructive side of the natural cycle that they revere. The destruction, that brings new life. Storm surge wiping out beaches but fertilizing the depths of the ocean with new material to be consumed. Subduction of man's shaping of nature into a more natural state through destructive forces.
At least from what I read, Iron isn't saying you can't RP how you feel to, but just trying to impress the importance of keeping an open mind is for a DM when it comes to RP.
I don't think you need to argue your case so fervently Gunz, no one is saying you're bad. Its okay to have options and alternatives. Its subjective. And thats a good thing.
_________________
Dwagin [Duh-wa-GIN] N. - 1a. Small and cute thingum, particularly fond of four legged scaled creatures of the metalic and chromatic varieties.
-Extraordinarily ordinary in the mostest of ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gunz
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 21:35 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Location: The City of Fallen Angels, Ca
|
IronAngel wrote: "Revere" does not mean "protect", and "protect" as understood by druids of a fantasy world certainly doesn't mean the same thing an urban internet role-player of the 21st century thinks it means. Well, it might, but not necessarily (or even probably). A Druid of Talos might certainly feel reverence towards nature (because that's what revere means - a completely subjective feeling you have towards something, and it cannot be evaluated objectively from the outside) as he revels in a thunderstorm killing animals, burning trees and homes alike, and ruining crops. For him, destruction through natural phenomena could be the ultimate display of nature's power, and he might seek to replicate it out of deep reverence. Would most druids do this? Probably not. Could some? Yeah, and that's what's relevant. You have done more than answered a general question in general terms: you've consistently claimed that a druid must protect nature, no matter what. But not only can this protection take many forms that we wouldn't even recognize as protection, it also is not a requirement for reverence, or for worshiping a deity who can grant you druid spells. Quote: to regard with respect tinged with awe; venerate: The child revered her mother.
Synonyms: reverence, honor, adore. Point out where I said revere meant protect? Not once did I even imply it. I said Quote: If a Druid did nothing but destroy nature they would no longer revere it there by falling. A Druid respects nature for all that it is. A Blighter would not care, that's the guy you want to look at. IronAngel wrote: As for Finder being a viable druid deity, I think he is. No source explicitly states he isn't, and common sense is allowed. As is, we have no accurate list of nature deities. We have two different lists, both of which have errors, and are contradicted in several places (particularly when it comes to rangers, which doesn't directly affect the druid matter but seriously questions the lists' credibility). You need to remember that the designers are just humans, with their own limited opinions and the potential to err. There are many arguments for Finder allowing druids. For one, his church is/was very small as it is described in the two books, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that not every possible worshiper type has yet appeared in reality. That is to say, while there may be no druids in the dozen or so divine casters that follow him by now, it does not mean such a follower would be metaphysically impossible. And secondly, his portfolio (as per F&P) is literally the "Cyle of Life", which pretty much describes the typical druidic faith. I would say the same for a few other deities that WotC haven't given druids: The Elemental Lords, Lathander, Kelemvor all come to mind. Eilistraee and Solonor, too. I guess it boils down to taste, in the end. Look at Finders allowed clergy, it doesn't mention Druids at all. While you can say that it's possible and would make sense, and I even agree, I don't think a DM should be encouraging people to choose random gods who they "feel" would make a good Druidic god. The elemental primordials do support Druids, actually. IronAngel wrote: I don't think people should give the impression of a monolithic druid culture, or monotonous anything in the Realms or role-playing in general, because it's diversity that makes the game even remotely interesting. Trying to encourage stereotypicality (if that's a word) and discourage creativity seems like dreary nay-saying, to me.
If being a protector of nature seriously puts a damper on your being "Evil", you're not being very creative. Druids can be pretty damn unique, but regardless, they have a certain set of rules that they all follow or they fall. Making sure people understand a few set rules does not hinder creativity at all. To the uncreative, maybe, but it doesn't. When someone throws a rule at you, you should be creative and use it to add to the uniqueness of your character.
Frankly, I'm not sure why they even allow Druids to evil gods of nature. My guess is because of the Blighter class. That's the only way it makes much sense. A Blighter being a fallen ex-Druid who chooses to destroy nature rather than defend it.
_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth
Last edited by Gunz on Fri, Jul 17 2009, 21:39 PM, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 21:38 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
No doubt there are many similarities, much moreso than among most other classes. I wouldn't argue that at all.
What's relevant here is necessity, though. Even if we assumed that every druid to have walked Toril so far, lived in a forest and protected it from hunters and lumberjacks, we would still have to ask the question: does this mean every possible druid yet to be born will have to follow the same example? Is it inevitable, a necessity?
Hehe, I do love Hume's Guillotine. The actual state of things does not give any instructions as to how things ought to be. So there are no druids of Finder, and no druid would set to forest to flames? OK, we could accept that (even if we don't, at least the latter), but it still wouldn't make it impossible. You need more convincing evidence than the status quo to sufficently prove the impossibility of such ideas.
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gunz
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 21:44 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Location: The City of Fallen Angels, Ca
|
The lore doesn't support your statement, now you're just getting overly philosophical in order to support your statements. If Wizards meant for Finder to support Druids, they would have said it at some point and they didn't. Needless to say, by 4.0, he's dead so that case is pretty settled.
With your logic, I can make an evil Paladin, a Chaotic Monk, a Good Blackguard, a Palemaster of Kelemvor. There are none now, but maybe later, so why not?
Dwagin wrote: To a Talosian druid, it could very well be the fury and destructive side of the natural cycle that they revere. The destruction, that brings new life. Storm surge wiping out beaches but fertilizing the depths of the ocean with new material to be consumed. Subduction of man's shaping of nature into a more natural state through destructive forces.
A Druid can like the destructive forces of nature most of all all they like, but a Druid is about all nature at the end of the day. If Destruction is all they want, they fall and can become blighters. The blighter class was made for a reason, imo.
_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dwagin
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 21:48 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Location: The Land of Nod
|
An example that I can readily see, is that a forest is choking itself out, by simply being 'protected'.
In nature, there are natural means of culling. And if a druid 'protects the trees' from all the natural predation that occurs on them, be it fire, insect, plant killing disease, to me, that isn't protecting nature's cycle, that is protecting -the trees-.
Another game I played, had a very strong view of the dynacism of Life-Death-Rebirth, it was, specifically the Euthanatos wizards, and their paradigm readily applies to my concept of what 'Nature' is in my view.
Quote: The Wheel. The Great Wheel of Existence constantly turns, moved by Entropy. Everything that is will someday be no more. As one part rises, another part must sink. There can be no life without death. There can be no light without darkness. There can be no success without failure. Our duty is to make sure the Great Wheel turns smoothly, so that fresh possibilities are created as old are removed.
To me, a druid should make sure that cycle runs smoothly, and if they push it too far out of wack, then they'd be guilty of 'Violating natural law' and should be punished. But thats personal opinion, take it as you will.
_________________
Dwagin [Duh-wa-GIN] N. - 1a. Small and cute thingum, particularly fond of four legged scaled creatures of the metalic and chromatic varieties.
-Extraordinarily ordinary in the mostest of ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gunz
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 21:52 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Location: The City of Fallen Angels, Ca
|
Dwagin wrote: To me, a druid should make sure that cycle runs smoothly, and if they push it too far out of wack, then they'd be guilty of 'Violating natural law' and should be punished. But thats personal opinion, take it as you will.
I fully agree. Not all Druids cure dieing things. Some would let them die and let them take their natural course. To outright burn down a forest is a pretty extreme thing though.
It's about, as you quoted, watching it and making sure it runs smoothly and doesn't get out of hand. If a disease was spreading like wild fire and taking out masses of people, you can bet your ass there would be a huge number of Druids there to put it in check.
_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth
|
|
|
|
|
|
Falling Spider
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 21:59 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
|
|
I prefer my druids as eco-terrorists instead of Elven Protectors of the Sacred Forest, myself.
_________________
Gahnn Bluetusk
Aleksandr Vespermouth II
"Malnutrition is scarier than any beastie."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gunz
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 22:04 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Location: The City of Fallen Angels, Ca
|
Falling Spider wrote: I prefer my druids as eco-terrorists instead of Elven Protectors of the Sacred Forest, myself.
Druids make the best eco-terrorists, agreed. Especially Evil ones. That would be the worst of the worst zeal you can find probably.
_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 22:04 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o wrote: Point out where I said revere meant protect? Not once did I even imply it. I said Quote: If a Druid did nothing but destroy nature they would no longer revere it there by falling. A Druid respects nature for all that it is. A Blighter would not care, that's the guy you want to look at. ---- Look at Finders allowed clergy, it doesn't mention Druids at all. While you can say that it's possible and would make sense, and I even agree, I don't think a DM should be encouraging people to choose random gods who they "feel" would make a good Druidic god. The elemental primordials do support Druids, actually. IronAngel wrote: I don't think people should give the impression of a monolithic druid culture, or monotonous anything in the Realms or role-playing in general, because it's diversity that makes the game even remotely interesting. Trying to encourage stereotypicality (if that's a word) and discourage creativity seems like dreary nay-saying, to me. If being a protector of nature seriously puts a damper on your being "Evil", you're not being very creative. Druids can be pretty damn unique, but regardless, they have a certain set of rules that they all follow or they fall. Making sure people understand a few set rules does not hinder creativity at all. To the uncreative, maybe, but it doesn't. When someone throws a rule at you, you should be creative and use it to add to the uniqueness of your character. You claimed druids are always, without exception, protectors of nature (and you even imposed your own opinion on what protecting is, on all druids). I asked you to give me the specific sources of this information, and you quoted a passage that spoke about reverence. So I was pointing out that reverence does not equal protection, which means you did not prove your repeated claim that all druids must be protectors of nature.
As for Finder's allowed clergy: there is a list of Finder's existing clergy in Powers and Pantheons. Simply because no mention of druid is made, doesn't mean it would be impossible. It means there are no druids of Finder at the time the product describes, and that the designers didn't think it was a fitting class for Finder's clergy. It doesn't mean they were necessarily right or that we should respect their decision (if it was conscious). You will also notice that there are no Favored Souls mentioned in any of the church entries in any of the deity books. I doubt that means that no deity has Favored Soul followers, though.
The Elemental Lords have no druids, according to Faiths & Avatars and Faiths & Pantheons. Or rather, no mention of such is made. I still think they are possible and viable, like druids of Finder. I don't know what your source is. (Though referring to them as primordials suggests 4e origin?) According to F&A, they do have shamans and mystics.
You're free to disagree with whether it's a good thing that a DM speaks things like this. I think it's not only good, it's absolutely necessary. It does not mean every player is not responsible for their own game and following common conventions within reason. If you think I'm giving you permission to do something that otherwise isn't acceptable, chances are you've misunderstood me or would intentionally seek to abuse what is essentially just observations.
I'm not speaking of evil PCs, personally. I'm thinking of your typical wise druid guy. I think a PC devoted to nature and seeking to become one with it, a PC with a very high wisdom score, would see the hubris and futility of "protecting" nature. The idea that you, a tiny ant, should protect the huge entity controlling your and everybody else's life, that is nature, seems ludicrous to me and would be ridicilous for a goodly druid PC I might play. From my personal perspective, you would be playing a high wisdom character all wrong if you thought you, an insignifigant human, could actually protect majestetic mother nature whose laws determine everything that happens within her boundaries.
The bottom line isn't that you should subscribe to my ideas. It is that you shouldn't tell others how to play, or feel controlled by public opinion that, nevertheless, doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny. _________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 22:11 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o wrote: The lore doesn't support your statement, now you're just getting overly philosophical in order to support your statements. If Wizards meant for Finder to support Druids, they would have said it at some point and they didn't. Needless to say, by 4.0, he's dead so that case is pretty settled.
With your logic, I can make an evil Paladin, a Chaotic Monk, a Good Blackguard, a Palemaster of Kelemvor. There are none now, but maybe later, so why not?
A Chaotic Monk would be perfectly reasonable, yes. I would support it, if you were to make a special character request for one, and you had good enough justification (with his tradition described to detail, etcetera). You'd get the alignment change at 30, though, becase we don't allow unusual class combos. A Palemaster of Kelemvor is also acceptable, as long as you don't have divine classes in the mix: they don't work, because Kelemvor specifically opposes undeath. The same goes for Paladins: they are explicitly stated to Fall if they ever change alignment. As for Good Blackguards, the team has pretty much agreed that you can become a Good person even if you were a Blackguard once, and you will not lose Blackguard powers you bartered for, but we will not change your mechanical alignment to Good because we feel the fiendish energy in you still leaves a taint that can be hit with Smite Evil etc. You may be the nicest guy in the world with the best intentions, repenting the deal you made with the devil, but the supernatural taint would still be there in your aura.
The lore supports my opinion to an extent. It does not fully support it, that is true. It is enough for me to consider it justified, however. You will always have to make these judgements, because nothing in your RP is "canon." It's the most pointless argument of all. The lore doesn't support short-haired Sun Elves either: or can you show me a passage in Races of Faerûn that says they're possible? It doesn't matter whether Wizards intended something: it's much more important whether it makes sense in the large context Wizards has offered us, and whether it works for our game. You profoundly misunderstand the role of "lore" if you believe it marks the borders of the RP setting. _________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gunz
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 22:18 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Location: The City of Fallen Angels, Ca
|
|
Meh, I disagree with a lot of things your saying but we're just going around in circles now so it's futile to continue this. You're the DM, not me.
_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth
|
|
|
|
|
|
colanah
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 23:33 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Location: Lost In Thought
|
herkles wrote: also here is a question, do druids consider violence wrong and evil? just wondering because all too often I have heard a druid in the forest say "violence should not happen in the forest, so Take it outside". So I am just curious how druids view violence.
Rangers and Druids alike more than likely see the use of force as a means to an end when it is justified. I think the instances you are thinking about are when both classes have said "Violence should not happen in thisforest, so take it outside."
The forest in question normally being Amia forest...which I almost swear should be a non-pvp zone but that invites so much headache I couldn't bring myself to suggest it unless stoned and drunk out of my mind.
Since I neither drink nor smoke, you've a notion of how soon that idea is going to be presented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Fri, Jul 17 2009, 23:47 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
|
For a druid potentially burning down a forest, I agree with Iron.
For a druid doing it for fun, I agree with Gunz.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gunz
|
Posted: Sat, Jul 18 2009, 3:22 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Location: The City of Fallen Angels, Ca
|
herkles wrote: also here is a question, do druids consider violence wrong and evil? just wondering because all too often I have heard a druid in the forest say "violence should not happen in the forest, so Take it outside". So I am just curious how druids view violence.
A typical Neutral or Goodly Druid is a person with lots of patience and resort to violence only when needed. But that's not always the case. As you could imagine, there are a lot of Druids who have bad communication skills, short tempers and these types can lash out violently. It's unique and different, person to person. But yeah, the Goodly and Neutral Druids usually aren't very violent. Especially those of Eldath. Those of Silvanus can actually seem almost as bad as Malarites to some folk. But it seems that Silvanites have done a good job at making sure Silvanus' church isn't viewed in that light like it is in a lot of parts of the mainland.
The reason, my Druid anyway, tells people she won't tolerate violence in the Forest is because she doesn't want the Forest to be seen as "okay for battle" grounds. She doesn't want people thinking it's okay to come to the Forest and fight all the time. It upsets visitors, it upsets animals who get scared and she doesn't like it.
As for the "no hunting in the heart of the forest" part, she actually doesn't like that rule. A "safe haven" for animals is a stupid idea, to her. In her mind, the whole Forest should be safe enough for all animals to thrive and not be over hunted with the protection provided by the protectors of the Forest.
_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisitelyme
|
Posted: Sat, Jul 18 2009, 14:23 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 26 May 2009
|
|
hehehe, very sure some people in the Vilhon Reach would rather have all the malarites they could, and even provide them with some humanoid prey from their towns, then having to cope with the Enclave.
also I vote Colanah gets drunk and stoned and talks about Amia Forest using all caps *nods nods*
More seriously Leitha would only intervene (as he did on occasion) upon fighting in the woods if there was a spellcaster present (or too many flaming weapons), as he has seen too many of them hurling area spells around, and thinks those are absolutely to be kept in check. Call Lightning is a great spell and he knows it, but he would rather spend resources and take a couple more hits than use CL in the woods and risk a provoked fire or unnecessary damage to the area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Sat, Jul 18 2009, 15:11 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
That "damage" is something I would question, from a druid's viewpoint, though. Death and the rebirth that follows is not damage to nature itself. The destruction of idnvidual trees and animals is not a threat to nature, it is in fact the very workings of nature itself. A forest turning into a desert should not phase a druid who understands the value of both a natural forest and a natural desert, and the occasionally cruel cycle of life. Nature doesn't try preserve individual phenomena in a static state, and that's why I don't see a wise druid trying to do that, either.
I'd go as far as saying anything humans can do to nature is natural, because humans are part of nature. In a setting like FR, though, I would restrict this somewhat: anything humans can do on their own, with no involvement of magic, the gods or the planes, is natural. The walls of a town or the newest crazy invention of a mad gnome are just as natural as a marsh or an ancient forest. "Nature" is everything in the world that functions under natural laws (which might or might not include people's consciousness). It is not necessary to have any bias towards untamed nature and wildlife, or to care whether a local forest happens to suffer for a short time (considering the time scale of nature is tens of thousands of years, not decades). I'm not saying all druids should think like this, but some very well might. In fact, I find it likely that higher level, high-wisdom druids who weren't particarly fanatic about any god's specific doctrines would think something like this.
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisitelyme
|
Posted: Sat, Jul 18 2009, 16:58 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 26 May 2009
|
|
Of course opinions vary, and provided our interpretations are within the guidelines the powers-that-be set (in this case the server master DM/Admin) I believe we can all be correct in our own rights. I see your point with the rebirth, it is just that (in the case of this particular druid, Leitha) there is a difference among wildlife, wilderness, dominant/imposing races and civilization. Anything that is not caused by wildlife or by the wild ( as in wilderness) is to be checked. A lightning from a storm causing a fire is surely different to him than lightning brought by spells. Or fire. And is dealt with differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
colanah
|
Posted: Sat, Jul 18 2009, 21:46 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Location: Lost In Thought
|
|
*is beginning to think she should have named the topic Can Rangers or Druids fall?*
Exquisitelyme, welcome back! You were missed dear. *gives him cookies and hugs* Also people are going to disagree on points of lore, hence the massive amount of retconning that happens with WoTC as well as the detailed threads in places such as WoTC forum and Candlekeep. People just can't always agree on how a thing should go based on their own outlooks, experiences and opinions.
I would like to think that both a Ranger and a Druid were held to some standards by their deities and not just someone that thought making a living while waving at animals was awesome possum today.
I think it's the deity standards that I was wondering about. Yes Gunz there are Rangers of various locations which is something that used to irk mine to no end over IC discussions of 'well this place is more sacred than that place!'. She was usually lost as to why.
A Ranger or Druid that spends a lot of time in a city has a reason for that, it's going to be presumed they have a reason for that. Visiting, getting supplies, having a meal with a friend, wth. They're there for a reason. The Urban Ranger...man that was the neatest PC ever but I digress.
I gues it was wondering about IC conflicts of motivations with actions. Just like another thread offered the example of a nature PC telling a Palemaster "Neat undead summons, let's go kill some animals". That's the stuff that slaps up the giant 'What?!' at times.
But a DM has already spoken of their inability to follow one particular PC around to judge whether or not there's a reason for the nature PC to do that. Could be part of a greater plan to find a coven of PMs to wipe them out. The nature PC could be on the way to serving one of the Furies. Who knows?
*smiles hugely* Though I like the discussion generated from this and thank everyone who's posted so far. This is really neat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gunz
|
Posted: Sun, Jul 19 2009, 0:43 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Location: The City of Fallen Angels, Ca
|
colanah wrote: I would like to think that both a Ranger and a Druid were held to some standards by their deities and not just someone that thought making a living while waving at animals was awesome possum today.
Oh yeah, They both have their deities to worry about. It's just that Druids, being priests, are held to a way higher standard, imo. I would say Rangers would have it equally as tough in clergies where they were considered priests. For example: Gwaeron Windstrom's Church, Mielikki's Church, Shaundakul's Church, Shevarash's Church, Solonor Thelandira's Church, etc.
When you're a priest, you're held to a pretty high standard compared to just any simple follower.
_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth
|
|
|
|
|
|
QPR
|
Posted: Sun, Jul 19 2009, 0:58 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Location: Norway
|
|
As I see it, Rangers can generally do whatever they damn please. Sure, getting on the bad side of your patron deity might cost rangers their spells, but they still retain all their other skills. A Ranger to me is a character who knows how to live, survive and thrive in the wilds. Wether he uses theese skills to protect a forest, guide travellers, hunt animals, hunt people, robb and murder travellers, act as mercenary or whatever else strikes his fancy would be up to each induvidual ranger, without making him any less ranger.
My Ranger for instance spends quite alot of time in the cities, hates rain, bugs, marshes, spiders etc, but his job as scout, archeologist, wanderer and other things takes him out in the wilds, and he knows how to survive out there.
Druids have less lenience, they have to maintain a Balance, in one way or another, an essentially have to embrace Nature. they can be protectors, or they can be predators. Some druids wouldnt stop a forest fire because it is a part of how nature regulates itself, but I can hardly imagine a Druid causing intentional, large scale damage unnless this will aid nature in some way
_________________
"Edwin do this, Edwin do that. Somebody get this jerk a banana!" - Edwin, BG II
Valygar 'Stonesnake' Stark -Human Ranger
Garret Smith - Archer and peddler of deity-statuettes
Dáin Saltbeard - Dwarven sailor and fencer. No, I'm not joking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Sun, Jul 19 2009, 13:08 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
I think it depends entirely on the deity and the ranger's status, as GuNz said. There's no escaping the fact: rangers who cast divine spells are part of their patron's clergy. They may or may not interact with the rest of the church, but it is likely they do or have, at some point. You don't gain your spells spontaneously, you need to learn religious practice and the doctrines of your deity before you're granted insights into priestly magic.
I suppose some rangers might live a pretty mundane life, and only call on their patron in times of dire need. At such moments, they might be granted divine spells, but I wouldn't say it's something they can rely on. Regular use of divine magic would (in my mind) require regular religious practice too, though.
Mind that spellcasting rangers don't necessarily need a patron deity of nature. It seems likely that any deity is capable of granting ranger spells (there's some unclarity, and many discussions about it on this forum; I believe this answer is the more likely one) and your ranger could be a devout Banite just as well as a follower of Chauntea. And rangers who simply don't cast divine spells? They don't need to have anything to do with religion. They can be a lot of things.
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estara
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 8:10 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
|
IronAngel wrote: There's no escaping the fact: rangers who cast divine spells are part of their patron's clergy.
Then let me quote where the rules say (I think Nekh posted it?): "one can worship a God/Goddess of Nature or Toril itself."
To me, this is actually a way for any druid or ranger to escape a lot. Toril isn't really going to act like a God/Goddess. At least, in many of the ways, I would picture it acting differently. But maybe that's just me. And that's my point. That this provides a way for almost anyone to argue anything.
By opening up the way for druids/rangers to get their spells from Nature Itself (aka Toril itself), one can definitely be different depending on where you come from and all sorts of other factors. You just need to have RPed a direct connection and desire and care for the earth itself, I would think.
Toril's landscape itself is different in many places.. so I think it'd be hard, if gaining spells from Toril itself is still allowed, to place many restrictions on Toril's "dogma."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 8:12 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
Estara wrote: IronAngel wrote: There's no escaping the fact: rangers who cast divine spells are part of their patron's clergy. Then let me quote where the rules say (I think Nekh posted it?): "one can worship a God/Goddess of Nature or Toril itself." Where is that from? I thought they had to worship a nature deity.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estara
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 8:14 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
|
herkles wrote: Found this in the lore info on classes, this might be helpful since we are speaking of druids. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Basic Rules:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Druids access a set of divine powers that are granted by one or several gods of nature. A druid can opt to worship the earth itself, Toril in place of a God, and also acquire these spells. They are required to choose either Toril or a God of nature to be given these spells and abilities. Edit: re-highlighted the post to better suit the important part
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 8:15 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
If you worship Toril, you're worshipping Chauntea, though. You're still getting your spells from a deity and are following her rules a ssuch.
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estara
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 8:16 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
|
|
Oh. Okay! It didn't really sound like that. But her dogma isn't really that.. "strict" I would say, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 8:16 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
Well, you're still a druid, regarding the metal bits and such.
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estara
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 8:19 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
|
Bahaha. But I can put a full-plate on Jaheira in Baldur's Gate II?! And she's a druid! But yeah, 'course you are. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 8:20 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
BG is 2e. I don't know the Druid rules in 2e.
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gunz
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 8:28 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Location: The City of Fallen Angels, Ca
|
|
Yeah, if you're worshiping Toril itself, I'd say you're either gaining your spells from Chauntea or Silvanus. Either way, you're gaining your spells from the gods, knowingly or unknowingly. There are a few Druids who "worship nature itself", but OOCly have their story about where they get their spells (Again, usually Silvanus or Chauntea). Perhaps that bit should be edited to be clear though? It is kinda confusing and misleading.
_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 13:26 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
Truth be told, though, that's a bit of bollocks. And the druid guide is a guide, from one person's subjective point of view, not a list of facts. It should be removed, IMO, because it's
In FR, you cannot worship Toril and gain spells. At least there's been no evidence of such in any book I've seen. It's just a part some past DMs apparently added out of personal preference. There is the Earthmother you can worship, of course, but she is just a local aspect of Chauntea. That's possibly the source of the confusion.
But then, I wouldn't say it's impossible for some nature deity to grant you druidic spells even if you think you're worshipping nature itself. It wouldn't be standard procedure, it wouldn't be widely known (or known at all), and the deity would have to have some good reason for doing that. So I don't think it should be said to be impossible, but neither should it be presented as fact, when it's never been verified.
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nekhy
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 17:24 PM |
|
|
Player
|
|
Oh dear, there's an error in those guidelines. I admit that I probably didn't read it before posting it. Whichever DM wrote it should have known better, tsk!
In any case, druids can and quite often 'fall' on Amia. Be caught wearing a metal armour and you'll find yourself lacking spells.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 17:36 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
It's been accepted on Amia in the past. I recall at least Jen explaining it's possible. So it's not exactly an accident, though I didn't realize it still says that in R&L. (But then, none of those big RP guides should be considered objective canon.) It's not FR-true, though, so the question is: should we hold onto this piece of incorrect lore, and if so, why?
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nekhy
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 17:48 PM |
|
|
Player
|
|
I believe the deity requirement has been "enforced" by the staff for a very long time already, so it's a bit silly to have contradicting info there. Unless we want to revert the policy on druids and deities to heresy, again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
QPR
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 19:54 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Location: Norway
|
|
Question on druid weapons: Can a druid with a ranger level use throwing axes for instance? Is the limited weapon profiency a result of aversion towards metal, or towards weapon types?
_________________
"Edwin do this, Edwin do that. Somebody get this jerk a banana!" - Edwin, BG II
Valygar 'Stonesnake' Stark -Human Ranger
Garret Smith - Archer and peddler of deity-statuettes
Dáin Saltbeard - Dwarven sailor and fencer. No, I'm not joking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uberuce
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 20:16 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Location: Near the bar.
|
|
Last I looked, it's not just the mostly-metallic nature of the weapons that makes them a no-no, it's part of the Druidic tradition that only the scimmy/dagger/club/staff/spear/sickle/sling/dart are used.
Mielikki's Druids are the inevitable exception. They can use any weapon and medium armour they see the need to, since they're expected to serve as Rangers when things get ugly.
So, if it's a Druid of Mielikki: yes. Otherwise no.
I don't understand why scimmies are okay and bows are not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
xordae
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 20:19 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2005
Location: Germany
|
|
I don't know the official stance, but the bow is THE most obvious hunting weapon, and Druids do hunt. It makes sense. Both my Druids have bows, and they'll keep using them too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gunz
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 20:22 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Location: The City of Fallen Angels, Ca
|
Uberuce wrote: Last I looked, it's not just the mostly-metallic nature of the weapons that makes them a no-no, it's part of the Druidic tradition that only the scimmy/dagger/club/staff/spear/sickle/sling/dart are used.
Mielikki's Druids are the inevitable exception. They can use any weapon and medium armour they see the need to, since they're expected to serve as Rangers when things get ugly.
So, if it's a Druid of Mielikki: yes. Otherwise no.
I don't understand why scimmies are okay and bows are not.
Aye. This is pretty much it. The Druid's weapon proficiencies seem to be more of an OOC hit to the class than anything else (Since Druids are a hell of a lot more powerful in PnP than NWN makes them out to be). They do a poor job as saying why this is what it is.
The weapons you can use, as a Druid of anyone besides Mielikki, are:
club
dagger
dart
quarterstaff
scimitar
sickle
shortspear
sling
spear
_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth
|
|
|
|
|
|
QPR
|
Posted: Tue, Jul 21 2009, 20:25 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Location: Norway
|
|
Well, as long as elven druids can use bows, I see no reason why my human druid with ranger level cant throw axes.
_________________
"Edwin do this, Edwin do that. Somebody get this jerk a banana!" - Edwin, BG II
Valygar 'Stonesnake' Stark -Human Ranger
Garret Smith - Archer and peddler of deity-statuettes
Dáin Saltbeard - Dwarven sailor and fencer. No, I'm not joking.
|
|
|
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Login
