What is a Druid?

[bharring]

First: I want to drop this in here, because it is relevant. This bit isn't from the druid text of the FRCS, but it is about how one aquires divine magic (including the supernatural abilities that aren't spells, such as Lay on Hands or Wild Shape):
<snip>

While the power certainly comes from a diety, not nature itself, one of the above links suggest some druids might not recognize the difference, or not be fully cognizent that their god is not "simply" a part of nature.

It's also useful to remember that druids are paragons of Balance. It is not only possible to revere both creation and destruction at the same time, but is necessary as a druid (Because both are part of The Cycle).

Similarly, a druid may revere both Talos and Eldrath, as natural and necessary parts of Balance.

Druids aren't paragons of "balance". Druids are priests of nature. Indeed, a lot of druids are violently anti-balance, as they strive to destroy civilisation in favour of nature.

I guess this part comes down to the implementation/definition. The rules implicate them as paragons of balance - a Chaotic Evil worshiper of Talos cannot be a druid, because they have insufficient respect for balance. Likewise a CG priest of Mielekki or Chauntea, no matter how much they love and devote themselves to nature, is not a druid.

And divine favour works very specifically in Forgotten Realms. You'll find some very clear differences between a druid of Chauntea and a druid of Mielikki, for example, even if they are both Neutral Good. Chauntea, as a goddess of argiculture will have druids more in line with civilisation than Mielikki, a goddess of the forest.

Eldath and Talos are enemies, and so are their followers. That is how divine favour works in Forgotten Realms. If you go against the dogma of your god, you lose favour, and then you fall.

I'm trying to point to something a little more nuanced. Certainly, Talos and Eldrath are enemies. And most followers thereof would be enemies. I'm saying it's possible for a druid who serves one of them well enough, but sees their patron as an aspect of nature more than a proper god, could revere both. However, that's a *very* tight line, as whichever god they do serve is likely to demand a far more negative response to the other one than the druid would like.

As for how far you must diverge from dogma before you lose favor, I'd imagine that varies by diety at activity. A servant of lawful god like Helm could lose all power for a simple mistake, but a servant of a less rigid/demanding god could probably get away with a lot (although Talos and Eldrath, specifically, are unlikely to tolerate much deviance).

[JustAnotherGuy]

There have been more responses while I slept and was away than I anticipated! lol.

One thing I've found out about D&D and FR lore. Is that you can basically find a source to justify anything. Hence why I feel discussion is necessary. On tabletop, you have the DM saying, "We are using this lore" and the word is final. In a PW, you are less likely to have a codified lore, with people pulling from all kinds of sources over the years and implementing them.

For instance; we have two cited sources in this very thread that can seem to contradict each other. A rule I've always lived and breathed my lore by, is the rule that Magic the Gathering has. "The specific over-rights the general". So if a source specific to druids contradicts a generic source, I'm going to go with the source specific to druids. Hence my use of the "Complete Druid's Handbook".

I'm going to try and reply to quite a bit; consequently, I expect this post to be a long one.

This has the consequence that a druid's concept of balance will change drastically depending on who they worship - after all, the enemies of their patron clearly try to upset balance.

I disagree with this. A druid would see their god as part of the balance, not the arbiter of it. Even when performing evil acts in the name of their god, they would do so thinking that they were keeping the balance. And from an outside observer (not the toon's perspective), they would. It would be the balance of good and evil.

A Mielikkian druid would work with a Malarite druid. Hands down, not even debatable. It's just fact. While Mielikki and Malar are opposed, the druids see them both as (at the very least) aspects of nature, or possibly the embodiments of nature. Where they would disagree is the implementation of keeping the balance. Not the actual balance itself. But if a forest were in trouble, they'd work together to fix it.

LivT kind of touched on this, here:

I think this has also been where contention and confusion about the role of Furies in the 'Balance' sits. As has been well established, destruction and death is an accepted part of the cycles and balances of nature, however, the sentiments of the Furies themselves can contradict or even oppose the Balance.

I agree with this, and have some additional thoughts on it.

One thing to realize, is that the gods know what druids are, and where their loyalties are going to lie. Because of this, I believe some look at this backwards. They say that the god would grant the druidic power, and say, "You will lose this if you deviate". I say, the god knows druids and that they will deviate, and says, "How will this improve my own power and influence?", and then grants the power if they see it as beneficial to themselves. For the evil gods especially, as having a nature worshipper in their corner is better in their eyes than having a nature worshipper working for the other team.

Moving on to Shadow Druids, I love how they are portrayed in the druid's handbook. Essentially, they are druids that work in the shadows. Yes, they work through violence to drive away any civilization. But they also operate with druids. In fact, according to the handbook, they are hidden in druidic circles, holding the same rank in the Shadow Circle as they do in the "regular" circle. They keep the fact that they are shadow druids hidden, even from their fellow druids.

As of right now, we either have no shadow druids playing on the server, or they do a good job of keeping it hidden OOCly, which I applaud.

Druids aren't paragons of "balance". Druids are priests of nature. Indeed, a lot of druids are violently anti-balance, as they strive to destroy civilisation in favour of nature.

The druids who you say are anti-balance are not. They are anti-civilization. There is a distinction and a difference. Remember, the balance is defined as an equilibrium which will allow future generations to propagate, as stated in the Druid's handbook. At its core, civilization destroys the balance when it grows. It is inevitable, and a fact of life. And every druid is anti-civilization on some level. The difference between the druids is whether or not they believe that civilization can come to live in harmony with the balance. Some do, and some don't.

Again, every druid believes that civilization wreaks havoc with the balance. But some hold out hope that they can teach, instruct, and aid civilization to minimalize that footprint. Others believe it is a lost cause, and seek to push back. So yes, Druids are paragons of balance, 100%. You are arguing against the definition of balance here, not whether druids uphold it.

That's all I have time to respond to currently. I'll likely post some more later. Cheers for now.

[JustAnotherGuy]

As I stated in my previous post, one of the issues with a PW is that the sourcebooks span many decades and often contradict each other. For instance, Deathgrowl pointed out that according to the PHB, it is impossible to have divine power without it coming from a deity. Hoihe pointed out that they are "specialty priests". However, you don't have to look too far to find a source (PHB, 3r Ed) that states that druids do not get their power from a god. But rather their power is akin to warlock powers, directly from nature itself and the druid's attunement to it.

This adds to the complexity of what we have going on in the server, and is why I wanted to open up discussion.

[Planehopper]

So if a source specific to druids contradicts a generic source, I'm going to go with the source specific to druids. Hence my use of the "Complete Druid's Handbook".

So if the source specific to the Realms contradicts a generic source (ie 'The Complete..' line of books), I'm going with the source specific to the Realms. Clearly a generic source is unable to present such wide divisions in settings as unique as the Realms, Dark Sun, or Al-Qadim which were all (and more) very much active when they were published.

This is why discussions are helpful to get all perspectives, but as soon as someone thinks they are more-right than someone else who has an equally well-sourced opinion, they quickly become pointless.

And then when you use phrases like

Hands down, not even debatable.

It becomes quite apparent that a discussion is not what you intended with this thread. If you want a conversation, perhaps keep a more open mind. Otherwise this is going to serve no one.

In hoping that you chose your words poorly, instead of in arrogance I will share my opinion, one which I believe is more realms-centric than an otherwise generic D&D druid. Yes - druids believe in maintaining a balance, but that they do this by fulfilling their god's version of perfection. It is not the individual, then, that promotes balance, but druids as a system (for example Chauntea vs Malar, or Eldath vs Talos).

A Malarite druid may believe that his hunts and predation bring balance (his god's view of it) to an otherwise too-docile wood. A druid of Kossuth may believe that it is the great purifying fire that brings nature back into check, through forest fires of all types. A druid of Ishtisha may not seek a "balance" individually or universally - but would use their god's powers and portfolio to negate and 'balance' the Kossuthans by preventing those fires. They may see the Kossuthans as enemies of balance as much as the Kossuthans see themselves as necessary. Or, maybe there is a circle composed of several elemental-god druids, more tied to one another. Some druids may pray to their patron gods but otherwise worship 'nature' as an equal entity. All of it will be greatly influenced by the active circle in the area and its current members.

It just isnt a one-size fits all.

Sure, druids in a generic D&D world are made to be arbiters of balance and equilibrium - but this is not a generic D&D world. This is a world influenced by gods, intertwined with their dealings and shenanigans.

[Deathgrowl]

My source was from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, not the PHB.

[JustAnotherGuy]

My source was from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, not the PHB.

I see that now. My mistake. I will not edit my old post to reflect it, but will acknowledge it here.

And then when you use phrases like

Hands down, not even debatable.

It becomes quite apparent that a discussion is not what you intended with this thread. If you want a conversation, perhaps keep a more open mind. Otherwise this is going to serve no one.

In hoping that you chose your words poorly, instead of in arrogance

To that particular thing, I don't think it was poorly, or in arrogance. I have already said that my thoughts and opinions are just that. When I said that "hands down, not even debatable", I was saying, "This is something we all know to be true already". I used that common ground as a segue into the actual disagreement, not for the disagreement itself.

The statement was:

after all, the enemies of their patron clearly try to upset balance.

Not, "they would never work together". And that is what I was trying to debate, whether they were enemies or not, or believed the other was trying to upset the balance.

Now:

So if the source specific to the Realms contradicts a generic source (ie 'The Complete..' line of books), I'm going with the source specific to the Realms.

This is a very valid point here. In this case, I would say we need to come to a consensus of which is more generic and which is more specific. I think a case could be made in either direction, personally. Whether a "setting" source or a "class" source is more specific. You made your thoughts known on where you stand there. I will require further thought and digging before I settle on one side or the other.

As to the rest of your post, it was well stated, and has given me much to think on. Something that jumps out at me, is your sentence

It is not the individual, then, that promotes balance, but druids as a system

I do think there is merit to that. I do think we are speaking though of "reality versus expectation". I agree that your statement reflects the reality of things, whereas my posts were more "this is what 'should' be".

On that note, I want to say that my posts are in no way geared towards "This is how you're supposed to RP a druid". At least, that is not the intention. I know that I have a way of stating things that can make it seem that way (which is why it is so easy for me to play a character that is very blunt and sees things in black and white! lol).

I also wholeheartedly agree with "It just isn't a one-size fits all". I do think however, that as a druid grows, his devotion to his god becomes less, and his devotion to nature and the balance grows. I think it fits well with my view on it stated earlier:

I say, the god knows druids and that they will deviate, and says, "How will this improve my own power and influence?", and then grants the power if they see it as beneficial to themselves. For the evil gods especially, as having a nature worshipper in their corner is better in their eyes than having a nature worshipper working for the other team.

As an aside, I appreciate your input on the circles earlier, as well.

[bharring]

The fact that all divine magic comes from gods does not necessarily mean all wielders of divine magic serve the magic's god.

For a trivial example, a Banite can use a healing potion that was originally brewed by a good deity. The magic was shaped into a healing potion. It's still divine magic. The god could have denied the magic as the potion was brewed, but not later, when the Banite drank it.

I don't think druids are that way - I think they actually do venerate a specific god. But my point is that the rules for clerics and formal priesthoods are not the rules for all users of divine magic. Druids are not clerics. They do get their power from a god, and in a way similar to clerics, but not the exact same. They are inherently different. Again, otherwise a CE/CG druid of Talos/Mielikki would make sense.

I also think JustAnotherGuy makes a great point about the god's goals and understandings colors whether they patronize a druid. Most have very specific rules, rituals, and demands of their priesthood/clergy, but most of those rules/etc do not necessarily apply to rangers or druids. Even Favored Souls work differently from Clerics.

[matelener]

I think there's a lot in FR that's debatable regarding druids. For example, take a look at this druid-lich: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Lossarwyn.

1) Was one of the most powerful elven druids
2) Renounced his deity while keeping druidic powers
3) He made a pact with an unknown force that turned him into a lich
4) Now, teaches druids and rangers of Eldreth Veluuthra his method of drawing divine power without calling upon a deity

[Planehopper]

There is this, too, from 'Forgotten Realms Adventures' p. 5.

It is mostly detailing bards, but mentions that bardic colleges aligned with druids referencing pre-ToT situations "before every god with a portfolio involving nature had its own druidic hierarchy". What would that mean to you?

For the curious, the bardic colleges of the Realms were once a powerful force in the North, strongly aligned with the druids (these were in the days before every god with a portfolio involving na-ture had its own druidic hierarchy). Each of the colleges recognized the superiority of the colleges ranked above it, such that as bards progressed in knowledge, they would seek out the wisdom of these higher colleges. With the advent of more civilization these colleges fell into decline,though there are still references to one or another schools style of play, and the el-der bards often rank themselves accord-ing to their school position. The elder schools were: Fochlucan, Mac-Fuirmidh, Doss, Canaith, Cli, Anstruth, Ollamh,Magna Alumnae. (Magna Alumnae is nota true school but a recognition of power by the others.

((left the bard stuff in there since we see lots of the elder school names referenced in our magic items))

[matelener]

There is this, too, from 'Forgotten Realms Adventures' p. 5.

It is mostly detailing bards, but mentions that bardic colleges aligned with druids referencing pre-ToT situations "before every god with a portfolio involving nature had its own druidic hierarchy". What would that mean to you?

For the curious, the bardic colleges of the Realms were once a powerful force in the North, strongly aligned with the druids (these were in the days before every god with a portfolio involving na-ture had its own druidic hierarchy). Each of the colleges recognized the superiority of the colleges ranked above it, such that as bards progressed in knowledge, they would seek out the wisdom of these higher colleges. With the advent of more civilization these colleges fell into decline,though there are still references to one or another schools style of play, and the el-der bards often rank themselves accord-ing to their school position. The elder schools were: Fochlucan, Mac-Fuirmidh, Doss, Canaith, Cli, Anstruth, Ollamh,Magna Alumnae. (Magna Alumnae is nota true school but a recognition of power by the others.

((left the bard stuff in there since we see lots of the elder school names referenced in our magic items))

I recall in 2e some nature deities did not have a full druidic hierarchy (IIRC Mielikki) but they definetely had druids.

[Planehopper]

Regarding the relationship between druids and their gods, I offer this bit from the first edition source (the original campaign box set, most accurate lore to our timeline):

p 39, on druids

AT A GLANCE: A sub-grouping of clerics which tend to worship outside of the standard Temple complexes are the druids, who wander the land, or are organized into loosely·affiliated "circles" throughout the Realms. These druid·circles tend to fill the same requirements as hierarchies within the clerical faiths, but are much smaller and there is still less definition about which activities fall under which headings.

Stating they are a sub-grouping of clerics, which would (feasibly) mean that they are subject to the quote Deathgrowl shared (though a later version of lore).

Page 7, on religion

The 'gods" of the Realms, also called Powers, are important beings; they grant magical spells to their worshippers, involve themselves in earthly dealings, and grow or diminish in personal power in relation to the number of mortal worshippers they possess. Clerics in the service of a god will advance only if they please the god, by remaining faithful to the god's rules and aims, and acting as the god wishes.

That bit says to me that druids as a "sub-grouping of clerics" will seek to please their patron gods "by remaining faithful to the god's rules and aims".

((It also corrects what I said earlier. It was my understanding that gods were less tied to worshippers as a source of power prior to the ToT. This shows that I am wrong there, the association was present prior to, just maybe not as strongly))

Of course, one could make an argument that the above is related to mechanics and not lore - and we have historically tied ourselves to 1st edition lore and 3.5 mechanics.. soooooo... hard to differentiate between the two when lore is directly tied to a mechanics change in many other ways.

[Ravial]

Okay. There's a ton of misinformation based on "I want this to be a thing and I'll ignore all sentences disproving it".

So let me get this straight. I don't quite play here anymore, so I'll be as objective as I possibly can.

1. Contrary to popular belief, Druids -are- Priests of their deities that -actively- take part in their Deity's agenda. The nature deities are the prime example of it since most of their -clergy- are druids that perform rituals to their god. Clerics are also priests, but Clerics focus on a different aspect of faith- of domains. It is the Domains that the clerics are meant to represent primarily as a focus of their deity. Druids are just clerics with the domain "Nature" that changes all of their spells and powers to nature-bent ones. The "not necessarily see a clear divide between nature and divine" simply means that they consider the gods to be nature itself. That storms are Talos and that fires are Kossuth. Winds are Akadi and so forth. Because, as Deathgrowl has noted, ALL divine magic comes from Gods. Gods don't give people divine magic on a whim.

As for alignment restrictions: They need to be lawful or neutral, -because- of very strict and rigid druid oaths and traditions. Not because a deity has a whim or two. It's even said in Druid description of Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting that, paraphrasing, "Mielikki has more lenient spiritual oaths than most deities that druids worship" which is what allows them to use metal armour without violating their spiritual oaths.

2. The notion of "balance" is flawed at best in Forgotten Realms. If you read about all different nature deities dogmas and portfolios, you'll notice that only Silvanus ever cares about anything that he calls "balance". The "balance" of nature that he considers is the literal ABSENCE of civilisation. Not "We can work this out". A b s e n c e.

This is why there's a lot of druids of Silvanus that breed monsters and release them near towns and villages to get rid of pesky settlers. Other deities? Solonor? Rillifane? Angharradh? Mielikki? Eldath? Chauntea? Complete opposites. Druids of Chauntea and Silvanus -hate- each other because of their diametrically opposite philosophies. Do they all work for the same Balance of Nature? Absolutely not. Silvanites want to delete all civilisation, Chauntea wants the land to be worked and civilisation to expand, Solonor wants elves to build cities seamlessly into the natural world, Rillifane bids his druids commit absolute genocide against evil sentient plants and orcs. Mielikki thinks trolls and orcs are unnatural and should be all eradicated. Would they all be ruled by Silvanus- I may have agreed that it's all part of the "Balance." However, Forgotten Realms has deities of Nature not working with Silvanus, especially not under him, and more powerful than him.

To put a cherry on top of that, most deities of nature are good-aligned: 21. Silvanus (Without Ubtao, because he has some vastly special rules on his modus operandi) is the ONLY TN specifically druidic deity. The Elemental Gods, if you forcefully add them to him, makes it 5. Evil gods of nature? 9 are Evil.

So as you can see, the "Balance" doesn't exist here, to begin with.

3. Talassians and Eldathyn? Mielikki and Malar? Someone doesn't remember that Malar wanted to delete from existence all druids before 3.5 timelines and that Talassians didn't have druids before as well. In fact, none of the Furies did. Because they're deities of -total- destruction that is outside of the natural world. Talos wants to destroy everything and have kicks out of his followers just ruining everything on their path, Auril wants to cover everything in ice, Umberlee just likes being a b-word, and Malar wants to: 1. Kill ALL of the elves 2. Absolutely dominate nature 3. Kill for sport all the time. Those stark contrast in philosophies makes it absolutely invalid for druids of such opposite dogmas to work together and peacefully.

Heck, even Planehopper posted a really legit example of an Eldathyn fighting with a Silvanite. And we're talking about druids of -allied- deities.

Wait a second...



Okay... but...



What?! No way! Only when allied?! Wait does that mean...



Eldath... Are your enemies...



Mother of... So that means you cannot respect Talos and Malar as a druid of Eldath!!!11!!111oneoneone

4. Lossarwyn is a thing, yeah, but only past 1372. Furthermore, he got retconned afterwards, lol. It's something DMs would have to establish.

5. As druid gets levels, he/she gets more favour from Gods. Understanding of nature or "Balance" has nothing to do with it, really.

TL;DR

Druids are priests, "Balance" is fake, Gods are important as the setting is Theocratic, Deities don't like when you are okay with their enemies, Furies suck, Planehopper and Hoihe explained everything incredibly well, most nature deities are good-aligned, getting powers from nature itself only happens in Greyhawk and Dragonlance, Lathander used to create undead, Pineapple belongs to pizza.

I hope I haven't offended anyone and that all of you will have an excellent time of your day!

[Planehopper]

Pineapple belongs to pizza.

You son of a...

This is why there's a lot of druids of Silvanus that breed monsters and release them near towns and villages to get rid of pesky settlers.

Not that I am doubting you on this one, but can you point me toward the reference material on that? Silvanus is a nature-or-nothing sort of dude, but I didnt realize he was this 'natureismetal' (check out that insta account btw) about things.

Otherwise I think you laid it out pretty thoroughly. Any sense of balance is one of balance as a whole - the good gods' acts work to balance out the evil gods' acts- and druids are the arms of their battles over nature.

[LivT]

Druids aren't paragons of "balance". Druids are priests of nature. Indeed, a lot of druids are violently anti-balance, as they strive to destroy civilisation in favour of nature.

Eldath and Talos are enemies, and so are their followers. That is how divine favour works in Forgotten Realms. If you go against the dogma of your god, you lose favour, and then you fall.

Really cannot agree with this, at least not in such black and white terms.

Firstly: druids aren’t out to destroy civilisation (some furies or shadow druids might be) they are there to check the expansion of civilisation, as it directly threatens the environment. There is a long human history of people pushing for progress and not realising till after the fact how badly they have ruined the environment. The removal of mangrove forest, the clearing of forest for crop land resulting in overwhelming erosion and salination, the pollution of waterways, mining, over hunting, introduction of invasive species... often this doesn’t just result in the change of the environment. But the death of it.

An elven city grown from trees is “civilisation” but you don’t hear druids complaining, because they are a large society who can live well within nature, as part of it, not a tumor on it.

If druids were violently anti civilisation and anti balance, towns and cities would be constantly under assault from their magic and terrorism. clearly not the case. In the game, you only have Druid problems if you go two maps into a forested area, the cloak wood. And that’s a bunch of shadow druids saying “GTFO”, not planning to earthquake the FAI to dust.

Secondly. Yes, druids loyal to various gods, even opposing gods, will work together where the goal is the same. There have been multiple references to official handbooks cited here already. An Eldathyn can be friends with a Talos worshipper. Heck, Eldath would more than likely be pleased if one of her followers was reaching out that far to share her teachings and help even Furies understand and find peace. Cos that what she does. Peace and love, baby.

As to what other gods say I’m not going to pretend to have any authority on that. But I doubt very much a god would abandon their follower, just for having a form of companionship with another. It’s about the principles, not the people. If for instance, Taka turned around to Io and said “hey, help me turn beregost into an iceburg”, it’s a very different situation compared to the two conversing on their different philosophies, or finding a way to solve an actual problem facing the wilds.

To make everything so strict with regards to the gods runs the risk of having a bunch of characters that are just... their Gods personified. Carbon copies. Not real, organic people navigating how to implement the teachings they value into a very complicated world.

It’s stricter with clerics, obviously, because a cleric can be of... any god. But druids *are not clerics*, even though I have said they are similar, it is *not* the same thing and with good reason. Unlike clerics, they are not truly beholden to one god. Sure, you don’t want to fall out of favour with your chosen deity, but druids also have to answer to a wider/greater force.

[LivT]

That being said, it’s clear there are two camps developing here so it would be down to the DM team to make a ruling if they feel it needed.