What is a Druid?

[Wolfrayne]

I really didnt want to Weigh in here but....

I played a Silvanite druid for many many years. I was part of the elder circle and ended up leaving to do my own thing due to the way the RP of the character played out in the end. Sure i made some mistakes and did some thing people might not consider druidic but i was willing to learn from it.

The thing that bugs me more than anything about Druid RP on BG is how quickly the idea of guardianship and timeless wisdom, which is the foundation of what it means to be a druid is discarded because "oh a DM event i cant miss that, ill find the most meaningless way to participate despite the fact that i would have no real reason to actually care"

Most Druids dont care about the perils of the civilized world until they spill out and cause great harm to the natural order.

Silvanus

The church of Silvanus endlessly strives to preserve the sacred Balance, despite population pressures that lead to too-heavy hunting or farming. Members of the clergy work to redirect development and control populations through covert sponsorship of brigands, breeding and selective placing of predators, and other means. It is essential that such work be as secretive as possible, so that most folk view the servants of Silvanus as essentially benign lovers of trees. Wildlife breeding, nursing sick animals, and replanting trees and wild shrubs are all work that should be done as publicly as possible to support this perception--and as necessary work to redress the slipping Balance, of course. Silvanite clergy make a lifelong study the intricate workings of the life-cycles of all living creatures in Faerun and learn to take the long-term view so that the manifold implications of every action and combination of actions can be seen clearly well into the future. By planning for the long term, Silvanite clergy hope never to take a serious misstep and worsen any shift of the Balance. Superior patience, natural knowledge, and anticipation are the hallmarks of a worthy servant of Silvanus. They are also the qualities that make any Silvanite cleric a deadly foe. A Silvanite should never be surprised at an unexpected turn of events and always be three or four steps ahead of an opponent, prepared for victories well beyond the battles that an enemy can see.

Chauntea and her followers and for the most part they are all farmers, and even then they don't really interfere with things unless its a major disturbance, their followers are more akin to clerics praying to a goddess for a good seasons harvest.

Clerical Practice
Clerics prayed for their spells at sundown, as did druids. They usually led dual lives as either gardeners or farmers, and were industrious people. They were expected to appreciate natural beauty and possess a feeling for meditation.

"oh look a group of balor are attacking, lets send the gardeners to fight them off."

I could go on and on and on but the point is every time i have seen a druid in character (with a few minor exceptions) Its always "LOOK AT ME IM A DRAGON AND I CAN STOMP EVERYTHING!" Or sitting around in a bar/pub like any other local adventurer.

An animal fur outfit or a few sticks and leaves do not make you a druid.

[athornforyourheart]

Thought I wanted to make druid character.

Read this thread.

No longer want to make a druid character.

Jesus Christ.

[JustAnotherGuy]

I'll be as objective as I possibly can.

!!!11!!111oneoneone

Think you defeated your own purpose with sarcasm, strawman arguments, and pontification.

I apologize to everyone else for trying to start a conversation that I hoped would be helpful, only to have it devolve into this. Seems it's too easy to have someone come in and destroy it for everyone else. To quote everyone's parents, "This is why we can't have nice things."

Edited to add: To the several of you who have reached out in PMs and discord apologizing for the way this thread turned out, and wish to continue the conversation, we can do so that way.

[Steve]

Class—or PrC—is like a profession, for the Adventurers of the Forgotten Realms. I think it is also forgotten (!!) that we all play adventurers, in the sense of the game D&D, as it was designed. The DM(s) play all the Others (peasants, kings & queens, shop merchants, stable masters, mobs, etc.).

I realize that BGTSCC as a D&D game host has diverged from this pure D&D base form to support more non-adventurer Roles, but at the base of all our RP comes the Class(es) of the adventurer (except if you choose Commoner, though still you can be one an adventurer...so there is a lot of bending).

All that said is to get to the point of: we can also look to the aspects of a Character being a Druid or being druidic in thought and action. A cleric of Silvanus could very well perform acts of a Druidic nature, though their POWERS & ABILITIES are fundamentally different.

Furthermore,those powers and abilities are determined by mindset, also known as Alignment, as well as specifically the Deity/Divine relationship.

In 3.5e, Druids cast divine magic. For divine magic to work, you need to worship a Deity, not nature. The “nature power” or “evocation”-like spell casting of Druids is a 5e thing (not applicable to BGTSCC).

Additionally:

A druid can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). For example, a neutral good druid cannot cast evil spells.

I think the above is a clear Source Book guidance that supports the notion that Druids, the Class, as a whole, are not paragons of balance, but actually take sides, as dictated by their Faith.

The most interesting thing about the game, and this thread, is that each Player can—and should—take their OOC view of how a Druid Class is RP’d into the game through their own Druid, and see how it goes down among others. Keep it IC. When the RP goes astray or crosses lines, that is when a DM(s) step in to offer further guidelines, specific to our sandbox.

[LivT]

I think the above is a clear Source Book guidance that supports the notion that Druids, the Class, as a whole, are not paragons of balance, but actually take sides, as dictated by their Faith.

I can see the point, though... the wording undervalues or undermines a Druids fundamental understanding of what the Balance / Cycle is. To say they take sides, implies that they would believe their god, their theory, is the ONLY right way forward. That might be true for some characters (arrogance is a common flaw) but still, druids, with their fat WIS numbers, should and would know better. Not that their god’s way is the right “side” to be on, but it... is what their personal role in the balance should be. Where on the scales they are meant to put their weight.

You don’t ask a tree to do a wolfs job, much less expect it to.

And there is another aspect to which rule we follow that should be taken into account. What does the player actually enjoy depicting? Do they like the more shaman concept of spirits also being a powerful and present force? Maybe like me they really do love the idea of Nature being a force of its own, a faceless power that isn’t so easy to explain as a simple God, but is part of the nature gods all the same. That you connect to this force through lifestyle, meditation

Cos reading all this... we don’t, and won’t have a consensus when so many sources say so many things. But, I am glad the full discussion is here, (not so much where it devolved), but that so many viewpoints could be shown, sources cited, etc). This way at least, when people make decisions about how their rp is directed, they are able to make informed ones, and know what to expect from other players.

[bharring]

An interesting part about the opposed-magic is that the druid themselves cannot be opposed to both axis (although their God can). You can oppose good/evil or law/chaos, but not both. A druid of Talos still cant cast a Lawful or Good spell even if they're NE or CN respectively.

This suggests that a druid's dogma can deviate from their God to a limited degree, but their power cannot.

[Diamore]

I haven't ever seen anything say that druids need to pray to gain spells. Or that they are expected to serve a god in word or deed.

Only that they receive their spells from a patron deity of nature or animals. Druids certainly can choose to pray for their spells, or choose to serve in a more priestly role, but there is no requirement for them to do so. Likewise, while it is bizarre to me that their class abilities are also granted by gods ("changing deities", FR Campaign Setting 3e) they do not lose their abilities unless they choose to abandon their god, cease to revere nature, change to a non-neutral alignment or teach the druidic language to a non-druid.

This is quite unlike clerics, indicating that they are not required by their patron deity to participate in the god's usual code of conduct as it is replaced by the druidic version.

Some priests are druids.
Not all druids are priests.


As an aside; the prohibition on not using ores, stones and forged metals is stupid from both a religious and philosophical standpoint around the lore of the gods, It only furthers the idea that druids are their own thing serving true Nature, sponsored in word alone by the deities. The druidic language only reinforces this idea.

[Hoihe]

I think the above is a clear Source Book guidance that supports the notion that Druids, the Class, as a whole, are not paragons of balance, but actually take sides, as dictated by their Faith.

I can see the point, though... the wording undervalues or undermines a Druids fundamental understanding of what the Balance / Cycle is. To say they take sides, implies that they would believe their god, their theory, is the ONLY right way forward. That might be true for some characters (arrogance is a common flaw) but still, druids, with their fat WIS numbers, should and would know better. Not that their god’s way is the right “side” to be on, but it... is what their personal role in the balance should be. Where on the scales they are meant to put their weight.

You don’t ask a tree to do a wolfs job, much less expect it to.

And there is another aspect to which rule we follow that should be taken into account. What does the player actually enjoy depicting? Do they like the more shaman concept of spirits also being a powerful and present force? Maybe like me they really do love the idea of Nature being a force of its own, a faceless power that isn’t so easy to explain as a simple God, but is part of the nature gods all the same. That you connect to this force through lifestyle, meditation

Cos reading all this... we don’t, and won’t have a consensus when so many sources say so many things. But, I am glad the full discussion is here, (not so much where it devolved), but that so many viewpoints could be shown, sources cited, etc). This way at least, when people make decisions about how their rp is directed, they are able to make informed ones, and know what to expect from other players.

If we stick to purely the Faerunian pantheon, perhaps the idea that "druids consider gods to each have a role" might be true.

However, if we expand it to include all listen nature deities, we soon find that multiple deities share the same portfolio.

Talos, Umberlee and Aerdrie share the portfolio of weather/storms. Therefore, a druid of Aerdrie can freely reject both Talos and Umberlee, and as indicated in Demihuman Deities and Code of Harpers, Aerdrie (and the rest of Angharradh) are actively working against keeping Talos and Umberlee from affecting lands where elves worship the Seldarine. Aerdrie accepts storms, destruction, forest fires. But she treats them as a way of rebirth, cycles. Whereas Talos just treats it as "Destruction is fun."

An even more glaring example is Solonor/Rillifane vs Malar. Solonor is a nature deity, although he doesn't have druids per sourcebooks (although he has on BG).
Solonor's portfolio is EXPLICITLY hunting. He teaches that one should not derive pleasure from hunting, and do it only to satisfy material and bodily needs. However, even in doing so, one must hunt in a way that strengthens the herd and not take more than is ABSOLUTELY necessary. Contrast with Malar who encourages hunting without reason, whose only limitations are to ensure there's more pleasure to be had by hunting.

A solonorite will actively oppose Malar. There exists no justification for a follower of the Seldarine to be friendly with a follower of the Furies, bar "biding my time to ensure safety of my own and that which I protect" (as derived by Solonor's and Vandria's dogmas). The furies are actively trying to destroy the Seldarine, and elves.

I'm unfamiliar with the halfling pantheon, but chances are they're similar in sharing portfolios with human gods, and fighting them for control over said portfolios actively. Usually, said control comes from who has more worshippers in the area (Code of Harpers, gathering fo the gods).



A very interesting tidbit from the Code of Harpers:

None of the priests were much used to working with others, and none liked to give in on
any matter without the direct guidance of their
deities, for fear of displeasing those they worshiped.

This was a gathering between clerics of ALLIED deities, with shared interests, who gathered due to strong external pressure, with a clear goal in mind (revert or prevent further spread of evil faiths). Even in this moment, they refused to work together until their gods manifested through them
(influx of evil faiths: With them they brought all the concerns and doings of men in the Old Empires
including the cruel faiths of evil gods, often
driven out of their warmer homelands by their
fearful neighbors. These included those who
worshipped Bane, Bhaal, Loviatar, and Myrkul,
and these decadent faiths joined the followers
of Malar, the Lord of the Hunt, in the ranks of
priesthoods that are violent in the North.)

[Deathgrowl]

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.

Just wanted to clarify that I did say "a lot of druids", and not "all". I didn't even say "most".

The so-called "balance" is a vague and difficult term to define, because it differes from perspective. From deity to deity, from group to group, from priest to priest. To some, it will be a balance between good and evil, and/or order and chaos. To others it's a balance between wilderness and domestication. To others yet, such as the Harpers (who do in fact have druids in their ranks!), balance is about beings living in harmony.

What Chauntea and her priests (I use the word "priest", because it does in fact encompass both the cleric and druid classes) view as a perfect balance will be a very different view than that of Talona and her priests, which include the blighters. In Forgotten Realms, you are in service to the god that grants you your divine powers, and their teachings guide your actions.

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.

The gods are strict. But I'm not suggesting every priest is an avatar of their god. There are good examples of sects within certain faiths that are in severe disagreements. That's especially true with the faiths of the True Neutral deities, who will have both good and evil aligned servants. Kossuth for instance, has fiercely devouted orders on both sides of that spectrum, that are engaged in violence with one another.

In Forgotten Realms, there is no wider/greater force for the druids to answer to, I'm afraid. I understand what you're trying to say, that nature is a force of its own that one has to answer to, but it's not really the case. Just so I'm not making myself misunderstood: A druid of Silvanus is indeed still likely to venerate Mielikki and Eldath as well. It's like with my priest of Mystra venerating Azuth. Or a priest of Ilmater venerating Tyr and Torm, yes even Tamara if they know of her existence.

In fact, here's the lore source for that:

Silvanus (Sihl-VANN-us) is the god of wild and untamed nature in Faerûn; he is of equal power to Chauntea, who represents a more ordered nature. The two are on good terms, although Silvanus takes pride in his true neutrality. He is served by Eldath and Mielikki, and many of the followers of one deity venerate the others as well. They work closely together and seem genuinely trusting and affectionate toward each other. Silvanus hates Talos and Talona, whom his priests refer to as the Unbalanced.”

And then just to indeed show that druids are indeed priests, from the same article about Silvanus, the next page, about his church:

Silvanus’s clergy are spread throughout Faerûn, favoring small communities over large cities, though there are several large communities of Silvanites in major cities such as Waterdeep. Druids are the leaders and backbone of the greenleaf priesthood and are most favored by Silvanus if they dwell in the forest and live in harmony with the land, where they are best able to be the stewards of Faerûn’s wild places. Urban clergy of Silvanus more often become gardeners, trying to create a walled corner of wild forest in the city (or guard and revitalize an existing miniature wood). They often seek to attract followers by preaching of the peace and purity of the wilds and dispensing herbs and sweetsap drinks (especially maple syrup, mint teas, and sweetroot brews).

I've underlined a part, but left the whole paragraph in so no context is lost.

I also want to say that Hoihe is wrong: Druids aren't "specialty priests". That's something entirely different. Druids are priests, like clerics, but with a somewhat different approach. Some druids are "specialty priests", however! But not all.

In fact, here's a snippet from Eldath's entry in Faiths and Avatars on similar topics as the previous quote, and also mentioning the "specialty priests" (peacemen/peacewomen):

Given the limitations and goals of the specialty priests of Eldath, it should not be surprising that there are not very many of them. Only some 10% of the priests of Eldath are specialty priests, called peacemen and peacewomen in the faith. The remainder of the followers are split between druids, clerics, a scant few mystics, and a relatively recently founded monastic order. Clerics, druids, mystics, and monks, while not as restricted as the specialty priests of Eldath, are encouraged to conduct themselves in a fitting fashion as put forth by their deity. It is a mark of skill among Eldathyn (especially adventurer-priests, known as "Freewalkers") to defeat foes with defensive spells, making an enemy defeat himself through misdirection and manipulation.

[Diamore]

And then just to indeed show that druids are indeed priests, from the same article about Silvanus, the next page, about his church:

This is not evidence that druids are "priests". This is evidence that some druids are "priests".

I feel too many are glossing this difference over.

Likewise the concept of balance. Unless I've missed/forgotten something, I haven't yet seen anything about druids being interested in the balance of alignments. Only the balance of nature/civilisation, the elements and a hatred of the unnatural. You know, things directly linked to their central tenet of revering nature.

[bharring]

And then just to indeed show that druids are indeed priests, from the same article about Silvanus, the next page, about his church:

This is not evidence that druids are "priests". This is evidence that some druids are "priests".

I feel too many are glossing this difference over.

Likewise the concept of balance. Unless I've missed/forgotten something, I haven't yet seen anything about druids being interested in the balance of alignments. Only the balance of nature/civilisation, the elements and a hatred of the unnatural. You know, things directly linked to their central tenet of revering nature.

Can this be summed up as "All absolutes are wrong!"?

More seriously, this post makes me think most of this thread is going off the rails by assuming the same set of ideology or rules applies to all druids in all cases.

As for where the balance of alignments comes from, in each source book, check out the bit about druid alignments. They cannot be LG/CG/LE/CE for a reason, and that reason is not their deity.

[Almarea90]

I am not by far an expert on druid RP but I thought I could give my two cents on the more generic aspects of the discussion.

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.

+1
I can't really see an Eldathian, druid or not, organizing an expedition to kill followers of the fury, especially if they are not acting hostile. I am not by far an expert on Eldath's dogma, but I would probably see one of her followers trying to convert a follower of the furies with dialogue rather than violence, even if the furies are listed under "foes" in a handbook. The fact that a god is listed under "foe" for another god this doesn't automatically equal violent reprisal.

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.

+1 again.
I think the point isn't whether or not a druid is a cleric, but that the druid is ultimately a human being. We can't expect them to constantly embody the will of the god and if everyone did, to be honest, it would kill all the uniqueness of a character. It's completely understandable and makes for great RP a character that does something that isn't part of his or her druid's duty or even that slightly conflicts with it, creating interior conflict. It is also unreasonable to think that a god would negate powers to a druid, or a cleric for that matter, just because they acted human and strayed from their duty as ultimately their followers are mortals.

I could go on and on and on but the point is every time i have seen a druid in character (with a few minor exceptions) Its always "LOOK AT ME IM A DRAGON AND I CAN STOMP EVERYTHING!" Or sitting around in a bar/pub like any other local adventurer.

An animal fur outfit or a few sticks and leaves do not make you a druid.

I don't doubt there are cases like that, although I usually assume if people stray from their canon dogma they do so for a legitimate reason. If a druid goes to a DM event to fight orcs because, for example, they injured his or her friend at the previous event, it makes perfect sense even if this is not part of their duty as a druid. His dogma would impose them to stay out of these things, but ultimately they might do otherwise because, as stated before, the druid is a mortal too.

I honestly lack the knowledge many people here have of the handbooks, but I believe the handbooks are just a guideline, they don't make the character. I can see in this thread various interpretations and various ways to play the druid and I think they are all valid, just as there are many ways to play a good aligned character. Someone might like to play a pacifist, someone else a more militant good character. Same goes for the druid: someone might be more adherent to the gods dogma, someone else might identify the gods as aspects of nature and be more oriented to preserve balance. Someone who plays a wiser and more experienced druid has an RP as valid as someone who plays a more impulsive one, who is likely still learning. The fact we have so many different archetypes of the same classes is one of the things I like the most on a PW and it makes things so much more believable.

[LivT]

Can this be summed up as "All absolutes are wrong!"?

More seriously, this post makes me think most of this thread is going off the rails by assuming the same set of ideology or rules applies to all druids in all cases.

Yeah, I'm with this. Started as a discussion about ways to play as a druid/help people figure out what a druid is, and now turned into a standoff about who's Lorebook is the most correct. Some posts have been trying to steer it back, MOST of the posts have been in the spirit of good discussion (not argument) and others are just

"My lore book says this"
"Well, my lore book says that"
"Yeah but my book says this"
"Well it's wrong, because my book says that"
"Well yours is wrong because my book says this"

I mean, I've been quoted in a post that had nothing to do with what I was being quoted on.

If deciding on the semantics of which lore book to depend on was the issue, we have a DM team to clarify that if it was important enough to warrant that action and policing. As far as I can tell, this was supposed to be a means of improving the quality of rp and simplifying the go-to information for most Druid players, that being the Complete Druids Handbook.

We have literal decades of evolving lore to wade through. I tried saying it in politer terms before; there's not going to be a consensus here and we don't need one. Player preference, character preference, character belief, is not something anyone else is going to be able to control. By all means, post the information; it's useful to have access to the myriad of it so we as players can make informed decisions about how to construct our characters and what may be expected of this particular class. It's helpful to hear out ideas and concepts from other players, because they help inform and evolve our own, and most of the people here have been trying to do that. Others, not so much.

But yeah, nah. I'm bowing out now. Have fun guys.

[Deathgrowl]

If my citations and comments of disagreement are interpreted as contributions to the discussion made in bad faith, or have otherwise come off as strawmen, I do apologise, for that is never my intention.

In all my years on BGTSCC, the setting-specific lore has always superseded core and supplement (especially where they contradict), so that is the reason behind my approach to this as well.

I too will bow out, then, with my participation unwelcome.

[[DM] Grinning Death]

And I'll bow in.

All druids should aim for, and eventually be able to combine shapeshifting:



Kidding, kidding.

Clearly there are a variety of interpretations of what it means to be a druid. While I can only speak for myself on this particular topic, I personally believe that as long as your roleplay can be backed up in some fashion by the lore, it will never be 'wrong.' People should feel free to interpret the lore as they want if there are conflicting opinions within it (as WoTC is practically unable to make everything fit seamlessly together at this point in D&D's history), provided it is reasonable and with the approval of the DM team.