1 or 2e adnd.. Druids and NON straight TN?

[garhkal]

In their roles as protector of good, rangers tend to focus their efforts against some particular creature, usually one that marauds their homeland.

Also from the ranger write up!

[GenghisDon]

both 1.5e & 2.5e opened up the NG ranger/druid combo

I think one would do well to borrow from d20 & allow them (druids) to be any neutral (LN, NG, N, NE, CN)

[garhkal]

Which 2e source opened up the NG druid/ranger combo?

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

JadedDM wrote:

You can define rangers as 'protectors of good' if you want, but as far as I'm concerned, they are just nature-oriented warriors and don't require any particular code of ethics or honor. There is nothing intrinsically 'good' about them. They don't receive their powers from a deity, like paladins, but from nature itself. So following your own logic, shouldn't all rangers also be TN?

They're intrinsically "good" because of the archetype. They are not just "nature oriented warriors". Their role consists of being protectors of humans (and other good beings) from the dangers (and evils) of the wilderness.

As for druids, I don't see any reason they can't be good or evil, lawful or chaotic. Limiting them to TN only is incredibly restricting on what they can be.

Because being of any extreme alignment (or any alignment at all) would mean by definition that they are not neutral and therefore cannot be concerned with maintaining the balance of the natural world. A "good" druid would be open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes and flies so that fewer children (and adults) die of malaria and other diseases spread by the pests. It's a "good" thing to save the lives of babies and other humans. But doing so would upset the balance, i.e. it could lead to overpopulation. Nature designed flies and mosquitoes to spread disease so that only the strong survive. It's just part of the big picture. Only by being truly neutral can a druid see this and maintain the balance without conflicting his alignment.

In a situation where a druid is faced with the prospect of killing off all the orcs on a particular continent or in a particular country, the druid will not do so. There has to be good to balance evil.

Aligned druids cannot maintain the "balance" of nature because they would be biased one way or another.

A lawful druid is one who uses their power to help civilization become more eco-friendly. They help in growing crops, replenishing forests after they are harvested and so forth. ("Man and nature must learn to coexist.")

A chaotic druid is one that fights against encroaching civilization. One that drives people away so nature can grow free or helps nature reclaim areas that were once 'civilized' by man. ("Man cannot tame nature and shouldn't try.")

A good druid would help others, teach them to live in harmony of nature. They would use herbs and plants to create helpful medicines and salves. They would help guide lost travelers through the wilderness. ("All life is precious, even plants and animals.")

An evil druid would hurt others, teach them to fear nature and avoid it. They would use herbs and plants to create deadly poisons and toxins. They would slaughter anyone who trespassed. ("Mankind are parasites, a plague against nature.")

In which case you would need an equal number of each alignment of druid to maintain balance. Too many good druids and suddenly dragons and orcs are being exterminated for being "evil". Too many evil druids and civilization would never be able to enter a forest for fear of a horrible death.

Nature, by its very ...well, nature...is true neutral. It is concerned only with natural cycles and the interplay of life, death, rebirth. It cannot be limited or restricted by alignments. And if nature is totally neutral (a good being, an evil being, and a neutral being will all equally freeze to death in a blizzard or die in a tornado - nature does not pick and choose), then those who worship nature must comply with its alignment, which means druids must be true neutral.So the very idea of a "good" or "evil" druid is nonsensical and does not fit the archetype. It makes no sense.

A neutral druid? Boring. A neutral druid just lives in the wild. They'd just want to be left alone. They wouldn't care about anything else. Why would a TN druid go adventuring? Why would they help a party clear out an old tomb of undead, fight pirates on the high seas, or explore mysterious ruins that once belonged to an ancient civilization? Why would a TN druid ever leave their sacred grove in the first place? The only way to make a TN druid viable would be for the DM to craft all of the party's adventures around nature and protecting it. No wonder it's so rare anyone ever plays one.

They're never boring. They would be delighted to clear out an old tomb of undead, because undead are anathema to the druid. Undead are abominations that are not part of the life cycle of birth, growth, and death. They exist outside the laws of nature, neither alive nor dead. Druids, being worshipers of the cycles of life, would loathe and despise anything undead as undead would literally be a walking insult to their religion. Undead are the ultimate personification of rebellion against nature. They are the most un-natural beings possible.

Druids could easily be motivated to fight pirates if the pirates were disrupting the balance of things, i.e. making it harder for others to sail the seas and go about their business. Pirates being chaotic and/or evil would be tolerated to some degree, but eventually would need to be dealt with. Some piracy is to be expected and even allowed. But too much piracy would turn the seas into an unbalanced situation in which evil is dominating the seas.

Exploring ancient ruins would be fun for a druid. There's nothing saying that druids are not curious or do not want to pursue knowledge. Perhaps the druid worries there may be wretched undead in the ruins. That alone would motivate him to wipe it out. Perhaps he wants to learn more about whoever used to inhabit the area. Maybe he's heard legends of ancient civilizations who influenced how the area was settled, or who had legendary powers over nature and could grow massive fruits and vegetables, or perhaps the druid is simply looking for treasure so that he can afford a nice new gold sickle or scythes for his followers. There's all sorts of motivations for druids.

They leave their grove to explore the world, travel through wilderness, discover and catalog new species of plants and animals, learn how to work with those plants and animals, clear the land of undead, explore new areas and spread the faith, etc. Only lack of imagination could make druids "boring".

So that's why I removed the restrictions. Because it was either that, or just leave druids more or less unplayable (or be forced to make the entire campaign nature-oriented the moment one joins the party). I suspect this is why the alignment restrictions on druids were more or less removed in 3E and as far as I know, were never reinstated in 4E or 5E.

Strange, none of my players over the course of many decades have ever found druids unplayable. In fact, they were a pretty popular character class. They also lead to interesting inter-party conflict (in a good way)...

For example, the local king sends the party off looking for the orcs who've been stealing sheep and killing villagers. The CG/LG/NG characters only care about killing the orcs and making the place safe for humans and others. Orcs are bad, and they'll only start killing again if allowed to breed. The LN or CN characters may only care about getting paid. If a genocide of the orcs gets them paid, why not? Those damned orcs are so ugly and smelly anyway! Evil characters on the team may secretly help the orcs. Saving the lives of some of them may pay off well in the future when the favor needs repayment. Like maybe bumping off another party member so the thief can get a bigger share of gold.

Now the druid will go along with killing off some of the orcs - but being true neutral, he understands that the presence of orcs makes the forest dangerous for humans. So that acts as a buffer against the humans cutting down the entire forest to plant crops. Some forestry is ok, but wholesale elimination of the forest is unacceptable. So the druid may help kill off a band of orcs so that the humans in the village aren't wiped out, but he won't want to eliminate all the orcs because the "balance" of nature needs the orcs and other dangers to protect the forest from excessive human intrusion. Too many orcs and the human villagers and kingdom may be wiped out. Too few orcs and the kingdom may grow too quickly and too large and crowd out the forest. It's all about balance.

[JadedDM]

They are not just "nature oriented warriors".

Sure they are. Nothing about rangers suggest otherwise. Can they smite evil? Lay on hands? Turn undead? No? They don't share any similar abilities to paladins at all, who are protectors of men and goodness? Well, what can a ranger do? Track? Have animal companions? Cast druidic spells? What exactly does any of that have to do with protecting men?

I realize the ranger class was originally based on Strider, AKA Aragorn, but I feel they have long since grown beyond that role. They can be protectors of good in your games, but in mine, they are just nature-oriented warriors. *shrug*

A "good" druid would be open to the idea of eliminating mosquitoes and flies so that fewer children (and adults) die of malaria and other diseases spread by the pests. It's a "good" thing to save the lives of babies and other humans.

That seems like a very black-and-white view of morality to me. A Good druid would help people avoid sickness from mosquitoes (teach them to put netting up around their homes for instance), not wipe out an entire species.

There has to be good to balance evil.

I disagree. Good and Evil are not to be 'balanced' and that doesn't even make sense. Are you suggesting a TN person would go around killing and raping if there was too much Good in the world? That's not even a real thing. Nobody actually thinks like that in the real world.

And that's really my whole problem with the idea of druids being TN only, and why I think TN isn't really viable for PCs. Because in my own view, TN just means you want to survive. TN does not mean trying to 'balance' Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, because that's not really a thing. Name a single nation, group, or individual in the real world, past or present, who subscribes to such a belief system. They don't exist. When we call Switzerland 'neutral' we mean they stay out of conflicts when they can. In WWII, the Swiss didn't join the Nazis when they started losing, to maintain the 'balance' between the Axis and Allies.

To be TN means you don't care about the world or the people in it. You don't care about politics, morality, or what's going on outside your own little bubble. A TN druid would just stay in their grove all day, never leaving unless something was threatening it or themselves. They wouldn't go on adventures, unless there was a direct connection to their own survival somehow.

[garhkal]

Sure they are. Nothing about rangers suggest otherwise. Can they smite evil? Lay on hands? Turn undead? No? They don't share any similar abilities to paladins at all, who are protectors of men and goodness? Well, what can a ranger do? Track? Have animal companions? druidic spells? What exactly does any of that have to do with protecting men?

How's about answer the quote i gave you from the PHB which specifically states they are good..

[GenghisDon]

Which 2e source opened up the NG druid/ranger combo?

the black cover players handbook
players option: spells & magic

I call them 2.5e as shorthand. The 2e PH doesn't have them, the later version 2e PH does.

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

JadedDM wrote:

Sure they are. Nothing about rangers suggest otherwise. Can they smite evil? Lay on hands? Turn undead? No? They don't share any similar abilities to paladins at all, who are protectors of men and goodness? Well, what can a ranger do? Track? Have animal companions? Cast druidic spells? What exactly does any of that have to do with protecting men?

You're clearly ignorant of the archetype and where it came from. Do the research. Here's a start - the ranger is based on Aragorn from LOTR. Your argument doesn't even make sense. A good aligned fighter cannot smite evil, lay on hands, turn undead, etc. Alignment doesn't confer powers, class does.

I realize the ranger class was originally based on Strider, AKA Aragorn, but I feel they have long since grown beyond that role. They can be protectors of good in your games, but in mine, they are just nature-oriented warriors. *shrug*

If you understand that, you should understand the ranger class then, yet you ask what they have to do with protecting men. What's the problem?

That seems like a very black-and-white view of morality to me. A Good druid would help people avoid sickness from mosquitoes (teach them to put netting up around their homes for instance), not wipe out an entire species.

You can't have a good druid because druids worship nature and nature is true neutral. What you're suggesting is akin to saying that an evil cleric should be able to gain spells from a good god.

I disagree. Good and Evil are not to be 'balanced' and that doesn't even make sense. Are you suggesting a TN person would go around killing and raping if there was too much Good in the world? That's not even a real thing. Nobody actually thinks like that in the real world.

No, but they see the big picture. I explained it very well, I think, in my example of the orcs in the forest vs. the kingdom of humans.

And that's really my whole problem with the idea of druids being TN only, and why I think TN isn't really viable for PCs. Because in my own view, TN just means you want to survive.

Well I would hope that characters of every alignment want to survive. Unless they're suicidal, why would any character not want to survive?

TN does not mean trying to 'balance' Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, because that's not really a thing. Name a single nation, group, or individual in the real world, past or present, who subscribes to such a belief system. They don't exist. When we call Switzerland 'neutral' we mean they stay out of conflicts when they can. In WWII, the Swiss didn't join the Nazis when they started losing, to maintain the 'balance' between the Axis and Allies.

You clearly don't understand druids or the AD&D alignment system. Druids understand that there is an inherent balance in the world. Evil serves a purpose. Orcs, for example, are very evil. Extincting them, along with evil goblins and kobolds and what not would unbalance the world. Aside from my example of the evil orcs serving as a buffer against excessive human expansion into the forest (the same example can be made using a dragon, etc), let's say the druid allows or participates in genocide against several evil races. Well, those evil creatures serve as a rally point for the good races. While elves, humans and dwarves have to ally themselves to fight kobolds and orcs and what not, eliminating the common evil will lead to conflict between the good races - there is nothing for them to cooperate against. That sorta thing.

To be TN means you don't care about the world or the people in it. You don't care about politics, morality, or what's going on outside your own little bubble. A TN druid would just stay in their grove all day, never leaving unless something was threatening it or themselves. They wouldn't go on adventures, unless there was a direct connection to their own survival somehow.

That's not true. You're making up your own rules here. True neutral does not mean you don't care about the world. Try reading the alignment rules on pg. 33 of the PHB. You clearly don't understand A&D.

[TristenC]

Which 2e source opened up the NG druid/ranger combo?

the black cover players handbook
players option: spells & magic

I call them 2.5e as shorthand. The 2e PH doesn't have them, the later version 2e PH does.

Nice find. A second source.

Forgotten Realms Faiths and Avatars
Specialty prieat if Meilikki are allowed to be druid/rangers and specifically listed as NG. Kerap plays one in my Ravenloft game on the gaming forums on this site.

As an aside, I allow any neutral for druids with respect to the law (being protectors of nature their neutrality is to the law of man, but can go about protecting it any way). For rangers I usually allow any good or neutral. I don't typically allow evil characters, thus avoiding the evil ranger anyway.