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

[garhkal]

Brought out of a point raised elsewhere..

Someone suggested that he has seen as a common HR, that druids be allowed to be either NG or TN, not just straight TN alignment, as
A) it opens up more multi-classed options to them (mainly the range/druid) and
B) Tn sucks to rp...

So who here does allow their druids to be anything other than straight TN??

[JadedDM]

I actually allow Druids to be any alignment. Except nobody ever plays them in my games anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

[garhkal]

May i ask what your reasoning was for Expanding the class to enable any alignment to become a druid??

[JadedDM]

I guess I just didn't see any point to keeping it at True Neutral only. I did the same with bards, too.

[garhkal]

So with the removal of one of their bigger restrictions/balances, did you tone them down any?

[JadedDM]

Nope. I don't see how an alignment restriction in any way affects the balance of the game. I hardly think a Chaotic Good Druid is going to break the game somehow.

[garhkal]

Does that apply to LE rangers, CN Paladins and the like as well?

[Cole]

Brought out of a point raised elsewhere..

Someone suggested that he has seen as a common HR, that druids be allowed to be either NG or TN, not just straight TN alignment, as
A) it opens up more multi-classed options to them (mainly the range/druid) and
B) Tn sucks to rp...

So who here does allow their druids to be anything other than straight TN??

I use the DM Tendency options. In my past campaigns Druids had to be TN, but could write on their sheet "TN (E)" which is True Neutral with Evil tendencies.

but like JadedDM, nobody ever plays a druid, I've only had 2 ever, in 30+ years of DMing, in multiple campaign worlds over multiple cities and players who have played at my table.

So again, like Jaded pointed out, I would probably remove the alignment restriction now completely as it has no bearing on the class at all... and since you asked Jaded and didn't get a reply yet. No that's not even close to a Paladin being left open, but I do allow all alignments for Rangers (FOR DAM CERTAIN!) that's the dumbest alignment restriction in AD&D.

[garhkal]

Since most of what makes a ranger, a defender of humanity (thus their giant bonuses) is based on their being good, how else would they want to be defenders if they are evil??

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

I never allowed druids to be anything other than TN for several reasons.

First, it was something unique about the class. They were the only TN characters.
Second, it made them interesting - they adventured for reasons other than to defeat evil or promote good, and it made the players get creative with motivation
Third, I thought it fit their design as wardens of nature and balance, that they needed to be TN in order to see the interplay of all things (good and bad)
Fourth, it added to inter-party conflict (in a good way) and often helped balance out fights between the more extreme alignments.

So only TN druids in my campaigns. Always.

[JadedDM]

Does that apply to LE rangers, CN Paladins and the like as well?

Paladins are a different story, since their whole concept is them defending the virtues of Law and Good.

As for rangers...I haven't really thought about it. I have a ranger in one of my games right now who is basically Chaotic Neutral (he wrote NG on his character sheet, but he hasn't acted like it in a long time, if ever). So I guess I don't mind.

[garhkal]

So i take it you also don't concern yourself with intelligent aligned weapons, magical items specific to alignments, spells specific to alignments etc, if alignment is simply ignored..

[JadedDM]

Umm...no. I never said I ignored alignment. I actually keep pretty close track of it in my games. I just said I don't see the point of stating that all rangers must be good or all druids must be neutral. It's a pointless restriction that serves no purpose that I can see.

[garhkal]

But yet you see the LG for paladins being key? THIS is what i am not understanding.

Druids are protectors of nature. NATURE is neutral. Neither caring if you live or die. If you starve or eat. If you are human or monster. So it makes sense they would also be Neutral.
Rangers are protectors of humanity, so by that virtue, they are good..

[JadedDM]

"The ranger is a hunter and a woodsman, who lives by not only his sword, but also his wits." - 2E AD&D PHB

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?

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.

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.")

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.

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.