|
Druids
Sept 17, 2004 21:02:07 GMT -5
Post by Scott on Sept 17, 2004 21:02:07 GMT -5
How do you fit druids into your game cosmology? It seems that originally druids did not worship ‘gods’, they worshipped, and drew their power from, the forces of nature. Later, druids became more cleric-like, and worshipped gods of nature. I prefer the earlier interpretation. It justifies the need for a separate class. If they are just clerics of nature gods, why a separate spell progression system, a separate experience point table, their own language, etc? Many of the gods that are supposed to have druid followers aren’t neutral. I don’t have a problem with giving clerics of nature gods access to druid spells, but they should still follow the cleric rules in all other respects. Scott
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Druids
Sept 17, 2004 21:27:49 GMT -5
Post by GT on Sept 17, 2004 21:27:49 GMT -5
Well, I agree Scott... But essentially, Beory is Oerth; at least in terms of nature. There is also Olidamarra, but even here we see deitific force specifically oriented towards nature. Of course, at Hierophant levels Druids in fact work from Neutrality on a cosmological scale. Perhaps this is the true calling of the Druid in 1E AD&D, and the beginnings in the natural realms of Oerth are only the "initiation rites", as it were.
|
|
|
Druids
Sept 17, 2004 21:44:01 GMT -5
Post by skaguest on Sept 17, 2004 21:44:01 GMT -5
I too think druids are different from clerics in that they are empowered by nature itself. "Mother Nature" takes on the actual meaning here.
|
|
|
Druids
Sept 17, 2004 22:05:57 GMT -5
Post by Scott on Sept 17, 2004 22:05:57 GMT -5
Well, I agree Scott... But essentially, Beory is Oerth; at least in terms of nature. There is also Olidamarra, but even here we see deitific force specifically oriented towards nature. Of course, at Hierophant levels Druids in fact work from Neutrality on a cosmological scale. Perhaps this is the true calling of the Druid in 1E AD&D, and the beginnings in the natural realms of Oerth are only the "initiation rites", as it were. And there's Obad-Hai too. Reynard, from WG6, is listed as a druid of Obad-Hai. Scott
|
|
|
Druids
Sept 18, 2004 4:09:15 GMT -5
Post by JRMapes on Sept 18, 2004 4:09:15 GMT -5
How do you fit druids into your game cosmology? It seems that originally druids did not worship ‘gods’, they worshipped, and drew their power from, the forces of nature. This is the way we have always did it. It never made sense to have a " Druid of SOnSO". Either you were a Druid or you were a "Cleric of SOnSO".
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Druids
Sept 18, 2004 12:44:49 GMT -5
Post by GT on Sept 18, 2004 12:44:49 GMT -5
Ah, yes... I totally skipped over Obad-hai! Long day yesterday. At any rate, Druids aren't just "tree-huggers"; they are agents of Neutrality in one of the truest forms. They look at the interaction of all about them--the "Big Picture", if you will. This does impart them with perhaps a bit more responsibility than that of other clerics (which is mostly service to their deity).
|
|
|
Druids
Oct 12, 2004 21:04:02 GMT -5
Post by DragonFire on Oct 12, 2004 21:04:02 GMT -5
I too think druids are different from clerics in that they are empowered by nature itself. "Mother Nature" takes on the actual meaning here. This is how we view druids as well. We do allow them to be any neutral alignment, an influence of the particular "ethos" of the forest they reside in (i.e. evil/good).
|
|
|
Druids
Oct 12, 2004 22:39:08 GMT -5
Post by Scott on Oct 12, 2004 22:39:08 GMT -5
Hey DragonFire, welcome to Doomsday. I've been considering the pros and cons of allowing some movement within the Neutarl alignment restriction, especially after reading Dark Druids, but so far I've kept the true neutral restriction. Scott
|
|
|
Druids
Oct 12, 2004 23:16:07 GMT -5
Post by DragonFire on Oct 12, 2004 23:16:07 GMT -5
Thanks for the welcome Scott. We originally allowed any alignment (but that lasted a short time), then we did any neutral, but Lawful and Chaotic just didn't seem to fit with our "nature" view of druids. So, we allow Neutral Good, Neutral Evil and true Neutral only now. It has worked very well, allowing a bit more flexibility.
Plus, I had been wanting to go with an "evil" forest scenario with an "evil" Druid. I have a section of our world called "Dimlore Forest" and most of the inhabitants are of neutral or evil intent. We'll see how it goes the next time the players get along that way.
|
|
|
Druids
Oct 12, 2004 23:23:38 GMT -5
Post by GT on Oct 12, 2004 23:23:38 GMT -5
And remember: the Dark Druids were a corruption, rendered by outside forces as it were. I personally would make any non-Neutral Druid a rare exception to the rule...
|
|
|
Druids
Oct 12, 2004 23:37:17 GMT -5
Post by Scott on Oct 12, 2004 23:37:17 GMT -5
And remember: the Dark Druids were a corruption, rendered by outside forces as it were. I personally would make any non-Neutral Druid a rare exception to the rule... They may be known as Dark Druids, but I treat them more like clerics in my game. Scott
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Druids
Oct 12, 2004 23:44:18 GMT -5
Post by GT on Oct 12, 2004 23:44:18 GMT -5
In a manner of speaking, once they accepted their decidedly warped methods, they lost their "true" Druid-ship as it were, and were clerics of their respective deities (who were definitely not true neutral) with " Druid-like" powers! So, I agree!
|
|
dcas
Warlock
Duke of Pennsylvania, Knight Commander
Posts: 481
|
Druids
Oct 13, 2004 8:29:27 GMT -5
Post by dcas on Oct 13, 2004 8:29:27 GMT -5
There's another work by Mayfair Games under their "Role-aids" line called "Shadows of Evil" about a cult of evil "black" druids. They are Chaotic Evil. I haven't read it in quite a while but I think the idea itself is very interesting. I liked Rob's "Dark Druids," too, but I felt that he didn't do enough to exploit the cult. I don't want to let loose any spoilers here, but people who have read or played the module should know what I mean.
|
|
foster1941
Warlock
Duke of California, Earl of Los Angeles, Knight Bachelor
Posts: 475
|
Druids
Oct 13, 2004 11:40:30 GMT -5
Post by foster1941 on Oct 13, 2004 11:40:30 GMT -5
In my own house-rules I allow half-elf and halfling druids to be neutral good (and half-elf ranger/druids are required to be NG) but limit them to no more than 6th level (true neutral half-elf druids still have unlimited advancement). Human and wild elf druids are limited to True Neutral only. I don't allow other elf races to be druids since IMO elves are too "intrinsically good" (though elf clerics, especially wood elves, likely have some druid-like spells in their repertoire). RJK's Dark Druids exist in my campaign-world (at least theoretically) but I agree with the others that they're no longer "true" druids and have become evil clerics with some druid-like spells and abilities.
|
|
Falconer
Enchanter
Knight Bachelor
AD&D, Middle-earth, Star Trek TOS
Posts: 330
|
Druids
Oct 14, 2004 2:54:31 GMT -5
Post by Falconer on Oct 14, 2004 2:54:31 GMT -5
To me the justification for having a separate class just boils down to--is it a distinct archetype? The Good Cleric is all about holiness. He's the zealous Christian crusader-priest banishing evil with holy water and a prayer in Latin. The Evil Cleric is the worshipper of Satan or a fallen Pagan deity. He is all about unholiness: forbidden rituals and virgins' blood and blasphemy in nameless tongues. They work directly opposite each other in a compatible framework.
The Druid is not just neutral to all that, he's completely concerned with something different. The gods of the Sea and Darkness are no more evil to him than the gods of the Heavens and Light. All his lore and wisdom is concerned with nature--the magic of the great trees and such. Though they might, indeed, care to defend nature from its defilers, that's not really the point. They come from cultures where nature is supreme, untamed and untameable by Man, and the Druids are those wise in its ways.
It doesn't matter to me whether Nature is personified to them. Beory is Mother Earth, but she's only vaguely personified. I have the Druids choose to be a disciple of either Obad-Hai or Ehlonna (usually deciding to match the gender of the PC). But while they follow the discipline of that cult, they are not directly worshipping those gods.
Incidentally, Monks were originally called a Cleric sub-class, and I still consider them such even though their technical abilities widely differ. They are still a subset of the same archetype, but different enough to merit a separate class writeup. Regards.
|
|
|
Druids
Oct 14, 2004 7:59:35 GMT -5
Post by DragonFire on Oct 14, 2004 7:59:35 GMT -5
We never liked the monks as a rogue/thief "sub-class" either. We changed it to a cleric sub-class, but then added a new primary class "Martials" when we added the ninja and martial-artist to our campaign. Martials started as a Warrior/Fighter sub-class, but didn't quite fit there either, thus making it a primary all to itself. While I have seen alot of monks as druid "protectors" (and quite a good idea), our monks are more the oriental flavor, but not quite the prayer kind. Ours concentrate more on the study of the mind and body than of the spiritual beings.
|
|
dcas
Warlock
Duke of Pennsylvania, Knight Commander
Posts: 481
|
Druids
Oct 14, 2004 8:11:22 GMT -5
Post by dcas on Oct 14, 2004 8:11:22 GMT -5
Incidentally, Monks were originally called a Cleric sub-class, and I still consider them such even though their technical abilities widely differ. They are still a subset of the same archetype, but different enough to merit a separate class writeup. Regards. I agree. In a mediaeval European context -- and, let's face it, most xD&D campaigns fall into that mold -- the monk is certainly a clerical-type class. I don't really view the monk as Oriental in nature at all.
|
|
|
Druids
Oct 14, 2004 11:07:38 GMT -5
Post by Lord Cias on Oct 14, 2004 11:07:38 GMT -5
Well, monks in D&D are not brown-robed, Friar Tuck style Catholic monks. They are supposed to be Shaolin kung-fu monks.
I like the way AD&D made them a completely independant class and not a sub-class.
|
|
|
Druids
Oct 14, 2004 16:01:18 GMT -5
Post by Scott on Oct 14, 2004 16:01:18 GMT -5
Well, monks in D&D are not brown-robed, Friar Tuck style Catholic monks. They are supposed to be Shaolin kung-fu monks. I don't know about that. Those original Temple of the Frog monks didn't strike me as the shaolin kung fu types. Scott
|
|
Falconer
Enchanter
Knight Bachelor
AD&D, Middle-earth, Star Trek TOS
Posts: 330
|
Druids
Oct 14, 2004 18:49:12 GMT -5
Post by Falconer on Oct 14, 2004 18:49:12 GMT -5
Friar Tuck does not embody the archetype for the Western Monk. He's a comic character, the very humor of which is that his behavior is the exact opposite of how a priest-monk is supposed to behave.
The Western Monk is all about discipline, of mind and body. Hence the "rule" of each monastery or order. Hence constant prayer and fasting. Through prayer, they sought to achieve great mental and spiritual power, and meditative peace. This is nothing the Orient had a monopoly on, as the modern world is now rediscovering (note the resurgence of Gregorian Chant and what-not).
Why do you think Oriental monks are called by the same word "monk" in our language? Same archetype. Robes, shaved pates, mastery of mind and body, reclusiveness. The differences are not fundamental, they are essentially cosmetic and cultural. In any case, it signifies a religious discipline.
True, the Orient cultivated martial arts more than the West, but even in the Orient they are not actually militant. As for the West, see the lives of the saints, or chivalric romances with their myriad hermits for examples of their prowess (at least, archetypally). And history has its orders of warrior-monks, etc.
In any case, exact history is less important than popular image in song and story, as other classes show us. And that's okay. I'm not denying that the class adequately portrays Oriental Monks, just calling attention to some aspects of Western Monks. Regards.
|
|