Animal alignment in AD&D

[Axe Mental]

In the druid's animal friendship spell description, it is said that druids can only charm nuetral animals. This suggest that there are good and evil animals as well, yet I have never seen any depicted in the MM or in a module. Do you know of such a thing?

Also, did EGG ever present a druid as a challange to a group in any of his modules. It's almost like druids are basically good (not doing evil acts to balance those acts of good they perform) with a nuetral outlook and way of living that allows them to understand nature (which is nuetral unlike the world of men who do things for other reasons then simple survival). For instance I could see a druid killing off a group of orcs that it finds in its forest without question, however, I don't see them killing off a group of good humans (say some paladins passing through). This inbalance would make one think the druid to be NG in the world of humans and true Nuetral in the world of nature (the two being somewhat seperate when you consider what good and evil really are). Druids are also friends with rangers and treants, suggesting a closer connection to good, socially anyway.

[Scott]

If you see the druid killing off a group of orcs witout question, then you are not seeing the alignment, or the druid correctly, and just because they both prefer the forest doesn't mean the druid is any closer to a ranger than he would be to an evil fighter.
Scott

[Axe Mental]

Scotty, thanks for the reply.
I suppose thats true on both counts. Still I am not aware of a druid presented as an enemy in a module, which seems a bit odd if they would befriend evil as much as good (yet there are plenty of examples of PCs having to go up against nuetrals of other classes).

On my second point:

What situations would animal friendship not work (an evil wolf in an evil forest, or was EGG thinking of specific normal animals that are always of evil alignment like a Worg) ?

Thanks again.

[Merkholz]

I'm not sure if I remember correctly but don't dolphins have a good alignment (in part)? And crows/ravens don't they have an evil bent?

Druids are more likely to come into conflict with orcs than humans simply because orcs are more likely to threaten the forest/nature.

Dark druids by Kuntz have druids as the enemy even though they aren't of the standard type. The rivalry between Terjon and Jaroo in T1 could also lead to conflict.

M

[Scott]

Worgs and giant rats are evil too I think.

Yes, orcs are more likely to pillage and despoil wherever they go, so it would be more common for the druid to be in conflict with them, but it would be for that reason, not just because they were evil orcs. The druid would be just as likely to work with a band of evil orcs to drive out a band of good foresters who were cutting down to much of the forest because their kingdom needed wood.
Scott

[dcas]

Axe said:

In the druid's animal friendship spell description, it is said that druids can only charm nuetral animals. This suggest that there are good and evil animals as well, yet I have never seen any depicted in the MM or in a module. Do you know of such a thing?

Blink dogs are good; displacer beasts are evil.

[skaguest]

DCS--blink dogs and displacer beasts are not animals, they are monsters.

It is much more likely a druid would encounter trouble from orcs, but ScottyG is correct in that druids would work with evil if nature would benefit.

I understand where Axe is coming from though. In TOEE there is a druid acting to help stop the temple.

In the Gord novels Greenleaf sure seems like a "good" druid (at least he is never shown doing anythign even remotely helping evil)

[GT]

Isn't there a black squirrel that tends towrds evil? There may be others as well... A wolf, hawk, or shark are no more evil than a rabbit, dove or minnow--they all just do what they do; truly neutral or non-aligned. But there could be creatures that are influenced by evil forces (or good), and so are immune to the regular druid's influence. Maybe something like the changed critters in Rob's "Dark Druids". Animals, but turned to evil ways by perverse magic! ^__^

[Scott]

Guest-skaguest said:

DCS--blink dogs and displacer beasts are not animals, they are monsters.

It is much more likely a druid would encounter trouble from orcs, but ScottyG is correct in that druids would work with evil if nature would benefit.

I understand where Axe is coming from though. In TOEE there is a druid acting to help stop the temple.

In the Gord novels Greenleaf sure seems like a "good" druid (at least he is never shown doing anythign even remotely helping evil)

Curly wasn't a druid though; he was a druid/ranger, and their alignment must be neutral good.
Scott

[Falconer]

Guest-skaguest said:

DCS--blink dogs and displacer beasts are not animals, they are monsters.

Well, I think that's EGG's point--i.e. Animal Friendship only affects actual Animals, not Monsters. It's a fine line, but True Neutrality is one defining factor in True Animals (though the inverse is not necessarily true).

As for the Hommlet/ToEE campaign, as I played it most of the PCs were themselves followers of either St. Cuthbert or the Old Faith. The party leader (caller) is himself a Druid, and Jaroo revealed the poem to him. The PCs were thus partially agents of the Druids, and thus to have Druids opposing them would not have made sense. The modules seem to encourage this, and I always encouraged it by making the NPC clerics and druids MUCH more helpful (and inexpensive) to followers of their faiths, which seems natural enouh.

Guest-skaguest said:

In the Gord novels Greenleaf sure seems like a "good" druid (at least he is never shown doing anythign even remotely helping evil)

Scotty is correct that Greenleaf IS good. However, Gord and Gellor and Chert are neutral, and early in the series do as much evil as good (they later end up fighting Iuz and Nerull because the release of Tharizdun would upset the Balance). That they never fight against Druids is because they often follow Greenleaf and thus are themselves agents of or at least sympathetic with the Druids. Regards.

[Axe Mental]

What I was referring to in the Gord novels was a short bit about druids being agents acting against the forces of evil (while it doesn't mention them working for the forces of evil. I think it may have been in one of the over-views, can't remember...I haven't read the Gord books in many years. In the Tolkien books (The Hobbit or Fellowship) wasn't there a druid type guy who hated evil?

Yeah, Gord was pretty visious in the Gord books. I remember him cutting guards throats left and right, most of which were probably just normal guys and not evil.

I think Scotty is right in that a druid would just as likely help a group of orcs as he would a group of humans depending on the situation. Still, I can't imagine a scenario were a druid would go out of there way to rob a party passing through the woods, just for the hell of it. This can't be said for any of the other nuetral classes, esp. thieves. In the description of druids in teh PH it seems to suggest that when the chips are down a druid would run and get revenge later rather then die in battle with his group. Perhaps thats a sign of how they are nuetral.

Scotty, if druids are nuetral and would befriend evils equally to goods why don't we see druids in evil NPC group encounterss fighting PCs. EGG could have done this but didn't, as if hanging out with evil just wouldn't be there style (perhaps working with, but not nec. hanging). Perhaps he didn't want situations were druids were fighting druids (NPC druid vs PC druid) as was mentioned above.

Would a druid even fight another druid (for that matter would a CN cleric fight another CN cleric of the same religion if both were on different sides PCs exploring a dungeon vs evil NPCs living in the dungeon)?

With druids, I can't imagine they would since one defeating the other would be a blow to the forces of nature. Esp. if it was simply to kill a group for treasure. Or are druids not such ziolots, and more like nuetral rangers/huntsmen type guys with cool spells; and one druid fighting another druid for gold would be like two eagles fighting over the same dead deer and one druid killing the other would be a nuetral survival of the fitest act.

Perhaps druids are more like monks in that having a personal life style of nuetral is more important then any outward desire to make the world nuetral. (a LG Monk vs. Paladin) balancing act between good vs evil (not being too close to one then the other). In other words, I think its more important that a druid be a true nuetral so that he can be part of that "law of the jungle" (a cat torturing and then eating a bird isn't bad its just natural ie nuetral) thing. As for who he associates with, I think EGG was thinking more that druids would hang with good or nuetral monsters not evil (Lamias, harpies, bugbears, manticores) theyed end up lunch.

[Scott]

Neutral doesn't mean you are compelled to go out and rob people. The good/evil axis reflects your respect for the life and liberty of creatures, and the law/chaos axis reflecys your balance between the group and the individual.
Yes. Druids fight each other. They need to do it to advance levels, and the fights can be lethel. Other than that though, the druids' agenda would be the same. You wouldn't have one druid fighting for the good side, and one fighting for the evil side. Both druids would either ignore the whole thing, or assist the side they felt helped their agenda the most.
There were a lot of things EGG never detailed. He didn't write that many adventures.
Scott

[Axeguest]

Scotty: "Druids fight each other. They need to do it to advance levels"

Man, I totally forgot about that. For some reason this is the least played character at our table.

[GT]

View Druid battles as lions battling for dominance... I think the guy Axe is thinking about in the Hobbit was Bjorn (?) the werebear... or maybe the Brown Wizard from the Silly-marillion(don't recall his name... ).My opinion of Neutrals is that they foster relationships based on past experience more than alignment. ^__^

[dcas]

Guest-GT said:

View Druid battles as lions battling for dominance... I think the guy Axe is thinking about in the Hobbit was Bjorn (?) the werebear... or maybe the Brown Wizard from the Silly-marillion(don't recall his name... ).My opinion of Neutrals is that they foster relationships based on past experience more than alignment. ^__^

You should stick to what you know -- like Merritt and Howard, perhaps? Beorn was the character to whom you're referring, although I'm not certain I would call him a "druid-type" character.

The wizard you're thinking of was Radagast the Brown and he was something of a druid-type, friendly with animals and birds and living in the forest. But he was also "a worthy Wizard, master of shapes and changes of hue."

[Scott]

He may be referring to Tom Bombadil too, but neither were AD&D druids.
Scott

[dcas]

Scott said:

He may be referring to Tom Bombadil too, but neither were AD&D druids.

Yes, Bombadil even had power over the Undead.

[Axe Mental]

Scott: "He may be referring to Tom Bombadil too, but neither were AD&D druids".

Didn't EGG base his druids and rangers on Tolkein a bit.

I don't like the goal oriented save the forest theme presented by many DMs. This seems to come right from LOTR Soroman sending the orcs out to cut down the trees. I always got the impression that there was plenty of forest and wilderness in the AD&D world with humanity always on the brink of disappearing battleing evil, were the giant class races using forests and swamps as places to hide. Wasn't there supposed to be a balance in AD&D were there isn't a shortage of wild places?

[GT]

Yes--those are exactly the two to which I was referring! Thanx, dcs! ^__^

[GT]

Wasn't that "Tim Benzedrine"? "O, God... o, god... o, god..." ^__^