Neutral Evil Druids in (druidic) society

[kamikasei]

I'm working on a concept for my home game, where druids in the setting have a major political role as, essentially, arbitrators for the various cities and nations - deciding who gets to farm this land, allocating rights over that river or mountain or forest, etc. I figure they're a natural mediator between "civilized" and "savage" races, given the latter's bias toward divine casters, and that given the right political climate the advantage of having resource conflicts resolved bloodlessly outweighs the inconvenience of having your expansion hobbled by treaties.

My issue is working out the factions and forces among the druids. I'm assuming there's roughly equal numbers of each alignment. Neutral Good druids are easy: do what's best for everyone, while protecting Nature. Lawful Neutral, put together an intricate system of rules and regulations, treaties and threats, to keep nature from being exploited. Chaotic Neutral, championing the wilderness and arguing against expansion, always in favour of smaller settlements and more ad-hoc arrangments. The True Neutral druids I suppose would be all about Nature itself, balancing these factors; the Archdruid is probably True Neutral, if not NG or LN.

But what about the Neutral Evil druids? What position do they take re: civilization vs. nature when the Great Conclave comes around? Burn the cities and force the civilized races back to a state of nature? Would personally self-interested individuals even be druids? Would ideologically anti-human (or however you would best characterize them) druids even have a place at council with other alignments?

It's particularly pressing for me because one player wants a CN druid, so I have to have a good idea of what separates a CN from a NE (trust me, with this player it'll be an issue).

What do you guys think?

[kpenguin]

An NE druid commits atrocities in the name of nature. While any druid will lead an army to defend a natural area, an evil druid will lead an army in peace time and go on raids destroying cities and farmland. An evil druid will seek to destroy anything they consider "unnatural" and will be willing to do the darkest of deeds.

[goat]

I'd agree that chaotic neutral would be opposed to expansion of farms and cities that impose "order" on the surrounding countryside, unless it's necessary for the survival of the community in question. They'd probably actively encourage interbreeding of races too.

Neutral evil on the other hand could be played as an over exaggeration of a Darwinist. They want the fittest species to survive, whatever that species may be. Perhaps they encourage conflict between species, urge wildlife to retaliate against sentient species encroaching on their land, travel around awakening dangerous animals because they think of them as "superior" to the races around them.

[Lavidor]

Another, more passive option is create a "perfect" (for them) haven of nature, and kill everything that threatens the druid Ahem hem; nature.

[tainsouvra]

Neutral evil on the other hand could be played as an over exaggeration of a Darwinist. They want the fittest species to survive, whatever that species may be. Perhaps they encourage conflict between species, urge wildlife to retaliate against sentient species encroaching on their land, travel around awakening dangerous animals because they think of them as "superior" to the races around them.

That's a good approach. A NE Druid would emphasize the destructive and competitive aspects of nature. "Nature has no pity for those too weak to fight for survival."

[Tormsskull]

Hmm, good question.

I'd say a Neutral Evil druid could be done in several ways. Perhaps the druid is very vengeful, wanting to seek injury and destruction upon people who wish to destroy nature.

Perhaps the druid isn't really concerned about protecting nature, but instead using it and its powers to further the druid's own power.

Would either type of druid seek to be on a council? Sure. Council represents power, becoming a voting member or leader on the council would mean more power for the druid, and power is a goal for most evil characters.

As far as differentiating CN from NE druids:

I would think CN druids would value their freedom, and would be less likely to want to have an official council. If there was some kind of wide-spread problem, a CN druid would probably prefer an informal meeting of druids to discuss options. They wouldn't want binding rules or policies that the council uses though.

A NE druid would prefer more rules/policies if they favor the druid's position. If the council was made up of mostly NG druids, a NE druid would probably preach for a non-binding council, or if a binding-type council already exisits, constantly complain about the pressure/edicts that the council hands down, and always try to show them in the most negative of light.

If the council was made up of mostly NE druids, then a NE druid would probably prefer rules/policies because that would place more power in the druid's hands.

Good luck with this.

[The_Werebear]

I agree with the superdarwinistic view. They would probably be least likely to want to settle things peacefully. If required to make a peaceful treaty by Druidic Bonds, they might do things like have a champion from each side fight each other, and give the winning side the far better deal. Also, if someone breaks a treaty or does something they are banned from doing to nature, they would raze the problem to the ground first and then negotiate a rebuke.

[Wehrkind]

Well, given the assumption that Evil=Selfish and unconcerned for others, you have a few ways to go.

I always figured NE druids made the most sense, as Nature is pretty definitely ruled by survival of the fittest, and as such the fates of beings not yours (eg. not you, your young or your species) are up for grabs. The wolf doesn't care if the doe just had young she needs to protect, she only cares that she is hungry or not. She might eat the young too. She also would protect her territory from other wolves not of her pack, no matter how hungry they might be, or how abundant food. To hell with those wolves, her young and her family need hunting land.
As such, as NE druid would be representing the side of nature we humans see as harsh. The hawk that swoops down and snatches up the duckling for it's dinner, the cougar that chases rivals away from it's territory, the wolves that prey on the sick and the weak.

Now, how that fits in a heirarchy (or not.)

Generally, I would figure not. I would guess most NE druids are seperate from society, finding the morals of civilization unpleasant. Perhaps leading packs of wolves to raid shepperds' herds. Chasing hunters or forresters, no matter how respectful of the land, from their territory. Perhaps hunting local villages to "cull the herd" and keep numbers down, reducing the "damage they do to nature."

Those that do join would do so in interest of bettering their existance, or for power. Simple power is always appealing. The druid likes being able to dictate terms and broker agreements between other powerful parties, and perhaps reap some benefits for himself. The important part is that "fair," "equitable" or "just" need not enter into the equation. Whoever pays him more or furthers his agenda (less forrestry/hunting, annoying rival druids, spiting someone) are reasons enough.

[kamikasei]

An NE druid commits atrocities in the name of nature. While any druid will lead an army to defend a natural area, an evil druid will lead an army in peace time and go on raids destroying cities and farmland. An evil druid will seek to destroy anything they consider "unnatural" and will be willing to do the darkest of deeds.

Sounds like your vote would be "evil druids don't get to play with the others"?

Neutral evil on the other hand could be played as an over exaggeration of a Darwinist. They want the fittest species to survive, whatever that species may be. Perhaps they encourage conflict between species, urge wildlife to retaliate against sentient species encroaching on their land, travel around awakening dangerous animals because they think of them as "superior" to the races around them.

That sounds like a good idea, actually. Where most evil characters don't value sentient life, evil druids don't differentiate between sentient and animal life, so human settlements are to be shepherded or left untended to just the extent any other animal population is - and culled if they become pests...

That works very well, because it introduces a faction that is happy for humans to prosper at the expense of wildlife if they "earn" it; civilized rulers might have an interest in promoting their arguments so they get license to raze that forest or exterminate this orc tribe; and among the druids there would be plenty of tasks where being "nice" is totally unnecessary.

I always figured NE druids made the most sense, as Nature is pretty definitely ruled by survival of the fittest, and as such the fates of beings not yours (eg. not you, your young or your species) are up for grabs. The wolf doesn't care if the doe just had young she needs to protect, she only cares that she is hungry or not. She might eat the young too. She also would protect her territory from other wolves not of her pack, no matter how hungry they might be, or how abundant food. To hell with those wolves, her young and her family need hunting land.

I don't know how accurate this is - my understanding is that most inter- and intra-species relationships are at least somewhat restrained, because e.g. wolves who eat all the deer, young and all, in an area will starve the next year when the local deer are exterminated; the cost to a wolf of fighting off all other wolves outweighs the benefit of having exclusive access to more prey than you can hunt, etc.

Those that do join would do so in interest of bettering their existance, or for power. Simple power is always appealing. The druid likes being able to dictate terms and broker agreements between other powerful parties, and perhaps reap some benefits for himself. The important part is that "fair," "equitable" or "just" need not enter into the equation. Whoever pays him more or furthers his agenda (less forrestry/hunting, annoying rival druids, spiting someone) are reasons enough.

I have to wonder in that instance why such a person would be a druid in the first place; it hardly seems a quick and easy route to power (vs, say, worshiping an evil god if you have the same basic aptitudes). On the other hand, non-mainstream NE druids with a chip on their shoulder, or who value some particular piece of land or group of animals before all else, make sense...

[nagora]

Evil is the harming of life. As such a NE Druid is a nonsense.

[kamikasei]

Evil is the harming of life. As such a NE Druid is a nonsense.

Keith Baker would probably disagree.

[goat]

After a bit of a think, I'm going to end up arguing against myself (yet again).

The problem with the Darwinist idea is that it's a bit... lawful.

Perhaps a neutral evil druid would be almost the same as a true neutral druid, only with less concern for the beings they watch over. Instead of keeping "balance" in a populated region by encouraging people to move to new areas or farm their current land more intensively, they just torch their crops so that a lot of the people starve. They stop the rise of one species through slaughter rather than management, or strengthen the rise of another through power rather than encouragement.

They'd not be concerned with the morals of how things are kept in balance, as long as they are.

[tainsouvra]

Evil is the harming of life. As such a NE Druid is a nonsense.

Other than the fact that it makes perfect sense to many of us and is permitted by the rules, you mean?

[nagora]

After a bit of a think, I'm going to end up arguing against myself (yet again).

The problem with the Darwinist idea is that it's a bit... lawful.

Perhaps a neutral evil druid would be almost the same as a true neutral druid, only with less concern for the beings they watch over. Instead of keeping "balance" in a populated region by encouraging people to move to new areas or farm their current land more intensively, they just torch their crops so that a lot of the people starve. They stop the rise of one species through slaughter rather than management, or strengthen the rise of another through power rather than encouragement.

They'd not be concerned with the morals of how things are kept in balance, as long as they are.

The problem is that Evil (note capital letter) is not "not concerned with the morals" - in D&D terms Evil is specifically defined as a moral position, so it's like saying that someone is described as tall without meaning to imply anything about their height.

True Neutral really is the only logical alignment for druids, but I can at least get my head around the possibility of L, G, and C as well as the neutrals, but an Evil druid is simply insane as far as I can see. Which might be a route to take, I suppose.

[tainsouvra]

The problem with the Darwinist idea is that it's a bit... lawful.

It doesn't strike me as lawful at all, in fact if it weren't species-wide I'd think it was pretty chaotic on the alignment scale...unrestrained competition based on personal goals doesn't strike me as very lawful, alignment-wise, even if it's a "law of nature".

[nagora]

Other than the fact that it makes perfect sense to many of us and is permitted by the rules, you mean?

A priest of nature who enjoys "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" as the rules say is a flat out logical contradiction.

DMs can always overrule bad rule design.

[tainsouvra]

A priest of nature who enjoys "hurting, oppressing, and killing others" as the rules say is a flat out logical contradiction.

Nature hurts, oppresses, and kills individuals--even whole species--on a daily basis. I don't know where you're getting your ideas, but if you think nature is kind or gentle, they're too idealistic.

[kamikasei]

The problem is that Evil (note capital letter) is not "not concerned with the morals" - in D&D terms Evil is specifically defined as a moral position, so it's like saying that someone is described as tall without meaning to imply anything about their height.

From the SRD: "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient." Certainly you can take that as a moral position, but not in the sense of "I must hurt, oppress and kill wherever I can".

True Neutral really is the only logical alignment for druids, but I can at least get my head around the possibility of L, G, and C as well as the neutrals, but an Evil druid is simply insane as far as I can see. Which might be a route to take, I suppose.

"Insane" is very strong; could you explain in more detail what your reasoning is?

[nagora]

Nature hurts, oppresses, and kills individuals--even whole species--on a daily basis. I don't know where you're getting your ideas, but if you think nature is kind or gentle, they're too idealistic.

Evil is a specific choice - unconscious or not - to hurt and harm when it is not needed; nature rarely does that (wolverines-I'm looking at you!). Good is the opposite: heal and nurture beyond the minimum. This too rarely happens in nature but is at least not going out of one's way to destroy. Neutrality on the moral axis is the obvious behaviour of the natural world - killing as needed, growing as needed.

An imbalance in Law/Chaos is one thing, but Nature that destroys more than it creates is on the rocky road to extinction, and I feel happy in assuming druids are not keen on extinction.

[tainsouvra]

Evil is a specific choice - unconscious or not - to hurt and harm when it is not needed; nature rarely does that (wolverines-I'm looking at you!).

Look at the effects of nature in the long term, though. You're looking at specific animals in specific situations, but that's missing the forest for the trees, if you'll pardon the pun. Nature regularly causes individuals unfit to live to suffer then die, and species that no longer match their environment must flee, adapt, or face a slow and painful extinction. That's hurting, oppressing, and killing based on a standard that has absolutely zero compassion for those crushed under its heel--nature as a whole encompasses elements of both good and evil, and it's simply not defensible to ignore the cold truth of personal or species extinction.

Nature isn't evil, but evil is a part of nature every bit as much as good.

[kamikasei]

Evil is a specific choice - unconscious or not - to hurt and harm when it is not needed; nature rarely does that (wolverines-I'm looking at you!). Good is the opposite: heal and nurture beyond the minimum. This too rarely happens in nature but is at least not going out of one's way to destroy. Neutrality on the moral axis is the obvious behaviour of the natural world - killing as needed, growing as needed.

An imbalance in Law/Chaos is one thing, but Nature that destroys more than it creates is on the rocky road to extinction, and I feel happy in assuming druids are not keen on extinction.

Good/Evil values sentient life above animal or other. Thus a druid who simply doesn't care about killing people who are threatening some natural thing in his care is evil. He doesn't have to spend his days burning down every forest he comes across because it'd be eeeeeeeeeevil.

[nagora]

From the SRD: "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient." Certainly you can take that as a moral position, but not in the sense of "I must hurt, oppress and kill wherever I can".

Firstly, someone who kills because it was convenient is taking a moral course which is the opposite of Good. If Evil is not a meaningless word then it implies enjoyment of the killing. As the rules say, some actively pursue it, while others engage in casual brutality when it suits them. Either way they are taking a stand against the natural world which is inherently creative. Such destruction as there is is part of the system, part of the balance. There is more evil in pulling the wings off flies than there is in a hurricane.

"Insane" is very strong; could you explain in more detail what your reasoning is?

A druid who favours destruction over creation is ultimately leading, however distantly, towards a desolation where everything is dead or at least where the quality of life is very low indeed. Such a destination for one who is supposed to be protecting nature is madness.

[nagora]

Good/Evil values sentient life above animal or other. Thus a druid who simply doesn't care about killing people who are threatening some natural thing in his care is evil. He doesn't have to spend his days burning down every forest he comes across because it'd be eeeeeeeeeevil.

"Doesn't care" is not in this equasion - the neutral does not care about killing to protect their charge. The evil one prefers to. To prefer killing living things is not a normal state of mind for a druid.

[tainsouvra]

Either way they are taking a stand against the natural world which is inherently creative.

It is not inherently creative--it is exactly as creative as it is destructive. The system fails if too much of either side takes root, which means that nature must be just as evil as it is good.

A druid who favours destruction over creation is ultimately leading, however distantly, towards a desolation where everything is dead or at least where the quality of life is very low indeed. Such a destination for one who is supposed to be protecting nature is madness.

It need not be total destruction, however, as several posters who explained the neutral-evil druid have explained. The survival of the strong at the expense of the weak is his goal, not wanton devastation.

[nagora]

Look at the effects of nature in the long term, though. You're looking at specific animals in specific situations, but that's missing the forest for the trees, if you'll pardon the pun. Nature regularly causes individuals unfit to live to suffer then die, and species that no longer match their environment must flee, adapt, or face a slow and painful extinction.

But the suffering is not the end-goal, which it is for evil. Nature's suffering is neutral - the overall goal of growth is served by creation or destruction with no bias; whichever one serves at the time. That's neutrality.

Nature isn't evil, but evil is a part of nature every bit as much as good.

Yes, which is why a druid should be neutral as regards methods - the end justifies the means. Since the ultimate goal of nature is to create (specifically, more nature) a good druid is less strange than an evil one.

[tainsouvra]

But the suffering is not the end-goal, which it is for evil. Nature's suffering is neutral - the overall goal of growth is served by creation or destruction with no bias; whichever one serves at the time. That's neutrality.

When all is considered, nature is neutral, no question. It is, however, neutral by a balance of both good and evil. Nature includes evil, and those revering nature can do the same. As long as some aspect of neutrality remains, individuals may vary in their goals, just as with nature itself.

Yes, which is why a druid should be neutral as regards methods - the end justifies the means. Since the ultimate goal of nature is to create (specifically, more nature) a good druid is less strange than an evil one.

What makes you believe the goal of nature is to create, rather than simply to continue? You're getting into philosophy here that D&D does not include.

[nagora]

It is not inherently creative--it is exactly as creative as it is destructive.

No it's not. Nature colonises all the time. You can't do that without excess creation. Volcanic erruptions, overgrown ruins, bloody rabbits are all examples of nature creating more quickly when the oppertunity arises. Normally, of course, there is no new land to colonise and things find an equilibrium, but that goes out the window as soon as there's a Mt St Helen's or whatever. The bare rock will have moss on it before the day is out.

The system fails if too much of either side takes root, which means that nature must be just as evil as it is good. It need not be total destruction, however, as several posters who explained the neutral-evil druid have explained. The survival of the strong at the expense of the weak is his goal, not wanton devastation.

That's more of a LN/LE argument, IMO. Society or the group is strengthened by constant testing of individuals within it.

[Rasumichin]

Blatantly ignoring the impending alignment discussion, here's another take on NE druids :

Some of them could be speciecists, seeking to improve the position of, say, orcs, goblinoids or gnolls (or whatever- probably humans?) while discriminating members of other races.

Generally, i'd consider NE druids to be an extremist minority and, given extremists' tendencies towards forming quarreling splinter groups, would combine this concept with the radical darwinist and ecofundamentalist groups, probably making one of those factions originate from another.

As far as their general acceptance is concerned, i'd say that they would be extremely unpopular among people outside of their own clientele, but if negotiating is still a better option than fighting (as seems to be the case in your setting), they might grudgingly try to sit it out.

Expect strained diplomatic relations and the scheming and backstabbing every political RPG campaign needs so badly.

[hewhosaysfish]

Some people are arguing from definitions of Good/Neutral/Evil which are largely out of sync with my interpretations:


The consensus seems to be:
Good - I don't want to cause harm.
Neutral - I will cause harm if I have reason to.
Evil - I will kill everything even if I don't have to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even if it harms me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

What I see (in my PHB) is more along the lines of:
Good - I want to help people and not to harm them.
Neutral - I do not want to help people but will not harm them either.
Evil - I will harm people if I wish.


People are saying that, under this consensus definition of Evil then Neutral Evil druids make no sense. They are correct. the consensus definition of Neutral Evil is what is commonly known as Stupid Evil and makes no sense for any class/race/character (except perhaps for the most irredeemably insane demon).
Evil does not have to prefer killing (although some Evil can). Evil does not have to kill when there is no need (although some Evil will).
When everything is gravy, Evil does not necessarily go on a brutal rampage simply because it hasn't murdered anybody in the last ten minutes. But it may go on one if it doesn't get what it wants.

[Fixer]

Neutral Evil Druids would care more about the hunting and killing aspects of nature. No nuturing, no healing (not even animals), no growing. They are purely interested in culling the weak so that the strongest may survive. They leave the wounded to die. Only nature on nature would be left alone in an Evil druid's eyes.

Anything NOT natural that hunted, hurt, or damaged nature would feel the self-righteous wrath of the Evil Druid. A farmer who cut down a tree for firewood? Dead. The farmer didn't need to cut down the tree and most certainly had other ways of staying warm that didn't require harming nature. Hunting deer? For food, sure. Survival of the fittest. For sport or hide? DEAD. BIG TIME DEAD. Such a blasphemy against the natural order can only be satisfied with the death of the offender and their skin being displayed to others of their kind as a warning against future transgressions.

Evil druids can be done quite easily. :)