Neutral Evil Druids in (druidic) society

[Koji]

Olbigatory:



Now that that's over with--the DMG (or was it the PHB) mentions that some druids represent the predatory aspect of nature. While a predator in and of itself is not evil, a human who choses to prey on other humans certainly is.

I can easily see a druid who killed a human while wild shaped and basically became a man eater. Evil doesn't have to imply craziness, but it certainly can in this case.

You should also note that having equal numbers of good, evil, and neutral people is really over the top. Most people are neutral because they simply don't have what it takes to really be evil, or put their lives on the line to do good work.

Evil druids might also be evil people who happen to be druids. An evil character who is seeking to revive a long-dead evil deity is someone whose goals are not defined by his class. Make him a druid and give him some friends who are in the business, and you've suddenly got evil druids.

[The_Werebear]

Here is an example of an evil druid

Evil Druid and Evil Druid

[kamikasei]

Here is an example of an evil druid

To clarify, I'm not really after examples of specific individual evil druids. I'm thinking about how evil druids fit in to larger druidic society.

[nagora]

And you're now assuming that humans are not a part of nature as well,

Actually, that's exactly the error I think you're making.

Anyway, as I said, there's no point discussing this further but perhaps it's given some ideas about the sort of debates non-evil druids would have about their evil counterparts.

[nagora]

But that is OK. Is he NE, yes...but he thinks himself NG and that is the key to character motivation, fluff, and three dimensionalism.

Absolutely, I'm just saying that he'll still set of Detect Evil and wonder why.

To me, a really well writen villain should be indistinguishable from a paladin: self-righteous, determined, passionate, and out of touch with the every day citizen sporting a thick Holy-er-Than-Thou (or simple Better-Than-Thou) demeaner.

Herman Goering at the war-crime trial after WWII is a classic of this. The American prosecuter really struggled with his ability to justify his actions in terms of what he thought was Good. But he certainly was utterly Evil

[SadisticFishing]

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

Nope, they'd lose all their powers.

Hrm, Neutral Evil druid would probably be Darwinist, as said earlier, letting the weak die and favoring the strong. They would also want the Druid Enclave (or wtv) to gain power, and be willing to do more underhanded things to get it. They'd probably be the people who punished those who broke nature's law, whether or not they're supposed to - to them, life is not as important as the way nature's supposed to go.

[MrNexx]

There's always the option of "kill all the people so nature can flourish." Humans may be a part of nature, but a druid might decide that nature would be better off without it.

[tainsouvra]

Actually, that's exactly the error I think you're making.

Exactly how can saying that the destruction caused by the human element in nature is a part of destruction caused by nature even remotely suggest that I believe that humans are not a part of nature? Are you being tongue-in-cheek here, or are you seriously trying to make those statements equivalent?

[The_Werebear]

To clarify, I'm not really after examples of specific individual evil druids. I'm thinking about how evil druids fit in to larger druidic society.

What he is doing though, in that example, is a possible idea for outlooks. Read, specifically "Tear down this concrete abomination" and "But now who's advancing the cause of environmental preservation"

[Benejeseret]

Within an Enclave:

I see the NE, as said earlier, as wanting power. He wants to empower nature, sure, but believe himself to be the rightful channel for that power.

He will likely try constantly to become the archdruid through not through a "limited" might makes right mentality, but a true Darwin approach of the survivor makes right mentality. Intimidation, disease, underhandedness and all else. Likely despises the david-suzuki-knockoff/lets-be-good-environmentalist sissies.

He will likely try to subvert the PC's into helping overthrow the local archdruid or even the whole enclave that he sees as too weak willed to enact the changes necessary to save the forest etc. And if the PC's do not help....then a Contagion upon your house and a dire bear at your heels.

An evil enclave would likely be an offshoot of Nurgle's Plague Marines from 40k. Spreading virus and contagion amongst settlements and cities. More ranger-like enclaves might sponsor hunts, or being more like eco-terrorist Greenpeace openly attacking hunters/miners/loggers.....and of course transmutationalist wizards (the genetic engineers of DnD).

Now that I said it....ya.....Greenpeace or A.L.F. The extremists in Greenpeace, or more recently Animal liberation front etc, are likely good examples of NE. They think their right, and if you get in their way they will firebomb your house, family, and casualties be damned. They are not totally chaotic either as they gravitate together is such organizations.

Many Greenpeace organizations are fine, semi-responsible 'enclaves' content with asking others to respect the environment and leading by example. But every few years a NE nut gets the others in the group under his control and someone gets hurt.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yes. Either a casual preference or a committed pursuit. The logical end point of this for a druid is the destruction of, well, everything. The logical end point of a bias for Good is overpopulation. Neither is really a desirable thing for a druid, but when disaster strikes the latter at least encourages recovery and is slightly more defensible in that sense. But only slightly.

When viewing druid alignments vs the balance of nature, I don't think you can take either of these views seperately. Good and evil druids both exist within nature together, and in the long run the sum of their actions will probably balance out. Just as nature allows for some areas to be bountiful while others are devastated, some places will feel the affects of an evil druid for a time while others will be affected by good. Even a blighted land will one day heal, just as an evil druid will one day be replaced by a good one. Nature does not have to balance in the immediate sense, but does so in the long term.

Remember, Evil isn't "selfish". It's Evil. "Look out for number one" is a Neutral attitude. Evil looks out for number one while crushing number two.

Sig'd!

[TheLogman]

Maybe the Evil Druid is the one that "Reveres Nature", but only the destructive parts. Evil Druid does not care for the creation of new life, only the destruction of what is not him. When he kills Nature, he simply states: "The things that were destroyed were too weak" That way, he can kill whole forests, as long as he can justify it, and he can still revere the destructiveness of it all.

[JackShandy]

Neutral Evil druids might be the enforcers, sent to bring terror and death when the council deems it needed, and always pushing for it. This would make them allies of the LN faction when agreements had been broken, or allies of the CN faction if some part of civilization had grown too powerful and stifling.

[puppyavenger]

my ideas

NG Two nations are going to war over a valley of valuable land, As this will cause unthinkable amounts of death, As such any atempt possible should be made to stop the fighting
N A long as they do not employ burned earth tatics or cause any unseemly damage to the land, they should be allowed to fight out there squabble, we will moniter and punish reasonibly (ie death for death) any damage to the wilderlands and aid the other side subtly so as to not raise undo agression.
LN they have a peice agreement so attemtps should be made at peice, if that fails then the agreements shaall be enforced through destabilazation of supply lines.
CN They hould be alowed to fight out the folly, sentenils should wander around the disputed area, fending off any attempt to destroy the woodlands and retaliating if a trend develops
NE The armie are not allowed to march, armies by their very nature harm the eviroment, as such acts of terrisim and sabotoge to prevent the aarmy marching.

[Wolfwood2]

I tend to have a pretty loose interpretation of "revere nature". It's possible to revere nature while at the same time considering yourself its master. After all, you're a druid with all these spiffy powers. Doesn't that place you at the top of the food chain? Doesn't that mean that things should get out of your way or get eaten?

Animals are neutral not because of their behavior but because they lack the capacity to make moral choices in the first place. If an intelligent being were to act like an animal, taking whatever they wanted and dominating any who opposed them, they would be evil.

Anyway, I think the thing to remember is that evil druids are people first and druids second. What is an evil druid's place in society? It's right there alongside other druids. An evil druid and a good druid might have the exact same goals, disagreeing only on methodology.

[Serenity]

I've got a sudden image of a NE druid dealing with poachers and sport hunters by subjecting them to a 'Most Dangerous Game' scenario...

[Porthos]

I think some people are getting far too wrapped up in the Druid = Hippy Protector of the Forest meme. There are plenty of examples of Real Life "Evil Defenders of the Forest" out there for you to draw inspiration from.

Since I can't go really in depth into examples here due to board policies, I would simple suggest that you look at how the Environmental Movement thinks about "radical fringe" groups. I'm sure all of the names are familiar to us, and if they're not, I can easily supply the groups via PM. Look at how the more "respectable" Environmental Groups deal with these groups. Look at what they say, and don't say about them. Look at how they talk about their philosophies and their methods.

Then extrapolate that behavior to a situation where there is far less worry about the Law. How would these types of groups function in such a Nature Based Society. Would they thrive? Would they (no pun intended) find a ecological niche to inhabit? And would they find sympathizers for their cause (the old, "I don't agree with their methods, but...")?

So don't focus on the MWAWHAHAHA I'M SO EVIL trope, and instead focus on the "extreme times call for extreme measures" trope. Focus on what people have done throughout history when they feel that they have "no choice" but to do something. Sadly, history is not short on examples of people doing Evil Things in the Name of a Good Cause.

-----------

ETA::: The above example is, of course, just one type of NE Druid. Just as there are many different types of LG Paladin, so to are there many different types of NE Druid. Consider the famous phrase "Nature, red in tooth and claw". Think of what type of Druid would embrace that philosophy. What would he be like in the Druidic Society. Or perhaps you could turn your attention to the seminal The Lord of the Flies for inspiration. The whole, "There Are No Laws In The Jungle" idea.

If you are looking for specific niches, perhaps the NE Druids gravitate toward the Shocktooper/Stormtrooper parts of society. They're the ones who will go out and cause Wanton Destruction in the Name of Nature (i.e. buring villages, conducting raides on cities). The Stormtrooper NE Druid could be the Hardest Baddest Meanest weapons that the Druidic Council use against their enemies. Or perhaps they are the "fixers". I.e. the people who go into an area and "solve the situation with extreme prejudice". The "fixers" aren't concerned with the niceties of society, but Just Getting the Job Done.

After all, many socieites have seen the need for the Assassain/"Fixer" Type, even if they don't admit it pubically. Why would a Driudic Society be any different?

As noted by many people above, there is of course the Social Darwinist Druid, who would certainly be NE. Then there is the Defiler Type, which is more of the BWAWAHA I'M SO EVIL archetype. But they tend to be shunned in most societies, so that probably won't work here.

Heck, of you want a really out there look at a NE Druidic Society, look no further than The Others in Lost. In fact, that might even be a good example of NE Druids That are in the Process of Losing Their Ideals.

When it comes right down to it the common thread between most NE Druids is that they don't care if someone/something gets hurt in the pursuit of their goals. In fact, some might even really enjoy the suffering of others.

[Jakezor]

I think a -great- NE druid would be one that seems good.
He could be the Xenophobic type, say, against, Orcs.

Orcs are Evil, they destroy nature, yada yada.
In all his dealings, he could encourage persons to war with the Orcs, always favor anyone else over the Orcs in any disputes that arrise, and constantly "Strip" land away from them...

The Important thing is to make sure that the Druid is profiting from everything he does, and enjoys causing harm to the Orcs, otherwise he'll be too "Good"

Perhaps he's a member of another monsterous humanoid race... say, a Gnoll, or better yet, a Kobald. From each area Orcs are killed out of, the Kobalds/Gnolls/Whatevers move in.

Xenocide is evil after all, heck, the Druid could take it beyond Orcs, maybe to everything that "has green skin and fangs".

If nothing else, I'd be interesting satire on the "Average" PC party, not to mention an easy adventure hook: Mr Druid wants party X to clear out some Orcs who have been violating the forrest yada yada. I'm always a fan of using the PCs as pawns of a greater evil, especially when they're fufilling cliche plot lines.

[Turcano]

I think some people are getting far too wrapped up in the Druid = Hippy Protector of the Forest meme.

That's what I'm talking about. In fact, I'd be willing to go so far as too say that only a culture that has become as disconnected from nature as ours could think of such a view as plausible. I mean, look at indigenous cultures; they're about as far from the hippie ethos as possible. I mean, how many vegan, rabbit-hugging Native American cultures do you know of?

[puppyavenger]

Since I can't go really in depth into examples here due to board policies, I would simple suggest that you look at how the Environmental Movement thinks about "radical fringe" groups. I'm sure all of the names are familiar to us, and if they're not, I can easily supply the groups via PM. Look at how the more "respectable" Environmental Groups deal with these groups. Look at what they say, and don't say about them. Look at how they talk about their philosophies and their methods.

I'll take the PM.

[Tower]

That's what I'm talking about. In fact, I'd be willing to go so far as too say that only a culture that has become as disconnected from nature as ours could think of such a view as plausible. I mean, look at indigenous cultures; they're about as far from the hippie ethos as possible. I mean, how many vegan, rabbit-hugging Native American cultures do you know of?

I agree, the Aborigines in Australia set fire to forests so as to thin out the bush for hunting.

That avatar of your is awesome incidentally

I can see some NE druids like the really militant PETA / Animal Activists.
Like those guys that dug up and stole a corpses of a person related to a worker or owner of a farm that breeds rats and animals for laboratories.

[Koji]

Neutral evil people often tend to see themselves as threatened by the rest of the world (like the Drow), and go over the edge trying to protect themselves. Evil people are by nature selfish, so killing all humans in order to protect the forest is certainly evil, but it's not very convincing.

How about a group that believes that their way of life is being threatened by civilized society? Yes, they care about the environment, but what drives them to evil is that they also care about themselves. Something may have happened in their past that gives them the proper motivation to hurt others.

Maybe they were part of a religion or organization that came into conflict with a nation (or even another druid sect) and were nearly wiped out. The survivors were witness to terrible atrocities and what basically amounts to an attempt at genocide.

Evil begets evil, and the survivors banded together with steely resolve--to hurt a druid is to strike at nature herself--and agreed that they would never again let themselves be hurt. They began a campaign of expansion, control, and destruction. Those who would not submit would be destroyed.

In the end, their goals DO serve nature. They are druids, stewards of the land, and that is why they do what they do. The motivation for the manner in which they do it is explained by their past, and now it's become a zealous doctrine that they feel is the only way they can be strong--even if it's not.

[nagora]

And this is not because it is about death or harm, it is because it is about the preference of death and harm as a means to the end. When the end is maintaining the natural world, a preference for death and harm is insanity. The evil druid in OotS certainly seemed mad

The second claim you keep making and failing utterly to prove

I don't need to prove a simple logical fact that reverence for the natural world and a bias for creating suffering, harm, and death are incompatable.

Saying that bare rock is just as natural as open veld, say, is empty semantics, it is clear to anyone with eyes that moving from the latter to the former is not going to be favoured by anyone with a reverence for nature. Maybe it would be favoured by someone with a reverence for rocks.

Preferring to kill or harm those who damage nature without attempting any other response implies that the druid sees the attackers as outside of nature. Fair enough in the case of demons or the undead, but indefensible in the case of humans/demi-humans who's motives are unknown to the druid.

[Stephen_E]

I don't need to prove a simple logical fact that reverence for the natural world and a bias for creating suffering, harm, and death are incompatable.

Well since a number of people clearly disagree that your "simple logical fact" is a fact, I'd say you do need to provide some proof.

Saying that bare rock is just as natural as open veld, say, is empty semantics, it is clear to anyone with eyes that moving from the latter to the former is not going to be favoured by anyone with a reverence for nature. Maybe it would be favoured by someone with a reverence for rocks.

If that bare rock is covered in micro-organism can it be favoured over open veld by someone with a reverence for nature. For that matter can someone with a reverence for nature consider both equally valid.

Preferring to kill or harm those who damage nature without attempting any other response implies that the druid sees the attackers as outside of nature. Fair enough in the case of demons or the undead, but indefensible in the case of humans/demi-humans who's motives are unknown to the druid.

Why? I know people who don't consider people and their artifacts part of nature, and I'm not talking about just enviorimentally focued people either. Any humanlike sentient race is more than capable of beleiving that there is a clear differentiation between "humans" and "nature".

In short I get the impression you're confusing what you beleive with what is "right" or "the only sensible way things can be".

Stephen

[tainsouvra]

I don't need to prove a simple logical fact that reverence for the natural world and a bias for creating suffering, harm, and death are incompatable.

You do if you want your entire argument to carry more weight than "because I said so", which is all you're managing to muster by not backing up your so-called facts

Saying that bare rock is just as natural as open veld, say, is empty semantics, it is clear to anyone with eyes that moving from the latter to the former is not going to be favoured by anyone with a reverence for nature. Maybe it would be favoured by someone with a reverence for rocks.

Or someone who understands that the process of converting new stone into soil is an essential part of how plant life, and thus the majority of multicellular life on this planet, survive. That lava flow that wipes out the current flora and replaces it with bare rock is an essential part of that region's ecosystem, in fact it's a major reason why such areas tend to have so much lush vegetation. Look it up sometime.

Preferring to kill or harm those who damage nature without attempting any other response implies that the druid sees the attackers as outside of nature. Fair enough in the case of demons or the undead, but indefensible in the case of humans/demi-humans who's motives are unknown to the druid.

It does not imply any such thing, it implies that the druid's preferred response to a perceived threat to the balance within nature is to prune the heaviest side. It's what nature itself does in many cases--that's why forest fires are such an important part of a forest ecosystem, for example. Sometimes what the cycle of life needs is for something to die, and a preference for that response to an imbalance is not in any way a lack of reverence for the cycle itself.

[Benejeseret]

I don't need to prove a simple logical fact that reverence for the natural world and a bias for creating suffering, harm, and death are incompatable.

I totally, totally, totally disagree.

Death is at the core of natural cycles, natural lifecycles, natural selection, speciation, and balance.

Nature is not in some abstract state of balance opposed to death. Nature is balanced by death.

And harm, even plants do harm. Plants are selfish bast@rds. They grow where they want, their roots strangle and kill off competing plants, and they will resort to chemical warfare at a moments notice to outgrow other plants and harm, poison, animals who munch on them.

Death and harm cause suffering. I'm sorry, but 'going to the farm' is not an option for wild animals. They are brutally killed, sometimes eaten before even dead, or wasted away by parasites and disease.

Picture a fluffy world of druid, nature revelling mentality shall we. Restore the balance of nature, aid nature, be one with the natural cycles and try to keep artificial (funny term but lets assume sentient alteration to environment in a way that nature cannot easily adapt to) influence out.

Now, if nature is a cycle then speeding up or helping out ANY part of a cycle in turns speeds/helps the WHOLE cycle.

So, a druid could be a generalists helping animals find mates, seeing fledgling have enough food, and then as winter comes sees to it that the weak are taken by wolves.

On the flip side a druid could 'specialize' in birth. Assisting animal pregnancies and acting as an animal midwife = more animals and speeds the cycle along. All NG, friendly and huggable.

EQUALLY-likewise, a druid specializing in death will make sure diseases are present in a population, that the injured squirrels are indeed eaten by owls and that in a natural drought animals parish. Death is part of the cycle and in an area that is overpopulated a death druid would in fact be necessary to help move the cycle along. A death druid would in all actions and function be NE by definition. He knows death is part of nature and so embrases nature by embrasing death.

[nagora]

I totally, totally, totally disagree.

Death is at the core of natural cycles, natural lifecycles, natural selection, speciation, and balance.

My point was that it's not the dominant part of the natural cycles. Otherwise, obviously, we'd not be here. Therefore a bias to that side for a druid is a sign of madness.

[tainsouvra]

My point was that it's not the dominant part of the natural cycles. Otherwise, obviously, we'd not be here. Therefore a bias to that side for a druid is a sign of madness.

There is no dominant part of natural cycles, but that doesn't mean that someone who reveres nature can't focus on upholding or encouraging one part of the cycle. In fact, it's not really feasible for a single mortal to grasp every part of nature's intricate balance, and it's physically impossible to uphold them all at once since you can only be in one place doing one thing at a time. Druids find their place in nature and in druidic society, and do their mortal-best to make sure their part goes according to natural laws.

An evil Druid is no more mad than any other Druid, you simply appear to reject the aspects of nature he champions. That doesn't make him a bad Druid, it just means you don't understand him.

[Benejeseret]

You are not here a lot longer than are here. Humans have not been here at lot longer than humans have been here. As far as nature (whose timescale nears geologic) is concerned human kind, even elven kind, will be dead and gone for infinately more time than it even existed.

Your point is than death is a lesser function because there is currently more life?!?

Death = life, as everything alive must die

Besides, if you want ultimate balance for all things then

NG life druids = NE death druids

Ultimately I would even call Death (anthromorphic Discworld Death) a druid.

**As a biologist, geneticist, and scoutmaster I am really enjoying this thread.
Nagora, I can see that whatever your views, they fundamentally contradict my understanding of nature. Could you explain your reasonings in depth a bit? Not about the druid/NE bit, but on what nature is and how it functions.

[nagora]

You are not here a lot longer than are here.

Reincarnation, anyone?

Your point is than death is a lesser function because there is currently more life?!?

Well, it can't be the greater function because otherwise there'd be no life.

Death = life, as everything alive must die

No major argument, although fantasy worlds with immortals might confuse the issue slightly.

Besides, if you want ultimate balance for all things then

NG life druids = NE death druids

That's a fair point when viewed from afar, but I don't think it makes much sense from the point of view of the individual druids.

"Hey, Bob, I'm joining up as a NG druid so I need an Evil buddy to keep the balance. Wanna sign up too?"
"Yesssss, Bobby kill things. Bobby like to kill things. Bwahhhahaha"
"Okay. Cool. See you at the YMCA 10am sharp. Bring a brown robe."
"Ohhh, yrs. I'll bring a brown robe alright. Ohhhh Yesss. Brown. Hohoho! Sharp? Ha!"
"Ah. Right. Great."

Ultimately I would even call Death (anthromorphic Discworld Death) a druid.

If death is part of the cycle, then Death is too. But Death is not charged with looking after nature generally, he's charged with looking after his bit of the cycle.

**As a biologist, geneticist, and scoutmaster I am really enjoying this thread.
Nagora, I can see that whatever your views, they fundamentally contradict my understanding of nature. Could you explain your reasonings in depth a bit? Not about the druid/NE bit, but on what nature is and how it functions.

I'm taking "Nature", as in "Mother Nature" to be the reversal of entropy; the increasing of complexity. Life is a prime mover for this process. To me, creation is what D&D Good is fundamentally about; Destruction what Evil is about.

I'm specifically saying that "Nature" is a superset of "Natural". Weathering, erosion, comet strikes, volcanoes, etc are natural and mostly entropic forces. Nature includes them but also introduces anti-entropic processes which balance - and often more than balance - the forces which are moving the world and the universe to its ultimate heat-death.

A druid that looks at the moon and says "That's a beautiful, natural environment in perfect balance" is mostly correct (in actuality the moon is not in balance and is undergoing weathering which would eventually reduce it to a smooth object in about 10^1700 years). It's when they add "I think this place should be like the moon" that I think the problems start.

Obviously I'm taking an extreme example there, but the point remains that preferring destructive means of doing things over other methods seems to me to obviously be working against nature. Nature is not primarily destructive and anyone who wishes to revere it and emulate its processes would not prefer it. Someone who reveres just tigers or fire or lightning might, but the druid should be taking a broader view than that.

And someone who only takes the Evil route against sentients is implying that sentients are not natural ("What was that noise?" "That was your druid powers leaving") which is usually wrong in regard at least to humans and demo-humans in D&D.