Neutral Evil Druids in (druidic) society

[tainsouvra]

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

The point is that neither is a greater function, they are halves of a whole. Balance only exists when no more is created than is destroyed, and balance is central to the druidic view of nature.

[nagora]

The point is that neither is a greater function, they are halves of a whole. Balance only exists when no more is created than is destroyed, and balance is central to the druidic view of nature.

In which case TN - an alignment 3ed bans for druids - is the logical one. In the absence of the correct alignment being available I do think it's possible to say that there are less-worse ones in the list LN NE NG CN. Specifically, NG is the best of a bad bunch, IMO.

[tainsouvra]

In which case TN - an alignment 3ed bans for druids - is the logical one. In the absence of the correct alignment being available I do think it's possible to say that there are less-worse ones in the list LN NE NG CN. Specifically, NG is the best of a bad bunch, IMO.

It is not banned, where on earth did you get that idea? "True Neutral" is from second edition, it's referred to as simply "Neutral" in sourcebooks now, and it printed right there as an option for Druids.
Read the first line:
Alignment
Neutral good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, or neutral evil.

I think you need to do a lot more background reading on the Druid class, your facts are all over the place.

[Krellen]

Uh. Druids most definitely can be TN. What the heck are you smoking?

Ninja attack! I was replying to nagora.

[Porthos]

In which case TN - an alignment 3ed bans for druids - is the logical one.

You might want to re-read your SRD....

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm

Alignment
Neutral good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, or neutral evil.

And I don't think you have really addressed the other variants of the NE Druid. Okay, so you've established that the Defiler Druid is a whacked-out idea. I agree with you.* But what about the By Any Means Necessary Druid or the I Don't Give A Darn About Who I Kill As Long As I Protect Nature Druid or the Social Darwinism Druid?

NE is not a straight-jacket toward a worldview, anymore than LG is. There are many types of NE people out there, and I can, quite easily, see many of them becoming Druids.

* Then again, Defiler Druids are supposed to be whacked-out in the head, so there you are.


EDIT::: Yay for Ninja-ing!

[nagora]

Uh. Druids most definitely can be TN. What the heck are you smoking?

I don't know. It must be good stuff. I was mixing this conversation up with another about the change from TN being a distinct alignment from the "Blah-neutral", which obviously revolved around the fact that it was something that made druids stand out in the previous editions.

Deary, deary me. Talk about rolling a 1 on your debate skill!

[Porthos]

Speaking of the SRD.....

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm

Ex-Druids
A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).

Notice the bit I underlined. It mentions that a Druid that no longer reveres nature becomes an ex-Druid. That kinda, by definition, leaves out the "I Must Destroy Everything!! MWAWAHAHAAH!!!" types, don'tcha think?

So we are left with a logical conundrum:

• Druids, by RAW, can be NE.
• Druids who no longer revere nature stop being Druids.
• You claim that a NE Druid would/should want to (on some level, even subconsciously) Destroy Nature*

(* If I am misinterpreting this post [and others like it], please let me know. )

One of those three statements must logically be incorrect on some level, as they cannot all be true. Since two of them are facts put out by WotC, and one of them is an opinion, I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that your interpretation of what a NE Druid would be like is wrong for baseline DnD. You are, of course, free to modify the rules/use your interpetation of the rules to suit your own fancies in whatever campaign you might happen to run. But that goes without saying, or at least it should.

Now it is certainly what a Defiler (which is an ex-Druid) would be like. And you would be correct that a NE Druid would be far more likely to become a Defiler than most other types of Druids. But most NE Druids going down the Defiler/Destruction path? Sorry. Just don't see it, if only because of all of the different types of NE Druid that we have listed on this thread.

[Krellen]

You know, what Druids represented with their "True Neutral" still exists too. It specifically says in the alignment description that some "Neutral" people are dedicated to a balance between all the extremes. I like to call that alignment "Balance", and hold it as the "Tenth Alignment".

[nagora]

And I don't think you have really addressed the other variants of the NE Druid. Okay, so you've established that the Defiler Druid is a whacked-out idea. I agree with you.* But what about the By Any Means Necessary Druid

That's TN.

or the I Don't Give A Darn About Who I Kill As Long As I Protect Nature Druid

Again, TN but with the proviso that if they think that the people they kill are not part of the nature they protect, then they'd probably lose their powers.

or the Social Darwinism Druid?

I always think Social Darwinism is a very lawful notion - the group gets stronger by weeding out the weak individuals. So LN.

Then again, Defiler Druids are supposed to be whacked-out in the head, so there you are.

I'm open to them being insane, although as cleric-type who gains spells through atunement and meditation I'd wonder how they got their power.

Well, anyway. I think I'm back at the "TN is the only sensible alignment for druids" position I was at all those years ago when I hijacked this thread.

If you allow them, I think NE druids would have to be something other druids watched very carefully. I think it would be only a matter of time before the NE druid's ideas of what needs protected and what can be done away with would cross purposes with the other druids'.

[Jayabalard]

there are lots of different types of druids that could be Neutral evil; the prime ones in my opinion:
-Has a subset of nature that he focuses on preserving, healing and nurturing.
-uses evil methods to do that; ex: humanoid bodies make good fertilizer.
-focuses on the death, decay and destruction portions of the circle of life.
-venerates the destructive fury of nature: Fires, storms, etc

That's TN.

Nope, evil.

[tainsouvra]

So we are left with a logical conundrum:

I do like that simplified approach. Nice thought there.

[nagora]

there are lots of different types of druids that could be Neutral evil; the prime ones in my opinion:
-Has a subset of nature that he focuses on preserving, healing and nurturing.
-uses evil methods to do that; ex: humanoid bodies make good fertilizer.
-focuses on the death, decay and destruction portions of the circle of life.
-venerates the destructive fury of nature: Fires, storms, etc

All those examples involve not viewing the whole picture, which I think is the core to druid thought.

Nope, evil.

Using whatever means are necessary is not evil if the intent is a balance rather than the dominance of evil. Unnecessary harm and destruction is evil.

[tainsouvra]

the I Don't Give A Darn About Who I Kill As Long As I Protect Nature Druid

Again, TN but with the proviso that if they think that the people they kill are not part of the nature they protect, then they'd probably lose their powers.

No, I'm afraid that's clearly Neutral Evil, not Neutral. It directly matches the definition of Evil and directly conflicts with the definition of Neutral, which you can see if you re-read the alignment descriptors:
"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. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
The lack of compassion, the lack of any qualms about killing when it suits his goals, is a by-definition Evil approach--not Neutral. A Neutral Druid would fit the Neutral alignment description:
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
"I Don't Give A Darn About Who I Kill As Long As I Protect Nature" does not even remotely fit "have compunctions against killing the innocent". He is very clearly Evil, by the definition the rules give us.

Your interpretation runs 100% counter to the published alignment rules, and is thus mistaken.

the Social Darwinism Druid

I always think Social Darwinism is a very lawful notion - the group gets stronger by weeding out the weak individuals. So LN.

The "Social Darwinism" Druid presented earlier in this thread focused on the destruction of the weak to ensure the survival of the strong, with no compassion for the weak, which is an Evil approach by definition. A "Social Darwinism" Druid who simply allowed natural conflict to occur, but did nothing to encourage or discourage it, would be Lawful Neutral...but that's not the same Druid as was being discussed.

[nagora]

"I Don't Give A Darn About Who I Kill As Long As I Protect Nature" does not even remotely fit "have compunctions against killing the innocent". He is very clearly Evil, by the definition the rules give us.

So, viewing death as part of life is suddenly out now? Make up your mind.

Druids don't care about who they kill as long as they protect nature precisely because maintaining nature involves death. If they cared they'd have a hard time doing their jobs. There's a difference between seeing deaths as a price to pay for protecting nature and actually looking for excuses to kill.

A "Social Darwinism" Druid who simply allowed natural conflict to occur, but did nothing to encourage or discourage it, would be Lawful Neutral...but that's not the same Druid as was being discussed.

But a druid who culls a population is evil unless he cries his eyes out while doing it? Whatever happened to professional detachment?

[Porthos]

or the I Don't Give A Darn About Who I Kill As Long As I Protect Nature Druid

Again, TN but with the proviso that if they think that the people they kill are not part of the nature they protect, then they'd probably lose their powers.

I will open by saying that you and I have very different interpretations of TN, but I will set that aside for the moment. Instead I only want to focus in on this one example I gave. What I was going for was a Druidic Assassin. Assassins, by rule (and yes I realize it is a highly controversial rule) are evil. What I was trying to say is even if someone didn't pickup the Assassin PrC, there is every reason to believe that a Druid might pick up a Assassin Mindset.

This Druid has decided that his job is to go out and Kill The Enemies of Nature. Sure, in a perfect world, everyone would be lying along the campfire singing Kumbaya. Unfortunately, there are just too many people who are destroying nature. So they must be culled so Nature can get back into balance. So this Druid takes it upon himself to go out and start killing woodsmen that are hunting in the forest (or other people he feels are "harming" Nature). He doesn't have a Consistent Plan of Attack or a Meticulous Way of Going About His Plan (so not Lawful) but he's not living by the Spur of the Moment nor is he Open to Any Idea That Enters His Head (so, not Chaotic).

Instead he is ambivalent to the Rules and Traditions around him. If they make it easier to do His Holy Mission, so be it. If they hinder it, he really doesn't care. If he can use the Tools of Society Against Itself, fine. If not, also fine. He just cares about bringing the Enemies of Nature Down A Few Notches.

This person is classic Neutral Evil. While he might think he is doing "Good" or something to promote "Balance", the way he is doing it is completely Evil. And he doesn't care about planning or spontaneity. But he does care, passionately, about Nature. And if someone says something about, "But Humans/Orc/Dwarves/Whatever are a part of Nature," he would coldly reply, "Nature always thins the herd when it grows too big. Either that the the herd will destroy all that is around itself in it's ignorance. I'm saving Nature by making sure you don't destroy it."

That's of course, if he even bothered to reply in the first place.

Now if he wanted to "wipe Humanity/What-Have-You off the face of the Earth," then we are in a bit more murky territory. But, thankfully, I'm not arguing about those types of Druids.

Finally, if you really want me to give a How A Nature Loving Person Can Be Evil Speech, here's one:

Innocent Farmer That Lives A bit Too Close To The Forest (on his knees as he is about to die): But Mr. Druid... How can you kill me? I am a part of Nature too!!
Druidic Assassin: Just as we must occasionally cut down a tree to stop overgrowth from happening, so too must we kill some humans. A single spark in an overgrown forest would consume all in deadly fire. So too can humanity, if it is not culled to a manageable level, consume all in it's path.
<PAUSE>
Druidic Assassin (delivering the killing strike): The principle is exactly the same. I don't want to kill all of you. But I will stop you from endangering us all.

Is the above person Evil to the Core? Yeppers. Does he still revere Nature? Yep. Probably to an extremely unhealthy degree.

[tainsouvra]

"I Don't Give A Darn About Who I Kill As Long As I Protect Nature" does not even remotely fit "have compunctions against killing the innocent". He is very clearly Evil, by the definition the rules give us.

So, viewing death as part of life is suddenly out now? Make up your mind.

My mind, and my argument, has been clear from the beginning. You've been trying to turn it into something it isn't, and it hasn't been working, but that's not really my concern.

Viewing death as a part of life is normal for a Druid, and does not have an alignment effect. Not caring who dies in the process of protecting nature is something completely different. One is an understanding of the cycle of life, the other is an utter lack of compassion for others. The lack of compassion for innocents that you kill is a hallmark, by definition, indisputable sign of Evil. That's how Evil is defined, you can't seriously claim it's anything but Evil and still claim to be using the D&D alignment system. They directly define it as such, that's what makes something Evil in the first place.

Druids don't care about who they kill as long as they protect nature precisely because maintaining nature involves death. If they cared they'd have a hard time doing their jobs.

It's a hard job. Taking the easy way out, and thereby ditching all moral considerations from your head, is classic Evil. A Good or Neutral Druid can kill to protect nature, but will make a conscious effort to minimize the deaths of innocents in the process. An Evil Druid will do no such thing, and that's one of the major things that makes him Evil.

That's how Evil is spelled out in D&D, and if you do not wish to define Evil that way, you're not using the D&D alignment system anymore.

There's a difference between seeing deaths as a price to pay for protecting nature and actually looking for excuses to kill.

That difference is meaningless in terms of alignment, since if you kill innocents without qualm, you are Evil. This is explicitly given in the alignment descriptors, which I will again reprint here with context:

Type I: "The death of innocents is simply the price of protecting nature, I feel no compassion for those who must die"--Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

Type II: "The death of innocents is something I enjoy, I will seek out populations that need to be culled so that I can pursue this interest"--Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Both are Evil, just different ways of being Evil.

But a druid who culls a population is evil unless he cries his eyes out while doing it? Whatever happened to professional detachment?

If he feels no pity, remorse, or compassion? Yes, he's indisputably Evil. If you're using "professional detachment" as an excuse to slaughter innocents without compassion, you are Evil in the D&D alignment system. This is explicitly spelled out in the descriptors.

[Stephen_E]

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.

Death/destruction is as important a part of nature as life/growth. Death requires life and visa versa.

You also assume that a Druid must always take the whole picture in his views. You yourself make quite clear why this isn't so. Druids are limited beeings, not gods, therefore they're fully entitled, or even more so expected, to have preferred areas to focus on, much as you focus on growth=nature.
You also appear to have a preference for the value of complex lifeforms. Others might have a preference for less complex lifeforms.

It should also be noted that species extinction is a part of nature, so a NE Druid may focus on choosing what species get made extinct (Say Halflings ) in the knowledge that nature will fill in with the new species required.

Computer people don't generally try and cover the entire field. They specalise in an area. Bob decides to be an aplications programmer. He doesn't go out and convince people to be O/S programers, Hardware specalists ectre before he starts been a programer. He knows they'll exist already. The NE Druid can specalise in assisting nature in death and destruction knowing that nature will take care of the growth part, and that there are undoubtedly Druids helping with that part as well.

Stephen

[Porthos]

The NE Druid can specalise in assisting nature in death and destruction knowing that nature will take care of the growth part, and that there are undoubtedly Druids helping with that part as well.

And if you got those Druids together with the ones that want to catalogue all Nature to understand how it works, plus the ones that want to see it grow with wild abandon, you might get a pretty good thing going. Heck, if you then got a Big Picture Kinda Guy to oversee it all, you'd probably have a kick butt organization.

I propose we call it a Druidic Circle.

Call me whacky, but... It. Just. Might. Work.

[Thrawn183]

Some different versions of neutral evil. They are all possible-ish. Might varry a little on the lawful-chaotic scale, but... meh.

NE: The guy who stakes squirrels to the ground and skins them alive.

NE: The guy who wants to use the treaties to garner power and wealth for himself, while making others destitute/unhappy etc. Use treaties to get the best land for himself and leave everyone else in barren wasteland for example.

NE: The guy who poisons all the wells to force people to leave. Might warn the villagers. Isn't going to get rid of the poison if the villagers keep drinking the water.

NE: The guy who buffs animals to fight the villagers. Tries to bolster animal forces at the expense of human lives.

NE: The guy who leads raids on villages and targets the youngest first because its the easiest way to prevent any more from being born 20-30 years down the line.

NE: The guy who kidnaps children to force villagers to leave the area.

NE: The guy who watches someone (innocent in this situation) get mauled by an animal when he could easily step in and stop it.

NE: The guy who's gone cannibalistic. Hunts people. Thinks they taste just like chicken.

I could go on forever. The thing is, evil... is evil. It has a myriad of forms. It could support peaceful treaties or oppose them. It is the result of those treaties that matters to evil, not the treaties themselves. Evil has nothing to do with whether or not you'd be on some druidic council. You can hide being evil easily if you think it is in your best interest. NE is the easiest category to fit a druid into. I have the hardest time with true neutral personally. To easy for my npc's to jump from NG to LN to NE. Can't really come up with NN that doesn't sound like LN.

[Bagera]

That kinda, by definition, leaves out the "I Must Destroy Everything!! MWAWAHAHAAH!!!" types, don'tcha think?

I disagree, I think the I'll destroy everything druids may be motivated by a slash and burn mentality, clearing away the brush to give seed for new life and civilizations to grow, sorta like Ra's al Ghul from Batman.

[nagora]

Type I: "The death of innocents is simply the price of protecting nature, I feel no compassion for those who must die"--Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

The "and" and the "if" in that clause are significant: not having compassion is not in itself inherently evil. Killing without qualms for a reason other than personal convenience is not inherently and always evil, otherwise defensive (either self- or for others) killing is no longer allowed as a non-evil act.

A druid who knows that a population (of people, animals, plants, or whatever) is going to crash and burn in a generation if it's not culled now and sets about that cull because in the long term its the only way to maintain a healthy population level, does not have to be full of remorse to not be evil. S/he is simply taking a much longer-term view than the normal person. If judged on the instant, then I can see the Evil interpretation, but druids can't work as a class or a belief system by constantly looking at the moment and dreading taking any action that harms individuals here and now.

That's me off this thread now. There's no point in debating this any further as it clearly comes down to what one thinks a druid is. The 3e alignment rules for druids make little sense to me (if a druid can be Lawful or Good, why not LG?). The natural world is TN - Druids should strive to be too in the same way that paladins are expected to be LG, anything else is a clear falling away from the ideal and, just as with a paladin, should result in the loss of their powers.

NE is particularly anathema to druidic thinking in that it is destructive for the sake of being destructive and as such threatens everything. NG (from the druid POV) is simply misguided and can lead to suffering through overpopulation and overly-prolonged life, but that at least does not threaten to destroy, only distort. As such NG is better than NE, but TN is better than both.

That's my opinion, take it or leave it.

[Serenity]

Well, since you're clearly operating off a vastly different definition of alignments than anyone else here, or, indeed the definitions in RAW...

D&D does not care about your motivation, it cares about your actions. Ra's al Ghul wants to flood the world with the Lazarus Pits, killing millions, but recreating Eden? In his longer term view, a good thing. However, the short term suffering, and his utter lack of remorse over it, makes it an evil act. Same with the druid actively culling a population to maintain long term health. He might see it as a necessary evil, but that doesn't make it good. That's just basic D&D. If you regularly commit necessary evil, you are evil.

Some NE people are destructive for destructive's sake. Like any other alignment, there's many variations on it.

[Stephen_E]

D&D does not care about your motivation, it cares about your actions.

I make one change to your statement.

D&D does not care about your motivation, it cares about your intent and actions.

Motivation = why are you trying to do something.
Intent = What you're trying to do.
Action = What you actually do.

Example: You beleive overpopulation is going to cause a massive disaster. You decide to release a plague that should sterilise half the worlds population, to stop population growth. The plague actually kills 1/2 the worlds population and sterilises half of what's left.

Motivation = Stopping a overpopulation disaster.
Intent = Sterilising 1/2 the worlds population.
Action = Killing 1/2 the worlds population, and sterilising 1/2 of those left.

Note: Intent doesn't = stopping overpopulation.
For the purpose of alignment discussion you need to differentiate the direct outcome you are trying to acheive as "intent", and the long range hoped for effect as "motivation".

Stephen

[Rex Blunder]

In the real world, the idea that nature was a beautiful thing that needed to be protected didn't come up until, I think, the romanticism movement during the Industrial Revolution -- ie, when we realized that we had the power to destroy nature. Before that, I think that nature was scary and dangerous. Most people thought that civilization and farming was good, untamed nature was bad.

From an earlier period, the Neutral Evil idea of a druid is, I think, a Grimm's Fairy Tale-style witch. They live in huts out in the forest (kinda weird). They can turn into an animal and sneak around (a druid ability). They probably eat children. They don't worship civilized god or gods, they cast blights on cattle and cause women to miscarry. They use the evil and destructive -- and powerful -- aspects of nature for their own ends.

Remember, Christianity used a lot of Pan's trappings to outfit the Devil. Nature is scary. Especially when we get to 4th edition "thousand points of light" milieu.

I would guess that an evil druid/witch would live in their own area in the forest, which they would guard jealously. Anyone who went into it would probably be destroyed. I doubt they are doing it to help the forest - they are using the power of the forest to fuel their own magic powers. I would guess that they would want to be on the druid council -- and if they were left off, they would take their revenge -- just like the evil witch who wasn't invited to Sleeping Beauty's birthday party, and showed up anyway to deliver a curse on her. So evil druids would be invited to the druid council and get a vote. That's not to say that anyone would sit next to them at the picnic.

[grinner666]

Maybe it would be better to quit visualizing Druids as fluffy-bunny-treehugging defenders of Nature with a capital N, and looking to the original Celtic druids for inspiration. Let's face it: in an ancient or medieval society, Nature with a capital N doesn't need defending. People need defending from it.

The Druids filled several different roles in Celtic society. They and the Bards were the only truly educated men of their tribes, the repositories for the tribes' history, astronomy, botany ... all of what passed for "higher learning". As such they were also healers and teachers. None of these roles, at any rate, would be affected if a druid had an Evil alignment.

They also acted as judges, advisers to chieftains and, most importantly (for the sake of this argument) as inter-tribal diplomats and negotiators. Even though it's obviously not the reason Gygax used for requiring them to be Neutral (he was, after all, the original creator of the fluffy-bunny-ecologist Druid), it's a great rationalization for Druids to need to maintain some neutrality in their outlook. But does it preclude Evil? Hell, no!! In fact, a diplomat who's willing to put a dagger in the back of a rival when it becomes ... expedient ... could be quite the useful tool for a chieftain or king.

Finally, let's put the whole nature-worship thing behind us. The Druids did not worship nature!! They revered the Oak and Mistletoe; they were sacred to them. But not beatific. What they worshiped was a whole whack-load of gods and spirits, most of which had nothing to do with nature.

Which brings us to their final role in society: not to defend Nature, but to defend their people ... from the wolves of the forest, foreign armies, the Fair Folk, evil spirits, druids of enemy tribes, you name it. It doesn't seem unreasonable that the magi of a primitive, tribal people would use spells of fire, lightning, earth and tree to defend them, so their spell selection, at least, seems appropriate.

But the tree-hugger thing really annoys me, and has ever since I first started learning about the Celts.

So there you go; if you want NE druids in your campaign, I see no reason why they should have to fill any particular "role" beyond that created by their personalities. Just use and adapt a model based on slightly more historical roles.

[tainsouvra]

nagora, you're using an interpretation of alignment that conflicts with WotC's published rules. You're free to use what you consider logical extensions of the rules in your games, but you're not using the rules as written, and that's the reason why the Druid alignment rules don't make sense to you. You're not using the alignment descriptions to which those rules were written to conform.

In D&D, necessary evils without remorse are Evil. There is no grey area to it, it's spelled out in black and white. You might think it makes no sense, but those are the rules, and changing them has an impact on everything else that involves alignment--Druids included.

[Machete]

there are lots of different types of druids that could be Neutral evil; the prime ones in my opinion:
-Has a subset of nature that he focuses on preserving, healing and nurturing.
-uses evil methods to do that; ex: humanoid bodies make good fertilizer.
-focuses on the death, decay and destruction portions of the circle of life.
-venerates the destructive fury of nature: Fires, storms, etc

Nope, evil.

Don't forget "actively destroys civilization to drive back the plague of overpopulating sentients who are also sapient and destroying nature"

[Benejeseret]

That's TN.

I always think Social Darwinism is a very lawful notion - the group gets stronger by weeding out the weak individuals. So LN.

Darwinism should not be lawful in any way. At the time it was proposed, and still today, the facts of evolution cause turbulence in society.

Moreover, everyone focuses on the wrong aspect of the theory.
1. Variation
2. Selection

Selection is important and obviously key, but variation must be there first. Variation comes from mutation, random segregation of chromosomes and crossover events.

Any process driven by randomness, mutation. and change cannot be defined as a lawful process.

Social Darwinism is a mockery and grand ethnocentric justification for dominance. If the strong are strong, and thus stay strong...then nothing has happened, nothing has changed, and so there is no reason to bring Darwinian evolution into it at all. Evolution is about change, morphing of thing once thought immutable.

Social Darwinism in its truest sense should explain the forces of chaos and change upon societies. Founder effects (a sub-set of strong cultural norms brought into a previously naive society) or memetic drift (influence of one culture by another) would be the basis for major change. Small cumulative changes within a culture would be more akin to classic darwinism.

Finally, it is the environment that really forms evolutionary trends. The weak may be weak in comparison in a given set of parameters...but it is when those parameters change that evolution begins to forge upsets in the old balance.

But it is all about change.

Change is all about randomness.

[Talya]

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

Evil includes a disregard for the value of life, particularly sentient life, it is true.

Death is part of the natural life cycle. A Neutral Evil druid has been jaded to (or perhaps never had any concern for) the death of "innocents." In fact, there are no innocents, and none who are guilty. There is simply the natural order, those who are less fit die off, while the fittest survive to prosper, but in the end, all die anyway. Death is natural, there is nothing "wrong" (to an NE druid, anyway) with culling a community of humans --men women and children alike-- who threaten the balance. They value the natural system and assign no value to the individual. They value life as an abstract thing, wrather than individual lives. Most tyrants value the "lives" of their people in the abstract; without them there is nobody to rule over. That doesn't mean they value the life of any given individual.

[Duke Malagigi]

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.

I agree with you in this regard. Sadly some people (like Wizards forums regular Furryhowler) believe that Evil means selfishness. They also tend to believe that Good (especially Exalted status) entails utter disregard for your own well being to the point of self-hatred and willing self destruction. To this group, Good also means the belief that there is no such thing as the Self and that all people are interchanageable parts for lack of a different term.

Egocentricism is the very essence of Evil and it hides in no end of ways (often in "I'm MAKING it better for everyone" - which is the pride/arrogance that often makes Paladins fall).

Egolessness is the very essence of Good.

The difference is in how we see ourselves. Evil sees itself as an end in itself, whilst Good sees itself as a means to an end. Evil then seeks to be master whilst Good seeks to be servant. This doesnt mean Good promotes abuse though as Good is also about hope and there is no hope found in abuse. It does mean though that Good means to serve something higher than the mortal.

Evil serves the mortal, the Ego. It seeks aggrandizement in the face of mortal vulnerability (and all creatures are "mortal" in that all of them can be killed; even arch devils and greater gods) as an attempt to "cure" this vulnerability. This is why Evil is so obsessed with power. Good however doesnt seek aggrandizement as a response to mortal vulnerability. It embraces its lesser status and understands this means it is here to serve not rule. How could this possibly be a message of hope and not abuse? When what it serves is the fundamental truth of who you are :) so in a sense its spiritual collectivism/Oneism; that we are all one in truth. Evil does not see this oneness; instead it sees seperation and vulnerability, is terrified by it and seeks to undo/offset it through power.

Most people are evil. This isnt an irreversable/beyond-the-pale state though :D