What alignment would you give these sort of druids?

[Agrippa]

Out of general curiosity I'd like to ask the good people of Giant in the Playground forums, just as I asked at Minmax, what sort of alignment they would assign to the druids depicted in this article. Not based on the writer's claims but upon your judgement of course.

[hamishspence]

Their overall goal (eliminating the influences of every Aligned force) is a slightly iffy one- when compared to a "live and let live" version of non-evilness.

How they go about this may determine their actual alignment (as opposed to the one they perceive themselves to be- which is True Neutral).

If they massacre Always Good monster races- just because, being Always Good, they are "unnatural" I'd have no problem giving them an Evil alignment.

If they're more subtle in their opposition to "aligned forces"- neutral may be more feasible.

[Tengu_temp]

An organized group of fanatics who think that the only way to bring "balance" to the world is to destroy all evil and good creatures? Deluded lawful evil who think they're true neutral.

In fact, the standard DND pre-3e druid, with his approach of "keep balance by committing an equal amount of good and evil acts, helping the villagers first and then the goblins" is almost always some flavour of evil. That's not how neutrality works.

[Agrippa]

You won't find any arguments from on this topic Tengu. The druids in this article fit Lawful Evil much better than they do True Neutral. In fact, the way I imagine heroic True Neutral would be something like how Neil Gaiman described John Constantine in the Books of Magic. "John Constantine… Yes. He dances on the edge of the known, like a crazy man, pitting himself against heaven and the pit, because he is John Constantine; and because he is alive." Morally ambiguous and with the nigh suicidal urge to piss of some of the most powerful entities in the universe. Combine that with little or no interest in what shape society takes and you get True Neutral.

[Ravens_cry]

Indeed, Evil of some flavour would be definitely my response as well.
Even if Neutrality did work like that, there is infinite layers to the Abyss, and therefore Infinite demons, but not so with the Good aligned planes. So killing enough of an equal number of Always Evil creatures and Always Good creatures would result in a victory for Chaotic Evil.

[hamishspence]

"ejecting the invaders" is a little sympathetic- but not when those so-called invaders are willing to get along with the rest of the world.

Necromancers in the Diablo-verse have a similar attitude to the creatures of the High Heavens and the Burning Hells- but since both tend to destroy the planets they are fighting over, the desire of the Necromancers to protect their home world is understandable.

That said, in that setting the angels have not come to the planet much since the last occasion (the Sin War) whereas the demons have been subtly corrupting the planet and its creatures, and sometimes coming in force.

So the Necromancers are mostly defending others from demon attacks.

[Coidzor]

I'd peg 'em as evil of some stripe.

Indeed, Evil of some flavour would be definitely my response as well.
Even if Neutrality did work like that, there is infinite layers to the Abyss, and therefore Infinite demons, but not so with the Good aligned planes. So killing enough of an equal number of Always Evil creatures and Always Good creatures would result in a victory for Chaotic Evil.

Nah, Bloodwar would continue to be a stalemate.

[Ravens_cry]

Nah, Bloodwar would continue to be a stalemate.

Why? With the forces of Elemental Law (both Good and Evil) Neutral and Chaotic Good depleted, being less than infinite in number, what is stopping the forces of Elemental Chaotic Evil from being victorious?

[Eloel]

Why? With the forces of Elemental Law (both Good and Evil) Neutral and Chaotic Good depleted, being less than infinite in number, what is stopping the forces of Elemental Chaotic Evil from being victorious?

Forces of True Neutral? If they could wipe off everything that could reliably oppose Chaotic Evil, they can pretty easily keep them in check as well.

[Coidzor]

Why? With the forces of Elemental Law (both Good and Evil) Neutral and Chaotic Good depleted, being less than infinite in number, what is stopping the forces of Elemental Chaotic Evil from being victorious?

Well, let's just say that Asmodeus is the original Magnificent Bastard. And you were just talking about killing an equal number of Good and Evil creatures, rather than theoretically eliminating them altogether and keeping them eliminated for millennia.

Adventurers already kill off Evil gribblies and the like in spades and the Abyss isn't boiling over and destroying the setting before they're 10th level, generally speaking.

[Shadowknight12]

*shrug*

Divorcing RL morality from D&D morality is hard, but if they are clearly opposing Law, Chaos, Good AND Evil, they literally cannot be anything but True Neutral. We may call them "Evil" in our RL morality, but D&D doesn't work like that.

D&D morality doesn't run on philosophy and ethics, it runs on mathematics.

[JCarter426]

Just because they claim to be something, or even think they're something, doesn't mean they are. Their goal is to destroy the establishment. That sounds fairly chaotic evil to me.

However, I don't think it's fair to judge them so unilaterally. Intent has to matter somewhat... and accidents do happen. Look at the Linear Guild: They're agents of chaos, but not all of them, individually, are chaotic by alignment. In fact, just look at any typical adventuring party: They're usually a mix of various flavors of good, but leave behind a lot of collateral damage in their wake.

So I guess the group as a whole is chaotic evil, but its individuals could be of any alignment due to purported neutrality. You could have some chaotic evil beings that believe their chaotic evil ways are the way the universe works - see Belkar's views on the criminal justice system - some true neutral beings that just want to spread neutrality - "Tell my wife... hello." - and some lawful beings (maybe not lawful good) that equate balance with order. I don't think this is the author's intent, but it sounds like a pretty cool story idea to me.

[Blacky the Blackball]

From that description, I'd say that druids would be a mix of alignments just as any other group of people would be.

Sure they all want outer-planar creatures (including gods) to leave this particular prime material world alone; but that has nothing to do with their individual ethics and morality. There can be good druids who wish to relocate outer planar creatures peaceably and with diplomacy as much as with force, and evil ones who wish to simply kill them all. Similarly there can be lawful druids who wish to arrange the removal of outer-planar creatures in a structured and ordered manner using long term plans and there can be chaotic ones who wish to simply do it in an ad-hoc manner as and when they get the opportunity.

The first couple of paragraphs of the article are at pains to point out that alignment in itself is not unnatural and neither druids nor Nature have any particular issue with good or evil existing - it's just part of natural free will. So I would expect there to be good and evil druids as well as lawful and chaotic druids, all of whom agree on a goal of ending outsider interference with their prime material world but who disagree vehemently on how that goal should be achieved.

[Ravens_cry]

D&D morality doesn't run on philosophy and ethics, it runs on mathematics.

Crud nuts. You got a real life person running the game, you can do better than video game style "Well ,you saved 500 kittens from a burning fire, but you tortured a small child to death. So. . .keep up the good work, Hero!"

[Agrippa]

The druids in the article consider all gods to be alien parasites and their continued worship itself to be alien interference, which must be fought at all costs. It's not a view I would ascribe to my druids, but that's the author's choice.

[Tengu_temp]

Divorcing RL morality from D&D morality is hard, but if they are clearly opposing Law, Chaos, Good AND Evil, they literally cannot be anything but True Neutral. We may call them "Evil" in our RL morality, but D&D doesn't work like that.

Opposing evil doesn't mean you're not evil yourself.

[Shadowknight12]

Crud nuts. You got a real life person running the game, you can do better than video game style "Well ,you saved 500 kittens from a burning fire, but you tortured a small child to death. So. . .keep up the good work, Hero!"

Oh, and I do, but nobody here plays in my games, so talking about what these people would be in my games is irrelevant. The only way to avoid alignment debates is to treat the subject as logically and mathematically as possible.

Opposing evil doesn't mean you're not evil yourself.

In a world with Detect Alignment spells, you would have to kill yourself if that was the case. Either this druidic sect was forced to self-terminate after their actions turned them Evil, or their actions did not turn them Evil. I am simply going with the latter scenario because the former one precludes any form of relevant discussion.

[Ravens_cry]

Actually ,there is a fair bit of tropes involving self acknowledged evil that fights evil.
"Yes, I am Evil, but if that is what it takes to end this Wrong, then so be it.
If I am Damned, then let me take them with me."

[Shadowknight12]

Actually ,there is a fair bit of tropes involving self acknowledged evil that fights evil.
"Yes, I am Evil, but if that is what it takes to end this Wrong, then so be it.
If I am Damned, then let me take them with me."

Yes, but in D&D, the proper course of action would be "Oh goshdarn it, I'm Evil. And I fight Evil. Welp, time to climb the highest tower in my castle and leap off it."

[Ravens_cry]

Yes, but in D&D, the proper course of action would be "Oh goshdarn it, I'm Evil. And I fight Evil. Welp, time to climb the highest tower in my castle and leap off it."

Says who?*
*Besides you of course.

[Shadowknight12]

Says who?*
*Besides you of course.

Logic, obviously. If you're fighting Evil and you're Evil, you must fight yourself. I was merely citing one of example of such fighting. You can, of course, merely kill yourself after you've made sure you've destroyed all of the evil in the universe. But that's boring.

[Ravens_cry]

Logic, obviously. If you're fighting Evil and you're Evil, you must fight yourself. I was merely citing one of example of such fighting. You can, of course, merely kill yourself after you've made sure you've destroyed all of the evil in the universe. But that's boring.

Boring or not, it allows the circumstances "Fight Evil while being Evil" in a world with alignment detection.

[Acanous]

I had a bard do that to an overzealous, "Ends justify the means" type. Seven diplomacy checks and the guy had his vassal execute him for being evil.

[Siosilvar]

Logic, obviously. If you're fighting Evil and you're Evil, you must fight yourself. I was merely citing one of example of such fighting. You can, of course, merely kill yourself after you've made sure you've destroyed all of the evil in the universe. But that's boring.

One can be evil-aligned without realizing it, or one can do enough evil actions "for the greater good" to be evil-aligned despite motivation. The standard fallback example for this kind of character is the Alliance operative from Serenity.

The Operative: I'm sorry. If your quarry goes to ground, leave no ground to go to. You should have taken my offer. Or did you think none of this was your fault?
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: I don't murder children.
The Operative: I do. If I have to.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Why? Do you even know why they sent you?
The Operative: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?
The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.

[Shadowknight12]

One can be evil-aligned without realizing it, or one can do enough evil actions "for the greater good" to be evil-aligned despite motivation. The standard fallback example for this kind of character is the Alliance operative from Serenity.

Yes, but I did mention I'm exclusively talking about a world with Detect Alignment spells. The only ways you can not know your alignment in D&D is either if you're in Ravenloft or through wilful ignorance.

[Ravens_cry]

Yes, but I did mention I'm exclusively talking about a world with Detect Alignment spells. The only ways you can not know your alignment in D&D is either if you're in Ravenloft or through wilful ignorance.

<sarcasm> Right, because that never happens.</sarcasm>

[Shadowknight12]

<sarcasm> Right, because that never happens.</sarcasm>

It strikes me as counter-productive to avoid running internal self-checks.

After all, if you don't check if your systems are running properly, how do you know you're performing your functions adequately and you aren't being subverted by someone else to perform counter-functions?

[Coidzor]

You do realize that an entire class of villains in literature and gaming depends upon such things, right?

Logic, obviously. If you're fighting Evil and you're Evil, you must fight yourself. I was merely citing one of example of such fighting. You can, of course, merely kill yourself after you've made sure you've destroyed all of the evil in the universe. But that's boring.

"Blood War, Huh, Who Is It Good For?"
Good gods, y'all!

[Ravens_cry]

It strikes me as counter-productive to avoid running internal self-checks.

After all, if you don't check if your systems are running properly, how do you know you're performing your functions adequately and you aren't being subverted by someone else to perform counter-functions?

Well, you can know your preforming your task adequately by the results.
Is Evil been destroyed? Yes or No?
If No, Destroy Evil.
If Yes, Destroy more Evil.
Are you been subverted?
Impossible!
***
Self deception is a very, very human emotion.

[Siosilvar]

It strikes me as counter-productive to avoid running internal self-checks.

After all, if you don't check if your systems are running properly, how do you know you're performing your functions adequately and you aren't being subverted by someone else to perform counter-functions?

By assumption. And by not being a robot. Tends to help.