25 replies to this topic

[Sir Kalthorine]

In BG1, Edwin wants you to murder Dynaheir as the price of his joining the party.  In BG2 he orders you to murder the mage, Rayic Gethras, as a part of the MaeVar quest that is required before he will join.  An NPC who suborns the assassination of rival mages for two games running ain't NG.

Unless of course he considered it necessary to remove the mages for the purposes of protecting the general populace from SMDs (Spells of Mass Destruction) or to enact Cowled Wizard Regime Change... in which case it would be perfectly acceptable!

Oooh! Politics! Run awaaaaay

[Feanor]

Sir K, look how is this alignment treated in the druid's handbook :



True neutral, the most misunderstood of all alignments, often causes problems for players. One common mistake is for neutral characters, such as druids, to seek a balance by deliberately acting chaotic evil one day and lawful good the next. Such behavior makes characters unpredictable, and the cumulative effect promotes chaos more than anything else.

Druids consider each alignment equally valid in a cosmic sense. They try to remain nonjudgmental and uncommitted to any specific moral, legal, or philosophical system beyond the basic tenets of the druidic order. Because a druid's main charges--plants, animals, and the health of the planetary ecology--essentially lack alignment or ethos, the character feels free to use almost any means necessary to protect them.

Chapter 4 of the Player's Handbook discusses alignments in a general sense; the druidic order works to maintain the natural balance among these alignments. (See "Keeper of the Balance" later in this chapter.) However, druids do realize that most individuals actions--including their own--will not prove significant to the cosmic balance. The druid sees the friction between alignments as the driving force in the world. Although most druids personally may prefer to live among good people, they recognize that the existence of evil keeps intelligent beings from stagnating.

Despite their neutral status, druids don't resent being pulled into the struggle between alignments. Neutral individuals do not lack interest, ambition, or passion--they value their own well-being and that of friends and loved ones. They may struggle passionately on behalf of themselves and others, as well as feel a compassion blanketing everything that makes up the Nature they swear to protect. Never doubt that druids will act for their own goals and the Order's.

For example, the druid Rebecca has no philosophical objection to helping a group of lawful good paladins and clerics defeat an evil dragon--if they can demonstrate a good reason. She won't agree to kill the dragon merely "because it is evil." But, she might help if the dragon had harmed or threatened her friends or a forest or village under her protection. She might also offer assistance simply because she realizes the danger of living near a powerful and unpredictably evil creature inclined to wreak havoc upon the natural surroundings. Finally, she might join the party in return for a pledge that the members aid her in protecting a wilderness area from those who would exploit it--or in order to get treasure and magical items to do the job on her own.

Clearly, playing a druid true to alignment is no easy task. The character must consider carefully all the variables in a situation before acting. Remember that, when faced with a tough decision, a druid usually stands behind the solution that best serves Nature in the long run. So, Rebecca could have an equally valid reason to join a band of evil adventurers hunting a lawful good dragon as she has to join a good party hunting an evil dragon. Although a gold or silver dragon is unlikely to threaten Rebecca or her sacred grove, she might wish to use its treasure to purchase equipment to fight a greater threat or win the trust of an evil party she can use for her own ends.

Of course, druids understand that others may not take so pragmatic a view. Rebecca knows a party of adventurers wouldn't be pleased to find she has stymied its efforts. Alignment struggles constitute just another aspect of Nature, so Rebecca would never seek to stop the members of a party from continuing the struggle unless she deems it harmful to her own interests or those of the force she worships and safeguards.

A druid allied with a party of adventurers usually goes along with the party's actions unless they threaten trees, crops, wild plants, and other things the druid holds sacred. At the same time, the character needs a reason for joining a party--often something as simple as a desire to gain the experience and power needed to become a more effective guardian of Nature.

Druids tend to react nonjudgmentally toward other races. With the possible exception of undead, they feel that every race and species has its place in the world. For instance, a druid recognizes most orcs as evil and cruel. The character might not enjoy the company of orcs, but doesn't consider this feeling an excuse to exterminate the entire race. Conflict between orcs and humans is the way of the world, some druids say. They point out that orcs live a harsher existence than humans, often dwelling in the deadly subterranean world. And, while the average human may be less cruel than the average orc, mankind is capable of greater evil through superior organization and civilization.

Druids who stray from their alignment or cease to follow the tenets of the Order lose major sphere spell access and granted powers until they make atonement. In addition, the circle's great druid may place any subordinate druid under the ban as a temporal punishment for such violations.

[Sir Kalthorine]

Thanks for that Feanor - it is nice to see it discussed so thoroughly, and particularly in the case of Chrysta how it would apply to Druidic thinking. I am glad to say that none of the above is out of character with the way Initial Chrysta is being written (see what I did just then? ), and is part of the reason why she has no objections to adventuring with parties of mixed or evil alignment. Having said that, as the article indicates a True Neutral alignment does not mean that she does not hold strong convictions or opinions, or have some fairly specific personal goals and aims...

[xaos_bob]

A planewalker's definition of TN could encompass everything talked about so far. The Outlands' native rilmani (as well as the petitioners) are the obnoxious "keep-the-balance" type, to the extent of switching sides in the middle of a fight, if need be. Sigil itself is the epitome of TN as the ultimate mixing-pot (the whole "deva drinking with a fiend" illustration).

However, I have found the simplest motto for most TN folk is, "Look out for Number One". Animals are the perfect example. When they kill, it is for simple survival. When they nurture their young, it is survival. It is not good, it is not evil, it simply is. They don't go out of their way to hurt anyone, but they don't make an effort to help them, either. They live for themselves, not out of selfishness, but as a matter of survival.

I never understood why they made druids fight for "the balance". Druids shouldn't give a fig about moral or ethical balance. They have no stake in it--that's the clerics' turf. Ecosystem balance, yes. The other stuff is for civilized folk.

Accordingly, it should be noted that there are many shades of other alignments, too. The oft-maligned Lawful Good is not just for the Superman boy-scout--it's for Batman, too (doubt it? Then why doesn't he just kill the Joker and be done with it instead of repeatedly tossing him in Arkham?). Chaotic Evil is a tanar'ri, yes, but it's also the Bridge District Skinner (who, in my opinion, is ten times worse than any fiend you face in BG2, in terms of evildoing).

Anyway, just my two coppers.

[Sir Kalthorine]

I never understood why they made druids fight for "the balance". Druids shouldn't give a fig about moral or ethical balance. They have no stake in it--that's the clerics' turf. Ecosystem balance, yes. The other stuff is for civilized folk.

One reason might be how D&D sees Druids. Perhaps Druids (in the game at least) are an Order whose role has always been first and foremost to maintain "Balance", and they have evolved their nature-based powers and affinity over the years simply due to "Mother Nature" being the most powerful and overriding epitomy of Balance that exists in the world. In other words, Balance came before Nature in the history of the D&D Druidic Order, rather than the other way round.

Personally, I don't hold with what I have just written, but it is nonetheless one possible rationale.

[Hendryk]

There's a practical aspect, too. As noted, druids are charged with the natural, ecological balance while the moral and ethical imperatives of other alignments are merely human concerns. Specifically, civilized human concerns. So experience would have shown the druids that whenever Law or Chaos, Good or Evil predominates in human society, then the natural environment will be more subject to stress from that society than if the human elements were balanced and could be played off against one another. So it's not a matter of core faith for the druid, just "practical politics" to keep human civilization balanced also.

Such druidical concern would apply even to the hardest test case of other alignments, NG. If a society were overwhelmingly NG, it would increase in numbers so rapidly as to overwhelm the wild lands within a few generations. So druids would have to prune it back to save what their care is.

Edited by Hendryk, 14 June 2005 - 01:28 AM.