|
Post by Spirit of a Phoenix on May 8, 2012 16:16:41 GMT -5
A friend and I have been debating the similarities and differences between clerics who follow gods of nature and the druids who server those same gods. I want to see what the community's opinion is regarding a few questions. What I mean by a nature cleric is a cleric who follows a god that supports druids.
1) Are both clerics and druids expected to closely follow a nature god's dogma, or do druids have some freedom to stray from the dogma?
2) Does a druid serve nature first and foremost, or do they serve their god?
3) Should a nature cleric follow the same ideals and goals of a druid who serves the same god.
4) What really differentiates a druid and cleric who serve the same god.
|
|
|
Post by dajuke on May 8, 2012 22:12:34 GMT -5
As I've played Taran on the server, who has grown into somewhat of an old druid by this point and who has developed over the years, I would say that a druid does not exist to spread the word of a God. They would be just as content living quietly and alone in a forest as anywhere else. Their drive is simply to maintain a healthy balance in the natural world. Where they cross into the world is when the world seeks to lay its mark on the natural order and alter it. AT that point a druid might become involved in political discourse, active resistance, education, or some darker lines would become aggressive and seek to eliminate whatever threat they perceive.
The cleric of a nature god would be more prone to live in civilization tending a garden or a small grove, and seek to spread the word of finding a peaceful and balanced way of life. They would not be able to thrive isolated in a forest grove because their calling would be to lead others to whatever path their deity stands for.
Both would seek to protect and nurture the natural world but in radically different ways.
As well, the cleric would receive their spells from a specific deity, and my understanding of a druid in the purest sense is that they have trained themselves to harness the natural forces of the world and wield them to whatever end they deem fitting, although my own druid is as devout a follower of Silvanus as any could be. He's also part tree by this point.
|
|
|
Post by Savoie Faire on May 8, 2012 22:30:20 GMT -5
I would make this distinction:
A cleric's role is in the protection of the people in his charge.
A druid's role is in the protection of the natural environment.
The distinction then clearly devides everything else. A Chauntean cleric would venerate the growth of plants and livestock because they serve her flock of worshippers, while a Chauntean druid would venerate them for their place in the lifecycle of the region. A Cleric of Malar would be more concerned with the hunters, while a Malarite druid would be more concerned with the hunt itself. A cleric of Umberlee would wish to bestow fear in the people around her while a druid would revel in the ocean's storms themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on May 9, 2012 6:28:28 GMT -5
I would make this distinction: A cleric's role is in the protection of the people in his charge. A druid's role is in the protection of the natural environment. The distinction then clearly devides everything else. A Chauntean cleric would venerate the growth of plants and livestock because they serve her flock of worshippers, while a Chauntean druid would venerate them for their place in the lifecycle of the region. A Cleric of Malar would be more concerned with the hunters, while a Malarite druid would be more concerned with the hunt itself. A cleric of Umberlee would wish to bestow fear in the people around her while a druid would revel in the ocean's storms themselves. He basically said what I was going to say. One way to think of it is this: Clerics and druids of nature gods (as all druids in FR serve nature gods, not just Nature), both serve their deities, but they do it in different ways. Think of the deity as a sheep rancher. The deity's clerics are shepherds that protect and tend the sheep. The deity's druids are groundskeepers that protect and tend the fields. Both serve the deity, but in different ways. Both still adhere to the deity's dogma and portfolio, but their interests in service are generally in two different directions. Of course cleric/druid multiclass characters try to serve both aspects. A cleric/druid may even have to deal with internal conflict because he has to decide whether to tend the sheep or the fields first in various situations.
|
|
|
Post by Spirit of a Phoenix on May 9, 2012 21:48:20 GMT -5
I would make this distinction: A cleric's role is in the protection of the people in his charge. A druid's role is in the protection of the natural environment. The distinction then clearly devides everything else. A Chauntean cleric would venerate the growth of plants and livestock because they serve her flock of worshippers, while a Chauntean druid would venerate them for their place in the lifecycle of the region. A Cleric of Malar would be more concerned with the hunters, while a Malarite druid would be more concerned with the hunt itself. A cleric of Umberlee would wish to bestow fear in the people around her while a druid would revel in the ocean's storms themselves. He basically said what I was going to say. One way to think of it is this: Clerics and druids of nature gods (as all druids in FR serve nature gods, not just Nature), both serve their deities, but they do it in different ways. Think of the deity as a sheep rancher. The deity's clerics are shepherds that protect and tend the sheep. The deity's druids are groundskeepers that protect and tend the fields. Both serve the deity, but in different ways. Both still adhere to the deity's dogma and portfolio, but their interests in service are generally in two different directions. Of course cleric/druid multiclass characters try to serve both aspects. A cleric/druid may even have to deal with internal conflict because he has to decide whether to tend the sheep or the fields first in various situations. That is a really good description, and you both described the specific focuses of the clerics and druids perfectly, but do you think druids and clerics following the same god could ever work against one another. It would be strange but perhaps possible. If a cleric of Talos used lightning to destroy parts of the environment to incite fear, would a druid of Talos intervene and stop him in order to protect the environment? Another example is a cleric of Auril. If a cleric of Auril decides to whip a magical and thus unnatural blizzard in a region where cold weather would be destructive and unlikely, would a druid of Auril intervene in order to protect the natural conditions of the region? I was trying to build up to the sort of scenario I typed up above. I felt that druids don't focus on all of nature, but a specific aspect of nature. A druid of Auril would favor frozen wastelands over a sunny beach. Being that evil clerics of Auril are encouraged to snuff out warmth, I would feel that a druid of Auril would follow the dogma and support the spread of the cold temperatures rather protect the normal conditions that a particular environment would hold. A cleric of Talos may destroy parts of the environment to command fear and respect for Talos. Would a druid of Talos want to protect the environment, or would he value teaching people a lesson about respecting his god?
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on May 10, 2012 2:38:21 GMT -5
ut do you think druids and clerics following the same god could ever work against one another? It would be strange but perhaps possible. If a cleric of Talos used lightning to destroy parts of the environment to incite fear, would a druid of Talos intervene and stop him in order to protect the environment? Another example is a cleric of Auril. If a cleric of Auril decides to whip a magical and thus unnatural blizzard in a region where cold weather would be destructive and unlikely, would a druid of Auril intervene in order to protect the natural conditions of the region?
I was trying to build up to the sort of scenario I typed up above. I felt that druids don't focus on all of nature, but a specific aspect of nature. A druid of Auril would favor frozen wastelands over a sunny beach. Being that evil clerics of Auril are encouraged to snuff out warmth, I would feel that a druid of Auril would follow the dogma and support the spread of the cold temperatures rather protect the normal conditions that a particular environment would hold.
A cleric of Talos may destroy parts of the environment to command fear and respect for Talos. Would a druid of Talos want to protect the environment, or would he value teaching people a lesson about respecting his god? Talos isn't a very good example because all he really requires of his clergy is that they participate in an act of wanton destruction every week. That's why so many bandit clerics worship Talos, because all they have to do is break stuff regularly and he grants them spells. But to answer your question more generally, it's very likely that two clerics of Auril or druids of Auril, or Talos or whoever could find themselves working at odds if they interpreted the dogma differently. The gods grant their clerics and druids powers but, unless the cleric or druid grossly abuses their power or works against their god's teachings, the clerics or druids are largely left to make their own decisions about what is best for the faith. Speaking specifically to Auril's druids though, I think they'd be more interested in spreading Auril's frozen dominion than in "maintaining a natural ecology." It would, of course, depend on the druid's own interpretations, but druids don't have to be True Neutral, they just have to have a Neutral component to their alignment, and, as Auril is Neutral Evil, all her druids also have to be Neutral Evil. They might look at tampering with a beach to make it a frozen waterfront as a means of expanding Auril's territory, which is kind of what they'd want to do. They care far less about anyone else's territory. Auril's clergy, who can be LE, NE, or CE, are much harder to predict. Compare to Talos, whose portfolio includes destruction, storms, conflagrations (big fires), earthqueakes, and vortices (whirlpools/hurricanes, tornadoes, basically). As a CE deity, his druids can be NE and CN, so there's a bit more flexibility, but there's nothing to Talos that speaks to preservation of the natural world. His nature is in those things that destroy the natural world, and the man-made one as well. When someone says "it was a force of nature" or an "act of god," they're usually referring to natural disasters, not the harmony of the forest. These "natural" disasters, and seeing that they come to pass, is the province of druids of Talos. While clergy of Talos may destroy weekly to by tribute to Talos so he gives them spells, his druids do the same because scorched earth is the nature of Talos himself. Ultimately the destruction of Talos serves nature at times though, because it clears underbrush and roasts pine cones, and leaves space for new life to grow.
|
|
|
Post by Savoie Faire on May 10, 2012 6:10:20 GMT -5
I would like to point out that two cleircal orders of the same god can have violent disagreements on dogma, such as the current schism in the Lathander cults.
Certainly clerical and druidic orders may have disagreements which lead to strife.
|
|
|
Post by 828stingstingneo on May 10, 2012 9:02:20 GMT -5
1) Are both clerics and druids expected to closely follow a nature god's dogma, or do druids have some freedom to stray from the dogma? 2) Does a druid serve nature first and foremost, or do they serve their god? 1) It is my understanding that in the FR world no one, even a cleric, has to exactly follow their god's dogma. Because of the nature of the relationship between deities and their worshipers (ie. deities need the prayers of their worshipers), a persistent heresy can actually change the nature of the deity. Of course, straying so far that you are betraying your god is going to cause your spells to be revoked, etc. 2) A druid's foremost concern is nature. I believe the cleric one step alignment restriction shows the tie with the deity, but the neutral aspect restriction for druids shows the tie with nature. Although a nature deity may be CG, LG, LE, or CE, the balance of nature is so strong a pull that his druids can never match his alignment. In fact, because it is quite usual in the polytheistic setting of FR for a person to be unaware of who their patron deity is, I would even argue it is quite possible for a druid's tie to nature to be his sole consideration. He may not even know for sure which nature deity answers his prayers. A cleric, on the other hand, must know and serve his patron. His relationship to nature merely reflects his deity's relationship with it. as Auril is Neutral Evil, all her druids also have to be Neutral Evil. I'm getting a little off topic, but even by the one step alignment rule, wouldn't there also be TN druids of Auril? Also, I thought the one step rule was only for clerics, so couldn't there theoretically also be CN, NG, and LN druids of Auril? I couldn't find the rule on that, so I just want to make sure I'm not confused about something.
|
|
perspicacity
Proven Member
Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing. -Dali
Posts: 196
|
Post by perspicacity on May 10, 2012 13:25:31 GMT -5
To my understanding, the one-step rule applies to all Divine casters: Clerics, Ranger, Druids and Paladins, though I've not been able to find a canonical source explicitly stating that. However, the FRCS specifically mentions Paladins of Sune as being an exception to the one-step rule which lends support to that logic while opening up, of course, another can of worms. But, being drawn up as it was from various sources with varying levels of communication and agreement, Forgotten Realms canon is notoriously avoidant of specific exacting language.
As a personal interpretation, however, I've always thought of druids being a conspicuously small minority in the followers of Auril since Auril serves more winter as a 'force' than as an environment. Environmental winter falls more under the auspices of Ulutiu. Additionally, Auril's faith is, akin to Umberlee and Beshaba, advanced more by homage birthed of fear than of genuine reverence. For those reasons, I could grudgingly accept a TN druid of Auril but I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea of a NG druid of Auril. And since Auril, when she was mortal, was a fey sprite of winter, LN absolutely seems out to me, as well.
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on May 10, 2012 18:08:38 GMT -5
as Auril is Neutral Evil, all her druids also have to be Neutral Evil. I'm getting a little off topic, but even by the one step alignment rule, wouldn't there also be TN druids of Auril? Also, I thought the one step rule was only for clerics, so couldn't there theoretically also be CN, NG, and LN druids of Auril? I couldn't find the rule on that, so I just want to make sure I'm not confused about something. On FRC we do enforce the one-step alignment for all divine spellcasters. Wildly divergent alignments become silly. If this were a home game, the acting DM might decide differently and allow a divine caster with a very different alignment from their patron, but keeping it uniform for all divine casters works better in this environment. As for True Neutral, the one-step rule never goes toward True Neutral, only away from it. The exception is Chauntea, whose entry specifically notes that her clergy may be TN even though she is NG. (There are other exceptions to the one-step rule, listed elsewhere, but Chauntea's is the one that allows alignment to move from her NG alignment to the TN alignment.)
|
|
|
Post by 828stingstingneo on May 11, 2012 7:27:13 GMT -5
I agree that keeping divine casters' alignments close to their deities' is a good rule that will prevent silliness. I guess I just never came across that rule or I forgot about it. Is it the exact same rule as the one for clerics, though? I would think that druids moving toward TN would make a lot of sense as long as it follows the one step rule otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by jensmann on May 11, 2012 9:22:09 GMT -5
Druids do not have the one step rule. which would be kind of senseless anyways.
A cleric represents the ideals of his god and as that can not be truely neutral unless the follow a god who represents that, meaning a god who is TN. A few not TN gods like Chauntea (NG) allows TN followers.
A druid however does not suffer from this rule as thier Alignment restictions require them to be in some way neutral, but no one step rule. However a NE druid of Chauntea would be like a Paladin of Cyric.. utterly stupid und dump. <.<
Also i checked the Server rules and there is no written rule about the one step rule for druids either.
And to go back on topic. To me the clerics are liek PR agents of thier gods, they try to sell the ways of thier god to others. They are thier gods representives after all. While a Cleric of Rillifane would try to teach people to live better in harmony with nature and help establish and create guidelines for that a druid woud focus more on the eco system and how to keep it in balance and to minilize the impact of foreign sources to the wildlife. As trying to prevent someone bringing bunnies to australia or so <.<
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on May 11, 2012 9:48:31 GMT -5
Also i checked the Server rules and there is no written rule about the one step rule for druids either. Hmm. Thought we had a more general rule posted somewhere in this regard. It may have been dropped at some point. With rules revisions some of the rules have actually vanished over the years. Or it could be that it was a rule on the server I DMed before FRC. (Many of the rules are very similar.) I'm pretty sure we had some very specific wording concerning non-cleric divine casters somewhere though. I'll look for it.
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on May 11, 2012 10:05:45 GMT -5
Nope, the only old rule on druids I can find says: Rangers and Druids are required to have a patron diety if they are planning to cast divine spells. Druids must worship a nature deity, or a deity that would include Druids amongst their followers. Druids are required to take a Druidic Oath and this oath can often supercede thier commitments to their selected deity, as Druids are to "preserve the balance over all else". The current rule says: Rangers and Druids have to have a patron deity to cast spells. Druids need to follow a nature deity, but Rangers do not need to do so. I still feel like there's a more general explanation somewhere and it's listed with information about divine champions, but I don't know what I'm looking for.
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on May 11, 2012 11:10:56 GMT -5
Found this in the DM Q&A. It was never answered. Topic name was "One Step Alignment Rule" Does this rule also apply to druids as divine casters? Or are they exempt because they are not clerics?
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on May 11, 2012 12:02:05 GMT -5
Also i checked the Server rules and there is no written rule about the one step rule for druids either. Turns out I answered this question for jensmann a long time ago with the correct answer for FRC, and I must be thinking of something else this week. (Clearly I've been away from FRC for too long with this extended hiatus.) Check out Jensmann's DM Q&A question and the answer. I need to know this, because of some things happened and want to be sure before i say something.
Can a TN druid get powers from A CG god?
I would say no because in FR druids and rangers need a god to cast spells like clerics ( its dive magic after all), but for usuall exept for some gods like silvanus and Ogma, the alignment TN cannot be choosen by divine spellcasters.
As i said i need to know this because my cha isendir(NG) is a priest of rillifane (a CG god), and in his entry there under cleric alingments stands nothing about TN.
-jensmann |
Clerics have a one-step rule.
Paladins must be LG and their patrons must be LG, NG, or LN, or Sune, who is CG.
Blackguards must be evil and have arranged with a fiend to become a blackguard. (Blackguards are by DM-approval only.)
Divine Champions must have a patron.
Rangers must have a patron by the time they begin casting divine spells. These are normally Nature deities but some rangers follow other paths.
Druids have to have a neutral component to their alignment and a patron deity. Druids are limited to the deities listed as Nature Deities or deities that otherwise list druids among their followers.
I have not read that druids follow a one-step rule.
|
Note however that a druid that falls too far from his deity in alignment may still displease his deity through his actions based on his alignment. (If you are a druid of a good god who goes around doing evil acts, expect the god to get pissy.) |
So please accept my apologies for the misinformation I presented upthread that jensmann make sure to correct. On an unrelated note, has anyone else tried sorting the DM Q&A by Topic? It should be much easier to find answers to questions by topic since I've renamed a large number of the threads.
|
|
|
Post by Spirit of a Phoenix on May 11, 2012 12:32:02 GMT -5
Rangers and Druids are required to have a patron diety if they are planning to cast divine spells. Druids must worship a nature deity, or a deity that would include Druids amongst their followers. Druids are required to take a Druidic Oath and this oath can often supercede thier commitments to their selected deity, as Druids are to "preserve the balance over all else". Is the guideline posted above by SCJ, strictly adhered to? I am personally iffy about druids looking to preserve the balance over all else. I can't see that working with forgotten realms, especially with druids who follow gods like Auril, Talos, ext. who are nature deities and also the gods of fury. The gods of fury all have "destruction" as their domains. I know at one point Chauntea believed good and evil to be harmful to herself and thus sought a true balance, but nowadays she is no longer TN and is now NG. In regards to druids and their alignments, I always thought the rule was that a druid just can't have an alignment aspect opposing their deity's. For example a NG deity like Chauntea can have LN or CN, because she is at the center of lawful and chaotic, but can't have NE druids' because the good aspect of her alignment would contradict the druid's evil alignment. A CE deity like Talona can have druid who are CN or NE, but can't have druids who are NG or LN, but the good and lawful aspects of the alignment would contradict the Chaotic and Evil aspects of Talona's domain. I'll have to look it up later in my 3.5 Players Handbook, but I usually play my characters as very close to their god's alignment, so I'm not positive. It would be unlikely that I'd play a character outside the one step of their deities alignment. For Auril, she is one of the alignment exceptions for clerics. Her clerics can be NE, LN, CN. Auril's clerics cannot follow the one step rule and be LE or CE. I always thought she did this to keep her clerics alignment's closer to her druid's alignments. Edit: Made a quick typo fix.
|
|
|
Post by Munroe on May 11, 2012 13:04:51 GMT -5
For Auril, she is one of the alignment exceptions for clerics. Her clerics can be NE, LN, CN. Auril's clerics cannot follow the one step rule and be LE or CE. I always thought she did this to keep her clerics alignment's closer to her druid's alignments. That's a typo that's repeated throughout the second chapter of Faiths and Pantheons. I call it out specifically in the cleric alignment thread. Her cleric alignments should follow the one-step rule. According to Faiths and Pantheons, Velsharoon, Auril, Sebek, Ilneval, Luthic, and Yurtrus, who are all NE, support NE, LN, and CN clerics. I strongly believe this is a reoccurring typo in Faiths and Pantheons. They should support NE, LE, and CE clerics.
According to Faiths and Pantheons, Akadi is Neutral but does not support True Neutral or Neutral Good alignments, only NE, LN, and CN. I strongly believe this is a reoccurring typo in Faiths and Pantheons. Akadi should support TN, NG, LN, CN, and NE clerics. |
Damn Wizards of the Coast and their antics with Copy & Paste.
|
|
|
Post by Spirit of a Phoenix on May 11, 2012 13:11:27 GMT -5
For Auril, she is one of the alignment exceptions for clerics. Her clerics can be NE, LN, CN. Auril's clerics cannot follow the one step rule and be LE or CE. I always thought she did this to keep her clerics alignment's closer to her druid's alignments. That's a typo that's repeated throughout the second chapter of Faiths and Pantheons. I call it out specifically in the cleric alignment thread. Her cleric alignments should follow the one-step rule. According to Faiths and Pantheons, Velsharoon, Auril, Sebek, Ilneval, Luthic, and Yurtrus, who are all NE, support NE, LN, and CN clerics. I strongly believe this is a reoccurring typo in Faiths and Pantheons. They should support NE, LE, and CE clerics.
According to Faiths and Pantheons, Akadi is Neutral but does not support True Neutral or Neutral Good alignments, only NE, LN, and CN. I strongly believe this is a reoccurring typo in Faiths and Pantheons. Akadi should support TN, NG, LN, CN, and NE clerics. |
Damn Wizards of the Coast and their antics with Copy & Paste. Lol, that makes sense. I spent way too much time trying to wrap my head around why Auril would have clerics who break the one step rule.
|
|
|
Post by catmage on May 14, 2012 3:27:12 GMT -5
I would argue that following a god of destruction can still allow one to follow the need to preserve balance. Death, chaos and evil are as essential as life, law and goodness where balance is concerned, and certain gods of destruction have been revered in DnD pantheons by druids who point out that new life is born from the ruin they bring.
Also remember that not all druids are foresty tree huggers. There are druids that live in and support the ecosystem of swamps, the oceans, deserts, even the environs of the Underdark. A druid of a god of destruction could feel it is their duty to seek out the rot and the impure and expose it to the scourging purity of Talos' lightning, and a druid of Auril may feel that the harshness of the tundra is where nature shows it's true glory and the fitness of it's children, and seek to increase the size of the Great Glacier to try and lower the world's average temperature, for example.
|
|
|
Post by tarus on May 16, 2012 0:08:07 GMT -5
Druids have different ideas and goals. No two druids are alike and not all of them want true balance. There's good and evil and some druids actually WANT power and rule. Some druids may use a grove to force all of nature to lay siege to a nearby human settlement. They may even destroy the land to this end as long as they think they can succeed.
|
|