Having played a few druids, I continually am conflicted by my Druid roleplay. I find it easy to roleplay a druid interacting with nature, finding elements of nature in more civilized environments, interacting with animals and plants, being slightly uninterested in cities and humanoid cultures.
This all seems to conflict though with a Druid as an adventurer, sharing equal loot and coin, taking out baddies who threaten the stability of humanoid civilizations. Should the druid (at least fairly often) either not care, or at times even sympathize with razing towns and thwarting those who would continually encroach on nature?
Why does a druid need coin?
Why does a druid want to acquire anything material?
Why does a druid leave the nature they want to protect?
Why does a druid care about divisions and struggles created by gods of good and evil?
The whole premise of adventuring seems at odds with this class of character, much more so than any other (except maybe monk). While I've created plausible backstories, it still seems hard to play it true to the character.
While most druids typically are neutral, there is no requirement for them to be neutral in 5th edition; you can be a chaotic good druid who wants to help everyone in trouble, or a neutral evil ruthless "greater good" type etc. Even as neutral, you can be bored of the forest and want to see something new, it could be a rite of passage (to see the world before committing to a life in a forest), you could have visions that send you on your quest and so-on.
It will also depend a lot on the quest; if the quest is something threatening enough that your home is in danger too, then it makes sense to venture out and stop it, even if it means leaving said home undefended (or defended by others) for a time.
As for wealth/material goods, it can simply be practical; if money is how the outside world works, then you will need enough to buy the things you require, because there will be items you can't make yourself, and while stealing may not seem wrong to you, you're more useful outside of jail than inside it. Property might be a more difficult one, but you can let the group lead on that, or even argue against it as the character, then reluctantly go along with it when everyone else decides to buy a castle or whatever.
Druids also typically hate the unnatural so eradicating the undead is always a top priority. No undead to kill in your village? Time to go adventuring!
I am running a druid in the sort of a best case scenario in terms of this dilemma. There is an existential threat to the entire world, in the form of a very powerful undead army invading from the astral plane. On top of it, they are part of a larger plot by an angry god that is causing large scale (un)natural disasters that include among other things, disrupting the way tides work. As a sea oriented druid (an islander), the tides to me play the role the moon plays for other druids. More to Haravikk's point, I am also running this character as neutral good, not true neutral, so she does have a pure interest in aiding/defending those that need it.
As to coin and material things, I treat that sort of like running a nonprofit - yes money comes in, but it gets immediately invested in my ability to do more good in the world. For now that's largely meant purchasing herbs and supplies for crafting healing potions to distribute to the party, investing in ruby dust to create a few Continual Flame'd objects, and covering the cost of other material components. In the longer run, I'm a Stars Druid - if I run into serious coin it will go into constructing a druidic observatory or something similar. Raising huge standing stone monuments is one of the most Druid-y things you can do, and ain't cheap. Finally, to fight the fight we're engaged in, my party needs a sailing ship, and as everybody knows, ships are giant money pits, so that sure takes up a good chunk of coin as well.
I think that broadly there are three kinds of "Druid". You have the group who are more like what you are talking about, where they live ascetically in tune with nature in a more passive way. They listen to nature and are guided by it, acting reactively to threats to the world and their local environment. Covering all your questions, it's a matter of practicality and dealing with the scope of a problem. Recognizing that the threats to nature are more powerful than them and that they need tools to fight back, or need to actually leave their home to fight proactively to protect it. A group of zombies here or there, or a wandering monstrosity could be taken care of in a few days of work, but a horde of undead or the movement of a hostile dragon would require help and additional tools to defeat. It's also possible that if they are part of some sort of druidic commune and aren't just a hermit that there is some level of expectation of them. The druidic circle of a forest can be called upon for assistance by a local kingdom, so the druid has been selected to go out on this journey of finding the self while out in the greater world.
The second kind of druid I think are the more "human" ones. The ones that live either within or adjacent to society and act as an in-between for it. These are the wilderness guides, the ones who watch for danger within the nature to protect other people. These would likely be your more typical adventuring druids, the ones who still care for nature but use their druidic powers as a tool in a more selfish way. This doesn't make them bad though, just that the relationship is more symbiotic where they are shaped by both civilization and nature while also influencing them back in equal measure. These are the ones who would perhaps be in charge of protecting smaller localities or watching for the signs for greater danger to civilization. Out in the wilds until they happen upon signs of an orc horde mobilizing or signs of some swarm of destructive beasts and going to civilization to warn and prepare them for it. These are the people who are also druids, rather than simply just being one with nature.
The third group would be the more hostile or ambivalent types of druids. The ones that are typically antagonistic NPCs, where they solely care about their version of nature and reject everything else. They might attack "civilization" or reject the forms of it more harshly. The ones who would preach things like might makes right, or that the weak should die as nature would typically demand, would fall into this line. Even these though can make fine adventurers, though rarely good aligned ones. They would go out into civilization for a mix of wanting to destroy specific enemies or be proactive in their enforcement of what nature should be, or other similar reasoning. They might sympathize with those monsters they are fighting, relishing the idea of destroying civilization if not for the other damage they would inflict. The orc horde is an enemy not because they want to raze and sack villages, but that they are constantly cutting down forests and overhunting wild game.
A Druid may choose to adventure for various reasons, exploration of flora and fauna, discovery of natural plants and creatures other than beasts such as monstrosities, protect humankind, the wilderness or Druid groves, even sylvan creatures, gain power or standing in Druid hierarchy, make history, save love or sibblings etc... reasons can be many.
A Druid may often embark on adventure for reasons beyond its control too, because someone or something else urge it to, to accomplish its diety's or order's will etc...
I think that broadly there are three kinds of "Druid". You have the group who are more like what you are talking about, where they live ascetically in tune with nature in a more passive way. They listen to nature and are guided by it, acting reactively to threats to the world and their local environment. Covering all your questions, it's a matter of practicality and dealing with the scope of a problem. Recognizing that the threats to nature are more powerful than them and that they need tools to fight back, or need to actually leave their home to fight proactively to protect it. A group of zombies here or there, or a wandering monstrosity could be taken care of in a few days of work, but a horde of undead or the movement of a hostile dragon would require help and additional tools to defeat. It's also possible that if they are part of some sort of druidic commune and aren't just a hermit that there is some level of expectation of them. The druidic circle of a forest can be called upon for assistance by a local kingdom, so the druid has been selected to go out on this journey of finding the self while out in the greater world.
The second kind of druid I think are the more "human" ones. The ones that live either within or adjacent to society and act as an in-between for it. These are the wilderness guides, the ones who watch for danger within the nature to protect other people. These would likely be your more typical adventuring druids, the ones who still care for nature but use their druidic powers as a tool in a more selfish way. This doesn't make them bad though, just that the relationship is more symbiotic where they are shaped by both civilization and nature while also influencing them back in equal measure. These are the ones who would perhaps be in charge of protecting smaller localities or watching for the signs for greater danger to civilization. Out in the wilds until they happen upon signs of an orc horde mobilizing or signs of some swarm of destructive beasts and going to civilization to warn and prepare them for it. These are the people who are also druids, rather than simply just being one with nature.
The third group would be the more hostile or ambivalent types of druids. The ones that are typically antagonistic NPCs, where they solely care about their version of nature and reject everything else. They might attack "civilization" or reject the forms of it more harshly. The ones who would preach things like might makes right, or that the weak should die as nature would typically demand, would fall into this line. Even these though can make fine adventurers, though rarely good aligned ones. They would go out into civilization for a mix of wanting to destroy specific enemies or be proactive in their enforcement of what nature should be, or other similar reasoning. They might sympathize with those monsters they are fighting, relishing the idea of destroying civilization if not for the other damage they would inflict. The orc horde is an enemy not because they want to raze and sack villages, but that they are constantly cutting down forests and overhunting wild game.
Type 1:
I don't believe that even if they left their environment they'd "adventure" on random quests with a collection of all types of other humanoids who have entirely diverse backgrounds, mindsets and agendas. Doesn't make sense at all. Sure, if it's an undead army, for a time. But what if it's not? Most adventures include all kinds of challenges and reasons for taking them on. I just don't feel this kind of Druid would get involved in that. I don't think their Druidic orders would appreciate it either. ;)
Type 2:
This is a Ranger to me, not a Druid. Some Druids might come close to that, and I could see designing one, but it's not a standard type for a few reasons. I like the type, but still, why does a Druid care if some cult is taking people's children? Or if the local mage has gone off the rails with his own power and wants to take over the kingdom? This is humanoid stuff. Any Druid in this kind of position would be constantly conflicted by humanoid use and abuse of nature on the edges of civilization and become even less likely to protect any civilized area.
Type 3:
This makes sense. The Druid that is angry, maybe vindictive, toward other humanoids. Doesn't sound like they'd be a good adventuring partner either.
A Druid may choose to adventure for various reasons, exploration of flora and fauna, discovery of natural plants and creatures other than beasts such as monstrosities, protect humankind, the wilderness or Druid groves, even sylvan creatures, gain power or standing in Druid hierarchy, make history, save love or sibblings etc... reasons can be many.
A Druid may often embark on adventure for reasons beyond its control too, because someone or something else urge it to, to accomplish its diety's or order's will etc...
This is the kind of tack I've taken to "justify" adventuring in my Druids. Interest in nature, investigating new and different environments, animals, plants. Finding new and unusual ways of using magic (the weave) to explore and commune with nature. Also loss of home, the area of home being destroyed or overrun. So then of course that brings of some agendas and goals.
It's just hard to balance the goals with random adventures and the pleasures, indulgences, religions and greed of a random group of adventurers. Interested to see more specifically how people design a character that should care about any of that who is also a Druid.
It's not so much why a Druid goes on a quest, but why do they stay on it, and stay with these other adventurers?
It's not so much why a Druid goes on a quest, but why do they stay on it, and stay with these other adventurers?
What is the quest? Who are the adventurers? Who is the druid? It's hard to answer a question like this in a general sense, because the specifics matter.
The first thing I'd say is, you keep referring to the druid like they're the problem, but the issue here really is the specific character.
Druids can be chaotic, they can be fun loving, they can indulge (and overindulge) in existing vices, or acquire new ones and so-on. While there are typical druids, there is no one true singular type of druid that you must aspire to in a campaign. Even if you want to start as a classic neutral, balance and nature loving druid, there is nothing to prevent that character from being changed by their adventures, and those they choose to adventure with.
A stern, abstinent druid can reluctantly tag along to, or be dragged to, some event that the others want to participate in, then discover they actually enjoy it as well. Or maybe you're just there to keep them out of trouble. Or you can play to the disagreement; characters don't have to neatly fit into a perfect whole, so long as you roleplay them respectfully (to your fellow players) they can have differences of opinion, they can have fallings out and so-on, because it's rare to find people who agree on everything all of the time and that's okay. Even if your druid doesn't fit into a group at all at first, simply being together on a quest can forge a bond that's hard to break, or you might stay out of classic necessity because there is safety in numbers, you have a greater chance of success together, or the others have skills that you don't, but need.
It's also okay for characters to not fit, and for the end of a quest to be the end of their arc with the group; you shouldn't force a character to stay with a party that they don't really fit into, and you don't think they would adapt to fit into.
I have a character I've been playing for a little while who isn't a druid but is neutral evil, in a mostly good(-ish) but chaotic group; he joined because he has a personal stake in the quest they're on, and once it's completed he's gone, and that's okay. In the mean time he'll do what he can to ensure success, helping others, giving advice, but he doesn't have to be pleasant about it, he can disagree with shenanigans etc., and he can push for more drastic (but effective) actions that the others will disapprove of. He's probably only got a session or two at most to go, and I'll miss playing as him, but there is no logical reason for him to stay with the group once the quest is done (because completing it will let him end his curse), and that's fine, he will leave and I'll bring back a character who went missing (and who it may turn out he had a hand in all along).
Maybe that's not a helpful example, but the point is that there were a whole range of ways for a character to fit into a group, or not, so the question isn't really how a druid can, but why you don't think your character(s) can? It's hard to give specific suggestions without more specific details though! What's the character like? What are the other characters like? What's the quest?
If you really try to take this to logical extremes, very few classes/subclasses would "adventure" for adventuring's sake. Apart from a small handful of Bard, Fighter, and Rogue subclasses, every class has a higher cause that does not align with generic adventuring. Why would a Ranger explore a dungeon when they should be defending villages from marauding orcs? Why would a cleric go treasure hunting when they should be serving their god by going to holy warrior against clerics of another god? Hell, why would a thief go treasure hunting if there were very many monsters in the way of the treasure? Easier to pick some pockets, or pull cons on nobles.
Honestly, this is at least as much on the DM as it is on the players. The DM should keep their players in mind when selecting what adventures to write or pull off the shelf. They need that all important HOOK that provides the logical narrative motivation for this particular band of beings to want to pursue that particular adventure. In some cases, maybe the motivation is only relevant to a single character in the party, but now that they have been through much together and built up loyalty and camaraderie, they are willing to help out their friend through a challenge that might not otherwise concern them.
If you really try to take this to logical extremes, very few classes/subclasses would "adventure" for adventuring's sake. Apart from a small handful of Bard, Fighter, and Rogue subclasses, every class has a higher cause that does not align with generic adventuring. Why would a Ranger explore a dungeon when they should be defending villages from marauding orcs? Why would a cleric go treasure hunting when they should be serving their god by going to holy warrior against clerics of another god? Hell, why would a thief go treasure hunting if there were very many monsters in the way of the treasure? Easier to pick some pockets, or pull cons on nobles.
Honestly, this is at least as much on the DM as it is on the players. The DM should keep their players in mind when selecting what adventures to write or pull off the shelf. They need that all important HOOK that provides the logical narrative motivation for this particular band of beings to want to pursue that particular adventure. In some cases, maybe the motivation is only relevant to a single character in the party, but now that they have been through much together and built up loyalty and camaraderie, they are willing to help out their friend through a challenge that might not otherwise concern them.
Unless the DM is very involved and puts some limits on character design and backgrounds it would be hard to do this even with a well designed adventure module. All adventures have extremely diverse elements to them, and even a homebrew will still need some random parts.
The druid is really the only character type with this anti-civilization element, and most of the goals and hooks in adventures have a necessary "save something in civilization" endpoint. I don't see it as an extreme, but integral to the druid.
A Rogue might easily be swayed to adventure with the temptation of greater wealth, pleasure, loot or just have fun sneaking around. A Cleric's mission could always be furthered by eliminating evil beings or NPCs in parts of the adventure, and isn't operating outside of human culture to achieve it's God ordained goals. A Ranger would be defending humanity by combatting evil wherever they find it, and a dungeon, if that's where the dangers lurk that threaten a culture, is just as good a spot as any. Again, it's focused on humanoid goals, societal goals.
This is why I find it hard to roleplay a druid. What I'll probably have to do is decide that my druids are not "real" druids, but someone who is trained by druids, and has left to pursue humanoid concerns due to family ties, friendships, other personal goals, or feeling that don't mesh with being an actual druid. They are in essence a fallen druid.
One I've created is kind of like this. He's a Forest Gnome Druid/Sorcerer. His wild magic has caused him to feel he is dangerous to his own people, and he left to pursue a study of magic in order to attempt to control the wild magic element of his sorcery. Of course h's still interested in his herbal collections and the defense of nature when the opportunity is there, but it's not the driving focus for his adventuring. Loot and money is still tough to figure out, because he isn't that interested in those either. It's closer to something that helps me understand why the druid no longer operates as a druid, which helps.
This is why I find it hard to roleplay a druid. What I'll probably have to do is decide that my druids are not "real" druids, but someone who is trained by druids, and has left to pursue humanoid concerns due to family ties, friendships, other personal goals, or feeling that don't mesh with being an actual druid. They are in essence a fallen druid.
What in your mind is "an actual druid"? It sounds to me like you keep placing restrictions on yourself and then claiming that it's the character being a druid that's the problem, but your idea of what a druid must be sounds like extra restrictions you're adding. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's a choice that you are making, rather than anything related to being a druid.
An evil lich wanting to raise an undead army for example is unnatural, so druids would be motivated to stop that, especially as that threat can spread and threaten the natural world itself. A rampaging dragon is a potential threat any nearby forests etc. etc.
Even true neutral druids are not forced to hide themselves away and never act; being neutral alignment means you strive for some kind of balance. If evil is becoming dominant then neutral characters are allowed to fight it to restore the balance, when you act it may be for more pragmatic or logical reasons than emotional ones and so-on.
There are also other motivations; a disaster could have happened, leading a druid to seek to ensure the same thing won't happen to others, their god (if they have one) could have tasked them with stopping a threat, or warned them of what will happen if they don't, or something more innocuous like a passing fortune teller may have given a reading that has the druid concerned enough to seek answers.
All of these are compatible with the most restrictive of druid characters, because druids not incapable of having motivations.
A Druid may choose to adventure for various reasons, exploration of flora and fauna, discovery of natural plants and creatures other than beasts such as monstrosities, protect humankind, the wilderness or Druid groves, even sylvan creatures, gain power or standing in Druid hierarchy, make history, save love or sibblings etc... reasons can be many.
A Druid may often embark on adventure for reasons beyond its control too, because someone or something else urge it to, to accomplish its diety's or order's will etc...
This is the kind of tack I've taken to "justify" adventuring in my Druids. Interest in nature, investigating new and different environments, animals, plants. Finding new and unusual ways of using magic (the weave) to explore and commune with nature. Also loss of home, the area of home being destroyed or overrun. So then of course that brings of some agendas and goals.
It's just hard to balance the goals with random adventures and the pleasures, indulgences, religions and greed of a random group of adventurers. Interested to see more specifically how people design a character that should care about any of that who is also a Druid.
It's not so much why a Druid goes on a quest, but why do they stay on it, and stay with these other adventurers?
It usually work better for short term adventures or chain or events than permanent adventuring life.
I think that broadly there are three kinds of "Druid". You have the group who are more like what you are talking about, where they live ascetically in tune with nature in a more passive way. They listen to nature and are guided by it, acting reactively to threats to the world and their local environment. Covering all your questions, it's a matter of practicality and dealing with the scope of a problem. Recognizing that the threats to nature are more powerful than them and that they need tools to fight back, or need to actually leave their home to fight proactively to protect it. A group of zombies here or there, or a wandering monstrosity could be taken care of in a few days of work, but a horde of undead or the movement of a hostile dragon would require help and additional tools to defeat. It's also possible that if they are part of some sort of druidic commune and aren't just a hermit that there is some level of expectation of them. The druidic circle of a forest can be called upon for assistance by a local kingdom, so the druid has been selected to go out on this journey of finding the self while out in the greater world.
The second kind of druid I think are the more "human" ones. The ones that live either within or adjacent to society and act as an in-between for it. These are the wilderness guides, the ones who watch for danger within the nature to protect other people. These would likely be your more typical adventuring druids, the ones who still care for nature but use their druidic powers as a tool in a more selfish way. This doesn't make them bad though, just that the relationship is more symbiotic where they are shaped by both civilization and nature while also influencing them back in equal measure. These are the ones who would perhaps be in charge of protecting smaller localities or watching for the signs for greater danger to civilization. Out in the wilds until they happen upon signs of an orc horde mobilizing or signs of some swarm of destructive beasts and going to civilization to warn and prepare them for it. These are the people who are also druids, rather than simply just being one with nature.
The third group would be the more hostile or ambivalent types of druids. The ones that are typically antagonistic NPCs, where they solely care about their version of nature and reject everything else. They might attack "civilization" or reject the forms of it more harshly. The ones who would preach things like might makes right, or that the weak should die as nature would typically demand, would fall into this line. Even these though can make fine adventurers, though rarely good aligned ones. They would go out into civilization for a mix of wanting to destroy specific enemies or be proactive in their enforcement of what nature should be, or other similar reasoning. They might sympathize with those monsters they are fighting, relishing the idea of destroying civilization if not for the other damage they would inflict. The orc horde is an enemy not because they want to raze and sack villages, but that they are constantly cutting down forests and overhunting wild game.
Type 1:
I don't believe that even if they left their environment they'd "adventure" on random quests with a collection of all types of other humanoids who have entirely diverse backgrounds, mindsets and agendas. Doesn't make sense at all. Sure, if it's an undead army, for a time. But what if it's not? Most adventures include all kinds of challenges and reasons for taking them on. I just don't feel this kind of Druid would get involved in that. I don't think their Druidic orders would appreciate it either. ;)
Type 2:
This is a Ranger to me, not a Druid. Some Druids might come close to that, and I could see designing one, but it's not a standard type for a few reasons. I like the type, but still, why does a Druid care if some cult is taking people's children? Or if the local mage has gone off the rails with his own power and wants to take over the kingdom? This is humanoid stuff. Any Druid in this kind of position would be constantly conflicted by humanoid use and abuse of nature on the edges of civilization and become even less likely to protect any civilized area.
Type 3:
This makes sense. The Druid that is angry, maybe vindictive, toward other humanoids. Doesn't sound like they'd be a good adventuring partner either.
Type 1: It's certainly contextual, but I listed a handful of ideas for what would pull those more passive types out into the world. It's likely also a level of pragmatism and practicality to want to find others who are reasonably capable of surviving in environments that the druid wouldn't be as experienced in, and them the opposite. If there are possible threats to nature needing to be dealt with that are outside the scope of a singular druid dealing with them, then having allies to call upon is a great idea. Even in the less immediate, it's possible that this is them trying to find contacts for if such a situation was to occur in the future. A sort of scenario where the druid is going out to cultivate allies to request aid if a dragon showed up on short notice as an example.
Type 2: This is certainly a more rangery niche sure, but flavour is free and the idea of a ranger motivated character focusing more on casting and realizing that martial prowess just doesn't stack up as well seems pretty legitimate as a character choice to me. On the other points, I'd say that a smart druid would be aware that societies tend to be reactive to bad stuff happening. The evil wizard might not be a threat for a few weeks, but expansionist tendencies and unchecked desire for power likely leads to large army buildup and destruction of local ecosystems. Yes, this is "humanoid stuff" but you can easily see them as taking a more involved and direct stance on protecting nature by controlling civilization from within.
Type 3: I've played a druid like this, and also been a player for a character like this. I can say that it's probably something to have a table discussion over, like any character that skirts the line or is explicitly evil. It's also possible to start out like this, build loyalty to the party, and then mellow out into one of the other two types. Context matters, how much the DM or players would be willing to indulge this kind of character are all things that should be discussed for standards. Is it ok for you to be happily killing bandits no mercy? How off limits are civilians? Can I purposefully force fey possession of these bandits I captured alive to turn them into indentured servants and start my own weird fey possessed empire? Is threatening flooding a river to wipe out a settlement too far? So on.
Thanks for all of the thoughts. I'm being very restrictive about definition not because I believe in that for myself, and certainly not because I believe in it for others. Obviously, make what feels good, break some eggs, see how it works in game.
It has been a struggle, (and this is what I keep getting back to), to align the motivations, world-view, macro ideals of the druid class to daily interactivity with the party. I keep asking myself, would this (or that) character I've created really go along with this, or care about some of these concerns, or find any of this worth risking his life for (or his link to nature for) instead of pursuing his ultimate goals relating to keeping nature's balance. Only rarely do I say, yes.
It's a fun class to play, and I've enjoyed coming up with some new ideas based on your responses.
The idea of "what is my motivation" is certainly not a unique concern to Druids. For many classes, there must be an Impetus, and you need an answer to "what has changed?"
Wizards - Why are you no longer studying? You were training in the use of the arcane within a very scholarly setting (in most cases). Why leave that to adventure?
Rogues - You were often looking out for yourself as a primary motivator. Why stick with a relatively large group beyond an odd job and tether yourself to the concerns of others?
And so forth. A Druid certainly needs some reason why they're not just hanging out in the woods like a happy hippie, but that motivation can and should be uniquely tailored to the Druid and the campaign. As far as why they Keep adventuring, some things to keep in mind:
- More than most, a Druid doesn't need coin, they need Allies. Wanting to preserve nature is all well and good, but you vs the world typically doesn't end well. You can't be the only one who cares or who agrees a given piece of nature should remain despoiled. Once you Have allies among civilization willing to take action to preserve nature, there is a natural give and take. You ensure they stick around so they can help ensure the natural world sticks around. They hold fast to their commitments to keep you on their side. The more allies you build, the more you can defend nature, and the more folks you can call upon to answer a larger threat.
- Even a Druid who doesn't care at all about civilization can and will still care about individual people. Often, it's as simple as 'you care because they care'. Just like you can have folks attending fashion shows they care nothing about, or attending fundraisers, contributing to charitable organizations, and / or working on projects just because folks they care about are involved in the real world. Even ignoring the pragmatic 'I scratch your back so you'll scratch mine', if you care about someone and they care about something, and you can help, you will. Sometimes it's just that simple.
- It's also incumbent on the player to keep their character and their values in mind. It's very easy to go along for the ride to the point where a Druid has been in dungeons and cities for months with almost no exposure to nature. If that's happening, in large part it's a failure on the player's part, for not insisting on getting a break from it all every now and again and getting back in touch with their roots. They can and should at times do things like: Stay outside a city's walls while others are sleeping in an inn; take a week or two of downtime to attend to personal matters and commune with nature and / or other druids; so on and so forth. Mental health maintenance is key for real people, so for characters to be realistic and immersive, it needs to matter for them too.
- Finally, often the reason Druids aren't hanging out within nature itself is because the natural world isn't threatened from within. You don't want to fight the demon army As it's despoiling the woodlands, that's going to be destructive to the woodlands to say the least. You need to go out there and deal with threats Before they wreak havoc on the natural order. We don't wait for a herd of deer to graze themselves into extinction before acting to cull the herd and get numbers back to something the area can support. You don't wait for things to get bad or the danger to arrive on your doorstep before you act. This is more true for Druids than perhaps any other class, and as such, proactive adventuring can and does often make sense.
Between those things, I think it's very common and easy to have Tons of motivation for a Druid in a given campaign. If you're not seeing it for the particulars of the story being told, talk to the GM about it. Seems like something that can and should be fixed.
Don’t think of it as a question of “why would a druid be adventuring.” Think of it more as a question of “Why is my character adventuring.” Your character’s story isn’t completely defined by its class.
Sure, a generic druid may not have much reason to leave their sacred grove or whatever, but Jerry the Shepherd Druid whose been a humble farmhand his whole life may be adventuring out of desperation in order to get money to repay a debt that his grandfather owed on the property before it gets taken away by the original sellers. Adora the Dreams Druid may have lived a comfortable life as a noble in the Feywild, where she was very in tune with the nature that grew on the grounds of the manor. But one day she somehow ended up in the material plane after getting chased by a hag through a portal from the Feywild, and now she has to find a way back home!
A druid has as many reasons to go adventuring as anyone else depending on their backstory.
A common theme in some fantasy is when a character comes of age, that they're to travel the world, learn from it's experiences and return home a grown and wisened individual. I think that is one that very easily applies to a Druid, honestly.
But perhaps you're thinking too much in the box of "I must tend to my forest and glade", etc.
Maybe they're on some sort of pilgrimage, or a wandering individual who blesses the cities fields with the likes of 3rd level Plant Growth, on their quest to pay it forward in the name of their deity.
It could be that the Druid is simply itching for more excitement in life.
Maybe they're semi-feral, but a party member befriended him/her. Think Circle of Moon, Kenku like linguistic limitations, Savagery, etc.
Even if we want to remain in the box of why emerge from nature, the Druid will miss out on many experiences life has to offer them. Perhaps they start to adventure, or even learn economics and the sort in an attempt to change the way of things.
Perhaps they're at war with the more organized religions of the setting, seeing them as the driving force of cities encroaching upon the wilderness, and doing what they can to support those who follow the olden ways, that worship concepts rather than the gods.
Circle of the Stars could even have a scientific approach almost, with a focus on star charts, alignments, reading the fortunes of people. - It'd be easy to bring a Druid of such nature into a city I feel.
Mainly, I think the two things is one needs to be more flexible with their mindset on "What is a Druid." and simultaneously, offer their character depth and motivations that go further than "I am a Druid."
Don’t think of it as a question of “why would a druid be adventuring.” Think of it more as a question of “Why is my character adventuring.” Your character’s story isn’t completely defined by its class.
Sure, a generic druid may not have much reason to leave their sacred grove or whatever, but Jerry the Shepherd Druid whose been a humble farmhand his whole life may be adventuring out of desperation in order to get money to repay a debt that his grandfather owed on the property before it gets taken away by the original sellers. Adora the Dreams Druid may have lived a comfortable life as a noble in the Feywild, where she was very in tune with the nature that grew on the grounds of the manor. But one day she somehow ended up in the material plane after getting chased by a hag through a portal from the Feywild, and now she has to find a way back home!
A druid has as many reasons to go adventuring as anyone else depending on their backstory.
As stated above, I get what you're saying, but in terms of my conception of daily interactions, your answer changes little, and reveals the inherent issues.
Is Jerry the sheep herder a druid? Probably not. Probably a farmer. And if he has druidic skills and can use them to adventure for money, why not just stay and improve the farm directly. Or ward off the debt collectors himself? ;)
So this is more about the day to day running of a druid character. Sure, other classes have some issues there as well, but the premise of most D&D campaigns is that there is incentive for these characters to do what they're doing, and that is not just driven by their backstory, but by goals and monetary or loot rewards for their adventuring.
So if Adora wants to get back to the Feywild, is every adventure quest that group goes on fulfilling her goal? I doubt it. Unless the entire adventure is about her.
Druids are different inherently because their concerns are primal, based on pre-civilized conditions of natural balance and order. Not governments, civil demarcations, economies or agriculture. In fact those are counter to their interests by definition. Which makes it hard to role-play "Hey, we got the treasure!! Who wants the Ancient Elven magical bracers?" Or "Here's your share of the dragon's hoard!!! We're rich!! Who wants to buy a castle with me?! Woohoo!"
A common theme in some fantasy is when a character comes of age, that they're to travel the world, learn from it's experiences and return home a grown and wisened individual. I think that is one that very easily applies to a Druid, honestly.
But perhaps you're thinking too much in the box of "I must tend to my forest and glade", etc.
It's not about the action of leaving their home. The part I'm talking about is the roleplay of how a druid reacts to things that really don't matter at all to them or in fact directly oppose things they stand for and make up their character.
Maybe they're on some sort of pilgrimage, or a wandering individual who blesses the cities fields with the likes of 3rd level Plant Growth, on their quest to pay it forward in the name of their deity.
It could be that the Druid is simply itching for more excitement in life.
So why then go out wandering on dangerous missions with a diverse group of characters who have opposing worldviews? Why not apprentice with Druids in another area or simply wander nature to learn about plants and creatures and other environments?
Maybe they're semi-feral, but a party member befriended him/her. Think Circle of Moon, Kenku like linguistic limitations, Savagery, etc.
Even if we want to remain in the box of why emerge from nature, the Druid will miss out on many experiences life has to offer them. Perhaps they start to adventure, or even learn economics and the sort in an attempt to change the way of things.
Perhaps they're at war with the more organized religions of the setting, seeing them as the driving force of cities encroaching upon the wilderness, and doing what they can to support those who follow the olden ways, that worship concepts rather than the gods.
As pointed out above, this "angry" druid, at odds with civilized cultures, seems the most likely to leave home and try to fight them, but not go on random quests for money or loot.
Circle of the Stars could even have a scientific approach almost, with a focus on star charts, alignments, reading the fortunes of people. - It'd be easy to bring a Druid of such nature into a city I feel.
Mainly, I think the two things is one needs to be more flexible with their mindset on "What is a Druid." and simultaneously, offer their character depth and motivations that go further than "I am a Druid."
One doesn't "need" to do anything. One can design any character they want that is fun for them.
I, and only me, it seems, have difficulty role-playing a druid in a mixed humanoid environment (if true to druidic concerns).
What interest would I have in the reasons for quests and adventures or their outcomes? There are only a few of the official adventures that might spark a druid's interest enough to "buy in" to the groups focus on other goals (loot, money, politics, social concerns).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Having played a few druids, I continually am conflicted by my Druid roleplay. I find it easy to roleplay a druid interacting with nature, finding elements of nature in more civilized environments, interacting with animals and plants, being slightly uninterested in cities and humanoid cultures.
This all seems to conflict though with a Druid as an adventurer, sharing equal loot and coin, taking out baddies who threaten the stability of humanoid civilizations. Should the druid (at least fairly often) either not care, or at times even sympathize with razing towns and thwarting those who would continually encroach on nature?
Why does a druid need coin?
Why does a druid want to acquire anything material?
Why does a druid leave the nature they want to protect?
Why does a druid care about divisions and struggles created by gods of good and evil?
The whole premise of adventuring seems at odds with this class of character, much more so than any other (except maybe monk). While I've created plausible backstories, it still seems hard to play it true to the character.
It's entirely up to you!
While most druids typically are neutral, there is no requirement for them to be neutral in 5th edition; you can be a chaotic good druid who wants to help everyone in trouble, or a neutral evil ruthless "greater good" type etc. Even as neutral, you can be bored of the forest and want to see something new, it could be a rite of passage (to see the world before committing to a life in a forest), you could have visions that send you on your quest and so-on.
It will also depend a lot on the quest; if the quest is something threatening enough that your home is in danger too, then it makes sense to venture out and stop it, even if it means leaving said home undefended (or defended by others) for a time.
As for wealth/material goods, it can simply be practical; if money is how the outside world works, then you will need enough to buy the things you require, because there will be items you can't make yourself, and while stealing may not seem wrong to you, you're more useful outside of jail than inside it. Property might be a more difficult one, but you can let the group lead on that, or even argue against it as the character, then reluctantly go along with it when everyone else decides to buy a castle or whatever.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
Druids also typically hate the unnatural so eradicating the undead is always a top priority. No undead to kill in your village? Time to go adventuring!
I am running a druid in the sort of a best case scenario in terms of this dilemma. There is an existential threat to the entire world, in the form of a very powerful undead army invading from the astral plane. On top of it, they are part of a larger plot by an angry god that is causing large scale (un)natural disasters that include among other things, disrupting the way tides work. As a sea oriented druid (an islander), the tides to me play the role the moon plays for other druids. More to Haravikk's point, I am also running this character as neutral good, not true neutral, so she does have a pure interest in aiding/defending those that need it.
As to coin and material things, I treat that sort of like running a nonprofit - yes money comes in, but it gets immediately invested in my ability to do more good in the world. For now that's largely meant purchasing herbs and supplies for crafting healing potions to distribute to the party, investing in ruby dust to create a few Continual Flame'd objects, and covering the cost of other material components. In the longer run, I'm a Stars Druid - if I run into serious coin it will go into constructing a druidic observatory or something similar. Raising huge standing stone monuments is one of the most Druid-y things you can do, and ain't cheap. Finally, to fight the fight we're engaged in, my party needs a sailing ship, and as everybody knows, ships are giant money pits, so that sure takes up a good chunk of coin as well.
I think that broadly there are three kinds of "Druid". You have the group who are more like what you are talking about, where they live ascetically in tune with nature in a more passive way. They listen to nature and are guided by it, acting reactively to threats to the world and their local environment. Covering all your questions, it's a matter of practicality and dealing with the scope of a problem. Recognizing that the threats to nature are more powerful than them and that they need tools to fight back, or need to actually leave their home to fight proactively to protect it. A group of zombies here or there, or a wandering monstrosity could be taken care of in a few days of work, but a horde of undead or the movement of a hostile dragon would require help and additional tools to defeat. It's also possible that if they are part of some sort of druidic commune and aren't just a hermit that there is some level of expectation of them. The druidic circle of a forest can be called upon for assistance by a local kingdom, so the druid has been selected to go out on this journey of finding the self while out in the greater world.
The second kind of druid I think are the more "human" ones. The ones that live either within or adjacent to society and act as an in-between for it. These are the wilderness guides, the ones who watch for danger within the nature to protect other people. These would likely be your more typical adventuring druids, the ones who still care for nature but use their druidic powers as a tool in a more selfish way. This doesn't make them bad though, just that the relationship is more symbiotic where they are shaped by both civilization and nature while also influencing them back in equal measure. These are the ones who would perhaps be in charge of protecting smaller localities or watching for the signs for greater danger to civilization. Out in the wilds until they happen upon signs of an orc horde mobilizing or signs of some swarm of destructive beasts and going to civilization to warn and prepare them for it. These are the people who are also druids, rather than simply just being one with nature.
The third group would be the more hostile or ambivalent types of druids. The ones that are typically antagonistic NPCs, where they solely care about their version of nature and reject everything else. They might attack "civilization" or reject the forms of it more harshly. The ones who would preach things like might makes right, or that the weak should die as nature would typically demand, would fall into this line. Even these though can make fine adventurers, though rarely good aligned ones. They would go out into civilization for a mix of wanting to destroy specific enemies or be proactive in their enforcement of what nature should be, or other similar reasoning. They might sympathize with those monsters they are fighting, relishing the idea of destroying civilization if not for the other damage they would inflict. The orc horde is an enemy not because they want to raze and sack villages, but that they are constantly cutting down forests and overhunting wild game.
A Druid may choose to adventure for various reasons, exploration of flora and fauna, discovery of natural plants and creatures other than beasts such as monstrosities, protect humankind, the wilderness or Druid groves, even sylvan creatures, gain power or standing in Druid hierarchy, make history, save love or sibblings etc... reasons can be many.
A Druid may often embark on adventure for reasons beyond its control too, because someone or something else urge it to, to accomplish its diety's or order's will etc...
Type 1:
I don't believe that even if they left their environment they'd "adventure" on random quests with a collection of all types of other humanoids who have entirely diverse backgrounds, mindsets and agendas. Doesn't make sense at all. Sure, if it's an undead army, for a time. But what if it's not? Most adventures include all kinds of challenges and reasons for taking them on. I just don't feel this kind of Druid would get involved in that. I don't think their Druidic orders would appreciate it either. ;)
Type 2:
This is a Ranger to me, not a Druid. Some Druids might come close to that, and I could see designing one, but it's not a standard type for a few reasons. I like the type, but still, why does a Druid care if some cult is taking people's children? Or if the local mage has gone off the rails with his own power and wants to take over the kingdom? This is humanoid stuff. Any Druid in this kind of position would be constantly conflicted by humanoid use and abuse of nature on the edges of civilization and become even less likely to protect any civilized area.
Type 3:
This makes sense. The Druid that is angry, maybe vindictive, toward other humanoids. Doesn't sound like they'd be a good adventuring partner either.
This is the kind of tack I've taken to "justify" adventuring in my Druids. Interest in nature, investigating new and different environments, animals, plants. Finding new and unusual ways of using magic (the weave) to explore and commune with nature. Also loss of home, the area of home being destroyed or overrun. So then of course that brings of some agendas and goals.
It's just hard to balance the goals with random adventures and the pleasures, indulgences, religions and greed of a random group of adventurers. Interested to see more specifically how people design a character that should care about any of that who is also a Druid.
It's not so much why a Druid goes on a quest, but why do they stay on it, and stay with these other adventurers?
What is the quest? Who are the adventurers? Who is the druid? It's hard to answer a question like this in a general sense, because the specifics matter.
The first thing I'd say is, you keep referring to the druid like they're the problem, but the issue here really is the specific character.
Druids can be chaotic, they can be fun loving, they can indulge (and overindulge) in existing vices, or acquire new ones and so-on. While there are typical druids, there is no one true singular type of druid that you must aspire to in a campaign. Even if you want to start as a classic neutral, balance and nature loving druid, there is nothing to prevent that character from being changed by their adventures, and those they choose to adventure with.
A stern, abstinent druid can reluctantly tag along to, or be dragged to, some event that the others want to participate in, then discover they actually enjoy it as well. Or maybe you're just there to keep them out of trouble. Or you can play to the disagreement; characters don't have to neatly fit into a perfect whole, so long as you roleplay them respectfully (to your fellow players) they can have differences of opinion, they can have fallings out and so-on, because it's rare to find people who agree on everything all of the time and that's okay. Even if your druid doesn't fit into a group at all at first, simply being together on a quest can forge a bond that's hard to break, or you might stay out of classic necessity because there is safety in numbers, you have a greater chance of success together, or the others have skills that you don't, but need.
It's also okay for characters to not fit, and for the end of a quest to be the end of their arc with the group; you shouldn't force a character to stay with a party that they don't really fit into, and you don't think they would adapt to fit into.
I have a character I've been playing for a little while who isn't a druid but is neutral evil, in a mostly good(-ish) but chaotic group; he joined because he has a personal stake in the quest they're on, and once it's completed he's gone, and that's okay. In the mean time he'll do what he can to ensure success, helping others, giving advice, but he doesn't have to be pleasant about it, he can disagree with shenanigans etc., and he can push for more drastic (but effective) actions that the others will disapprove of. He's probably only got a session or two at most to go, and I'll miss playing as him, but there is no logical reason for him to stay with the group once the quest is done (because completing it will let him end his curse), and that's fine, he will leave and I'll bring back a character who went missing (and who it may turn out he had a hand in all along).
Maybe that's not a helpful example, but the point is that there were a whole range of ways for a character to fit into a group, or not, so the question isn't really how a druid can, but why you don't think your character(s) can? It's hard to give specific suggestions without more specific details though! What's the character like? What are the other characters like? What's the quest?
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
If you really try to take this to logical extremes, very few classes/subclasses would "adventure" for adventuring's sake. Apart from a small handful of Bard, Fighter, and Rogue subclasses, every class has a higher cause that does not align with generic adventuring. Why would a Ranger explore a dungeon when they should be defending villages from marauding orcs? Why would a cleric go treasure hunting when they should be serving their god by going to holy warrior against clerics of another god? Hell, why would a thief go treasure hunting if there were very many monsters in the way of the treasure? Easier to pick some pockets, or pull cons on nobles.
Honestly, this is at least as much on the DM as it is on the players. The DM should keep their players in mind when selecting what adventures to write or pull off the shelf. They need that all important HOOK that provides the logical narrative motivation for this particular band of beings to want to pursue that particular adventure. In some cases, maybe the motivation is only relevant to a single character in the party, but now that they have been through much together and built up loyalty and camaraderie, they are willing to help out their friend through a challenge that might not otherwise concern them.
Unless the DM is very involved and puts some limits on character design and backgrounds it would be hard to do this even with a well designed adventure module. All adventures have extremely diverse elements to them, and even a homebrew will still need some random parts.
The druid is really the only character type with this anti-civilization element, and most of the goals and hooks in adventures have a necessary "save something in civilization" endpoint. I don't see it as an extreme, but integral to the druid.
A Rogue might easily be swayed to adventure with the temptation of greater wealth, pleasure, loot or just have fun sneaking around. A Cleric's mission could always be furthered by eliminating evil beings or NPCs in parts of the adventure, and isn't operating outside of human culture to achieve it's God ordained goals. A Ranger would be defending humanity by combatting evil wherever they find it, and a dungeon, if that's where the dangers lurk that threaten a culture, is just as good a spot as any. Again, it's focused on humanoid goals, societal goals.
This is why I find it hard to roleplay a druid. What I'll probably have to do is decide that my druids are not "real" druids, but someone who is trained by druids, and has left to pursue humanoid concerns due to family ties, friendships, other personal goals, or feeling that don't mesh with being an actual druid. They are in essence a fallen druid.
One I've created is kind of like this. He's a Forest Gnome Druid/Sorcerer. His wild magic has caused him to feel he is dangerous to his own people, and he left to pursue a study of magic in order to attempt to control the wild magic element of his sorcery. Of course h's still interested in his herbal collections and the defense of nature when the opportunity is there, but it's not the driving focus for his adventuring. Loot and money is still tough to figure out, because he isn't that interested in those either. It's closer to something that helps me understand why the druid no longer operates as a druid, which helps.
What in your mind is "an actual druid"? It sounds to me like you keep placing restrictions on yourself and then claiming that it's the character being a druid that's the problem, but your idea of what a druid must be sounds like extra restrictions you're adding. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's a choice that you are making, rather than anything related to being a druid.
An evil lich wanting to raise an undead army for example is unnatural, so druids would be motivated to stop that, especially as that threat can spread and threaten the natural world itself. A rampaging dragon is a potential threat any nearby forests etc. etc.
Even true neutral druids are not forced to hide themselves away and never act; being neutral alignment means you strive for some kind of balance. If evil is becoming dominant then neutral characters are allowed to fight it to restore the balance, when you act it may be for more pragmatic or logical reasons than emotional ones and so-on.
There are also other motivations; a disaster could have happened, leading a druid to seek to ensure the same thing won't happen to others, their god (if they have one) could have tasked them with stopping a threat, or warned them of what will happen if they don't, or something more innocuous like a passing fortune teller may have given a reading that has the druid concerned enough to seek answers.
All of these are compatible with the most restrictive of druid characters, because druids not incapable of having motivations.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
It usually work better for short term adventures or chain or events than permanent adventuring life.
Type 1:
It's certainly contextual, but I listed a handful of ideas for what would pull those more passive types out into the world. It's likely also a level of pragmatism and practicality to want to find others who are reasonably capable of surviving in environments that the druid wouldn't be as experienced in, and them the opposite. If there are possible threats to nature needing to be dealt with that are outside the scope of a singular druid dealing with them, then having allies to call upon is a great idea. Even in the less immediate, it's possible that this is them trying to find contacts for if such a situation was to occur in the future. A sort of scenario where the druid is going out to cultivate allies to request aid if a dragon showed up on short notice as an example.
Type 2:
This is certainly a more rangery niche sure, but flavour is free and the idea of a ranger motivated character focusing more on casting and realizing that martial prowess just doesn't stack up as well seems pretty legitimate as a character choice to me. On the other points, I'd say that a smart druid would be aware that societies tend to be reactive to bad stuff happening. The evil wizard might not be a threat for a few weeks, but expansionist tendencies and unchecked desire for power likely leads to large army buildup and destruction of local ecosystems. Yes, this is "humanoid stuff" but you can easily see them as taking a more involved and direct stance on protecting nature by controlling civilization from within.
Type 3:
I've played a druid like this, and also been a player for a character like this. I can say that it's probably something to have a table discussion over, like any character that skirts the line or is explicitly evil. It's also possible to start out like this, build loyalty to the party, and then mellow out into one of the other two types. Context matters, how much the DM or players would be willing to indulge this kind of character are all things that should be discussed for standards. Is it ok for you to be happily killing bandits no mercy? How off limits are civilians? Can I purposefully force fey possession of these bandits I captured alive to turn them into indentured servants and start my own weird fey possessed empire? Is threatening flooding a river to wipe out a settlement too far? So on.
Thanks for all of the thoughts. I'm being very restrictive about definition not because I believe in that for myself, and certainly not because I believe in it for others. Obviously, make what feels good, break some eggs, see how it works in game.
It has been a struggle, (and this is what I keep getting back to), to align the motivations, world-view, macro ideals of the druid class to daily interactivity with the party. I keep asking myself, would this (or that) character I've created really go along with this, or care about some of these concerns, or find any of this worth risking his life for (or his link to nature for) instead of pursuing his ultimate goals relating to keeping nature's balance. Only rarely do I say, yes.
It's a fun class to play, and I've enjoyed coming up with some new ideas based on your responses.
The idea of "what is my motivation" is certainly not a unique concern to Druids. For many classes, there must be an Impetus, and you need an answer to "what has changed?"
Wizards - Why are you no longer studying? You were training in the use of the arcane within a very scholarly setting (in most cases). Why leave that to adventure?
Rogues - You were often looking out for yourself as a primary motivator. Why stick with a relatively large group beyond an odd job and tether yourself to the concerns of others?
And so forth. A Druid certainly needs some reason why they're not just hanging out in the woods like a happy hippie, but that motivation can and should be uniquely tailored to the Druid and the campaign. As far as why they Keep adventuring, some things to keep in mind:
- More than most, a Druid doesn't need coin, they need Allies. Wanting to preserve nature is all well and good, but you vs the world typically doesn't end well. You can't be the only one who cares or who agrees a given piece of nature should remain despoiled. Once you Have allies among civilization willing to take action to preserve nature, there is a natural give and take. You ensure they stick around so they can help ensure the natural world sticks around. They hold fast to their commitments to keep you on their side. The more allies you build, the more you can defend nature, and the more folks you can call upon to answer a larger threat.
- Even a Druid who doesn't care at all about civilization can and will still care about individual people. Often, it's as simple as 'you care because they care'. Just like you can have folks attending fashion shows they care nothing about, or attending fundraisers, contributing to charitable organizations, and / or working on projects just because folks they care about are involved in the real world. Even ignoring the pragmatic 'I scratch your back so you'll scratch mine', if you care about someone and they care about something, and you can help, you will. Sometimes it's just that simple.
- It's also incumbent on the player to keep their character and their values in mind. It's very easy to go along for the ride to the point where a Druid has been in dungeons and cities for months with almost no exposure to nature. If that's happening, in large part it's a failure on the player's part, for not insisting on getting a break from it all every now and again and getting back in touch with their roots. They can and should at times do things like: Stay outside a city's walls while others are sleeping in an inn; take a week or two of downtime to attend to personal matters and commune with nature and / or other druids; so on and so forth. Mental health maintenance is key for real people, so for characters to be realistic and immersive, it needs to matter for them too.
- Finally, often the reason Druids aren't hanging out within nature itself is because the natural world isn't threatened from within. You don't want to fight the demon army As it's despoiling the woodlands, that's going to be destructive to the woodlands to say the least. You need to go out there and deal with threats Before they wreak havoc on the natural order. We don't wait for a herd of deer to graze themselves into extinction before acting to cull the herd and get numbers back to something the area can support. You don't wait for things to get bad or the danger to arrive on your doorstep before you act. This is more true for Druids than perhaps any other class, and as such, proactive adventuring can and does often make sense.
Between those things, I think it's very common and easy to have Tons of motivation for a Druid in a given campaign. If you're not seeing it for the particulars of the story being told, talk to the GM about it. Seems like something that can and should be fixed.
Don’t think of it as a question of “why would a druid be adventuring.” Think of it more as a question of “Why is my character adventuring.” Your character’s story isn’t completely defined by its class.
Sure, a generic druid may not have much reason to leave their sacred grove or whatever, but Jerry the Shepherd Druid whose been a humble farmhand his whole life may be adventuring out of desperation in order to get money to repay a debt that his grandfather owed on the property before it gets taken away by the original sellers. Adora the Dreams Druid may have lived a comfortable life as a noble in the Feywild, where she was very in tune with the nature that grew on the grounds of the manor. But one day she somehow ended up in the material plane after getting chased by a hag through a portal from the Feywild, and now she has to find a way back home!
A druid has as many reasons to go adventuring as anyone else depending on their backstory.
A common theme in some fantasy is when a character comes of age, that they're to travel the world, learn from it's experiences and return home a grown and wisened individual. I think that is one that very easily applies to a Druid, honestly.
But perhaps you're thinking too much in the box of "I must tend to my forest and glade", etc.
Maybe they're on some sort of pilgrimage, or a wandering individual who blesses the cities fields with the likes of 3rd level Plant Growth, on their quest to pay it forward in the name of their deity.
It could be that the Druid is simply itching for more excitement in life.
Maybe they're semi-feral, but a party member befriended him/her. Think Circle of Moon, Kenku like linguistic limitations, Savagery, etc.
Even if we want to remain in the box of why emerge from nature, the Druid will miss out on many experiences life has to offer them. Perhaps they start to adventure, or even learn economics and the sort in an attempt to change the way of things.
Perhaps they're at war with the more organized religions of the setting, seeing them as the driving force of cities encroaching upon the wilderness, and doing what they can to support those who follow the olden ways, that worship concepts rather than the gods.
Circle of the Stars could even have a scientific approach almost, with a focus on star charts, alignments, reading the fortunes of people. - It'd be easy to bring a Druid of such nature into a city I feel.
Mainly, I think the two things is one needs to be more flexible with their mindset on "What is a Druid." and simultaneously, offer their character depth and motivations that go further than "I am a Druid."
As stated above, I get what you're saying, but in terms of my conception of daily interactions, your answer changes little, and reveals the inherent issues.
Is Jerry the sheep herder a druid? Probably not. Probably a farmer. And if he has druidic skills and can use them to adventure for money, why not just stay and improve the farm directly. Or ward off the debt collectors himself? ;)
So this is more about the day to day running of a druid character. Sure, other classes have some issues there as well, but the premise of most D&D campaigns is that there is incentive for these characters to do what they're doing, and that is not just driven by their backstory, but by goals and monetary or loot rewards for their adventuring.
So if Adora wants to get back to the Feywild, is every adventure quest that group goes on fulfilling her goal? I doubt it. Unless the entire adventure is about her.
Druids are different inherently because their concerns are primal, based on pre-civilized conditions of natural balance and order. Not governments, civil demarcations, economies or agriculture. In fact those are counter to their interests by definition. Which makes it hard to role-play "Hey, we got the treasure!! Who wants the Ancient Elven magical bracers?" Or "Here's your share of the dragon's hoard!!! We're rich!! Who wants to buy a castle with me?! Woohoo!"
The druid is kinda just going, "Meh."