Besides me, does anyone ever make an evil druid of any evil alignment? Just like Blackguards that are usually of an non good alignment, I never hear of too many evil druids. Twisted characters of a un-natural design that are bent to twist nature to the machinations and whims of a chaotic design. Out of all the material that I've read or heard of, I haven't seen too many evil druids made. If so, what were the motives behind making one.
It's a curious question you pose? Why not evil druids? It's not something we see regularly. Without thinking on it too deeply I think druids connection with nature tends to keep them safely "neutral". Nature in and of itself is not often identified with evil/good alignments, and has the capabilities of both.
That being said there are a number of elemental creatures that are associated with particular alignments both evil and good.
As to your question many options are available:
Perhaps your druid associated himself strong with an element that is "destructive" such as fire. And now he wants to watch the world burn.
Perhaps your druid lost his sacred space and the destruction caused him to go over the edge. Now he attempts to recreate it but always fails and causes more destruction/havoc.
Perhaps the druid is actively fighting against the cancer that is civilization?
Maybe the druid isn't evil? You don't have to be evil to have opposing views on a similar goal. Those on the other side might see your druid and group as the villains if you are opposing their plans.
I’ve often been puzzled by the concept of Druids in D&D. Sure the idea is often of like Radagast the Brown (Tolkien), Deedlit (Record of Lodoss War), or Getafix (Asterix the Gaul).
The objective vs subjective nature of morality in D&D has often puzzled me. I’m playing a Lizardfolk Druid. A Lizardfolk wouldn’t necessarily consider itself evil, but *every* other sentient race would consider cannibalism to be an innately evil act… who decides evil?
Most eugenicists cite Herbert Spencer’s definition of “Survival of the Fittest” … most people would consider those ideas evil. (I think they are too, and get annoyed when movies misquote this as Darwin, Herbert Spencer was an economist who tried to apply Darwin’s theories to economics)
On the other hand, I studied evolutionary biology in college and… nature isn’t nice. Nature is very very scary. Nature wants to kill you, lay its eggs in your corpse so it can create more life. Nature has no concept of good or evil, nature just is.
Toxoplasmosis is a worm that infects mice and makes them sexually attracted to cat urine… the mice are more likely to be eaten by cats which the worm needs to be ingested by to reproduce.
Komodo Dragons are carrion eaters and only wound their prey with a single bite before retreating. They then use their sense of smell to track the animal before they die from sepsis, because the bacteria which live in it's mouth are so virulent they will kill the prey for them.
Cymothoa exigua eats the tongues of fish and drinks their blood.
Ophiocodyceps unilateralis alters the brains of insects and arachnids, turning them into “zombies” killing the organism turning them into a fungal spore.
A few ant species use slave labor from other ant species.
There are worms the eat the eyes of humans.
Yersinia pestis (Bubonic Plauge) eliminated an estimated 2/3s of Western Europe's population.
Honey is a natural antibacterial, but it often contain the botulism bacterium’s spores, which is why you can’t give it to human infants because a baby’s immune systems can’t kill the bacteria before it kills them (it takes ~1 nanograms of Botulinum toxin per kilogram of human to kill one).
Trust me never neverneverGoogle image search “human parasites” if you’ve eaten recently or plan to.
venom, disease, wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes, predators, prey… these are all nature.
You can very easily have a evil, twisted, toxic Druid... (have a setting were magic can be radioactive *cough* Eberron *cough*) and you have a Toxic Shaman. I think we of it like this because when we think of "nature" we think of verdant fields, but icy glaciers, barren deserts, steaming swamps, and deep oceans are all nature. Druids do bring in the psychology of the race who became a Druid... that's where the "good" and "evil" come in.
There is an "evil" druid in a campaign I run. I put the word evil in scare quotes because, like most folks that someone (or even most people) would consider to be evil, she doesn't think of her ways as being evil any more than a wolf would consider it evil to kill and eat its prey.
She is, however, evil according to the definitions that D&D provides for alignment (neutral evil in the specific) because of the way in which her interpretation of the law of the wild and balance of nature allow for her to put her own health and well-being above all others, and otherwise behave as a predatory animal does (albeit a bit more talkatively).
It's good to hear of some of the motives behind evil druids and even some player choices. I know Sunless Citadel expands on one but thats the most I've seen.
Without entering in philosophical stuff, the easiest concept of evil druid is the one who seek civilization destruction. (see the deities Malar, Umberlee, Talos)
"The Civilized world is a cancer that must be cleansed for nature to flourish!" This druid wants to tear your city apart, likely using "natural forces" (plague rats, a tsunami, etc).
"I am the Apex Predator". This druid seeks power because nature does not care for the weak. It feasts upon their corpses. Great for a circle of the shepherd or moon.
"Animals are better than people because they're incapable of evil." This druid wants to protect their "pack" from interlopers. This is likely to be a passive BBEG who some trappers/hunters accidentally stumble into (and die, because druids are the best class and own everyone's face)
"I'VE SEEN SOME SHIT FROM THE OTHER PLANES AND IT WILL DRIVE YOU MAD!" This druid seeks to preserve the natural order of the prime material plane after having some kind of interaction with an extraplanar entity that it is terrified of. This may lead the druid to sacrifice things for the greater good.
'I have found a better version of nature!" This druid is the anti-druid. He seeks to remake nature though his perverse version of unnatural selection. Maybe he's creating magic hybrids, or breeding things to create superior versions
Those are 5 basic jumping off points for some good evil druids.
Btw an evil druid is called a Darach. Hopefully they will add this class soon in D&D.
This is some teen wolf cannon. It doesn't need to be a class because there are already druids, and you can just make one do evil stuff. I've seen "Blighter/Darach" style classes in the past, but in 5E it would be more of a subclass than an full blown class.
I am currently playing a lawful evil druid. I am going to be going with a homebrew circle I found on dndwiki called the circle of rot. My race is also a homebrew I found here called bloodborn. I am borderline undead with a borderline necromantic druid circle...gonna be very interesting.
I find that evil druids are far more common when we start dealing with the Faewild a bit more, or elven kingdoms in some depth. These are cultures that focus mainly on controlling nature in some way, and the individuals involved can be good or evil, just like any other sapient beings. That said, its pretty uncommon to have an evil character in the first place, let alone one that follows one of the least popular of the twelve classes.
Forgotten Realms has a lot of evil druids. Malar is an evil god of 'the hunt' or 'bloodlust' and often has druids in his cults. It's the pretty standard the weak are to be hunted and culled, power is justice, that sort of thing.
I have always seen worgs as a creature worthy of druidic protection; to protect that which is evil, is an evil act itself, no? I do wish to point out that there is but one druidic organization and generally that organization seeks balance. thus good druids must sometimes allow evil, and vice versa. and there we have the duality of the druid. they are, in fact, all evil or good as dictated by perspective.
I have always seen worgs as a creature worthy of druidic protection; to protect that which is evil, is an evil act itself, no? I do wish to point out that there is but one druidic organization and generally that organization seeks balance. thus good druids must sometimes allow evil, and vice versa. and there we have the duality of the druid. they are, in fact, all evil or good as dictated by perspective.
just a thought.
A Worg is a monstrosity, not a beast. Mechanically, the druids seem tied to beasts as those represent creatures of the natural order.
As for "there is but one Druidic organization", not really. There could be, but that doesn't have to be your world. They tend towards neutral (both/neither good and evil) but you can absolutely play an evil druid who is driven by evil goals. D&D has codified Good and Evil (with capital letters, and specific objective meanings) and those things are supposed to carry weight if you're using them. You can also play the game without the alignment system meaning anything, but if you're going to introduce it and use it, it's not really a subjective thing. If a Good player does enough Evil things, that player is no longer Good. In the older editions, they experienced game play effects, but at the very least they had their alignment changed.
There aren't any alignment restrictions on druids the way there were in older editions. But there aren't a lot of druidic role models in popular culture period, much less evil ones. And druids are stereotypically associated with wanting to protect the environment, something not generally regarded as an evil motive. So evil druids are pretty rare, though perfectly possible. I've never actually seen someone play an evil druid, so I'm not sure how that would work in practice, but I assume it would have something to do with being indifferent to humanoid life or, at least, regarding it as less important than some other objective.
I see an evil druid being very casual with life. Regardless of what kind of creature (humanoid or otherwise) the druid would see them as one of a million, like a single ant in the colony. Nothing wrong with removing one ant for the greater good. One human, or orc, or elf is a small price to pay for furthering your own goals. Nature will provide more of their ilk soon enough.
There is always more living beings where the last ones came from. Sometimes you might even have to remove a whole village, but there are plenty of villages out there, and one of them can easily be lost. The race will survive without a handful of individuals.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
druid's affiliation with nature is the one overarching organization.... because nature chooses a side.
all this to say, evil druids: yes you can.
Oh I definitely missed, and am still missing, you point.
Things we agree on: Evil Druids can exist.
Things we disagree on: what a druid represents in the greater world.
"Nature" isn't a side. Unlike "Evil" and "Law" and even "Neutrality" there is no hard and fast mechanics for what nature is. "The Circle of Fangs and Fury" and "The Order of the Holy Grove" can both be Neutral druidic orders in service of nature, but working entirely against each other because of what they view nature as. "Nature" doesn't chose a side, the druids decide what they view as "natural" and then act in accordance with that.
That said, there can be a druid of some kind of Evil alignment who is doing Evil things because he feels that is in service for his druidic order (which might be serving "Nature" or even a God associated with "Nature"). It's still even possible that another force representing "Nature" may work with or against this evil druid. "Nature" by its very...nature...doesn't really pick sides, but could actually be represented on both sides of a conflict.
it is not a stretch to say that druids are guided by natural order, in this philosophy there are winners and losers... or... sides I.e. the wolf does not starve unless there is a reason (possibly unnatural).Enter the druid, who is informed by "nature", to intervene. in the case above an evil druid might kill the wolf's enemies and a good druid might relocate the wolf.
both druids are likely to side with the wolf, because nature order, the druid God, whatever; there is a common thread among druids. that is my point.
In 5th edition, I don't think we can say that druids are all part of the same organization, or guided by the same natural order, or anything resembling the same philosophy. Take the new Golgari-themed Circle of Spores, for instance. They're founded by and revere a "god-zombie" and deal in undead. The Circle of Dreams is aligned with Fae courts, rather than any allegiance to any natural order.
The closest thing to a uniting philosophy that all druids share is "balance." The four elemental planes need to remain in balance, or the world is destroyed. Civilization (Law) and the wilderness (Chaos) must remain in balance or bad things happen. This has a lot similarities to a modern day neo-pagans, which lends itself more towards "good" than "evil," by simple virtue of that good lends itself to moderation and balance, and evil lends itself to imbalance (the abyss, abominations, Elemental Princes of Evil). Balance also suggests that druids won't necessarily side with wolves. Sure, most druids won't stand for wolves being hunted to extinction, but that's unlikely in a fantasy world, and Shepherd druids would protect the creatures that wolves hunt over the wolves themselves (including humanoids).
Anyways, most evil druids are those that choose to embody the destructive aspects of nature. The followers of The Gods of Fury, the Children of Winter and Ashbound are prime example. They still hold to philosophies of balance though their ideas of balance are rather extreme - Ashbound hold that arcane magic is unnatural, for instance, though I suspect that is more aimed at wizards than anything else. Followers of the Gods of Fury want to spread the were-critter curses, whereas most druids wouldn't.
I would say that druidic balance is the natural order. the planes are in check, the wolves (or any animal) live in harmony within their system. cities and nature, fey and undead; all stakeholders are represented and managed...
also,
they all speak druidic and no one else does. this indicates some organization. I will agree that not all druids will work together at all times. but they all have more in common than they have differences.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Besides me, does anyone ever make an evil druid of any evil alignment? Just like Blackguards that are usually of an non good alignment, I never hear of too many evil druids. Twisted characters of a un-natural design that are bent to twist nature to the machinations and whims of a chaotic design. Out of all the material that I've read or heard of, I haven't seen too many evil druids made. If so, what were the motives behind making one.
It's a curious question you pose? Why not evil druids? It's not something we see regularly. Without thinking on it too deeply I think druids connection with nature tends to keep them safely "neutral". Nature in and of itself is not often identified with evil/good alignments, and has the capabilities of both.
That being said there are a number of elemental creatures that are associated with particular alignments both evil and good.
As to your question many options are available:
I’ve often been puzzled by the concept of Druids in D&D. Sure the idea is often of like Radagast the Brown (Tolkien), Deedlit (Record of Lodoss War), or Getafix (Asterix the Gaul).
The objective vs subjective nature of morality in D&D has often puzzled me. I’m playing a Lizardfolk Druid. A Lizardfolk wouldn’t necessarily consider itself evil, but *every* other sentient race would consider cannibalism to be an innately evil act… who decides evil?
Most eugenicists cite Herbert Spencer’s definition of “Survival of the Fittest” … most people would consider those ideas evil. (I think they are too, and get annoyed when movies misquote this as Darwin, Herbert Spencer was an economist who tried to apply Darwin’s theories to economics)
On the other hand, I studied evolutionary biology in college and… nature isn’t nice. Nature is very very scary. Nature wants to kill you, lay its eggs in your corpse so it can create more life. Nature has no concept of good or evil, nature just is.
Trust me never never never Google image search “human parasites” if you’ve eaten recently or plan to.
venom, disease, wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes, predators, prey… these are all nature.
You can very easily have a evil, twisted, toxic Druid... (have a setting were magic can be radioactive *cough* Eberron *cough*) and you have a Toxic Shaman. I think we of it like this because when we think of "nature" we think of verdant fields, but icy glaciers, barren deserts, steaming swamps, and deep oceans are all nature. Druids do bring in the psychology of the race who became a Druid... that's where the "good" and "evil" come in.
There is an "evil" druid in a campaign I run. I put the word evil in scare quotes because, like most folks that someone (or even most people) would consider to be evil, she doesn't think of her ways as being evil any more than a wolf would consider it evil to kill and eat its prey.
She is, however, evil according to the definitions that D&D provides for alignment (neutral evil in the specific) because of the way in which her interpretation of the law of the wild and balance of nature allow for her to put her own health and well-being above all others, and otherwise behave as a predatory animal does (albeit a bit more talkatively).
It's good to hear of some of the motives behind evil druids and even some player choices. I know Sunless Citadel expands on one but thats the most I've seen.
Without entering in philosophical stuff, the easiest concept of evil druid is the one who seek civilization destruction. (see the deities Malar, Umberlee, Talos)
Btw an evil druid is called a Darach. Hopefully they will add this class soon in D&D.
Evil Druid Archetypes , the bullet point version
Those are 5 basic jumping off points for some good evil druids.
This is some teen wolf cannon. It doesn't need to be a class because there are already druids, and you can just make one do evil stuff. I've seen "Blighter/Darach" style classes in the past, but in 5E it would be more of a subclass than an full blown class.
I am currently playing a lawful evil druid. I am going to be going with a homebrew circle I found on dndwiki called the circle of rot. My race is also a homebrew I found here called bloodborn. I am borderline undead with a borderline necromantic druid circle...gonna be very interesting.
I find that evil druids are far more common when we start dealing with the Faewild a bit more, or elven kingdoms in some depth. These are cultures that focus mainly on controlling nature in some way, and the individuals involved can be good or evil, just like any other sapient beings. That said, its pretty uncommon to have an evil character in the first place, let alone one that follows one of the least popular of the twelve classes.
Forgotten Realms has a lot of evil druids. Malar is an evil god of 'the hunt' or 'bloodlust' and often has druids in his cults. It's the pretty standard the weak are to be hunted and culled, power is justice, that sort of thing.
I have always seen worgs as a creature worthy of druidic protection; to protect that which is evil, is an evil act itself, no? I do wish to point out that there is but one druidic organization and generally that organization seeks balance. thus good druids must sometimes allow evil, and vice versa. and there we have the duality of the druid. they are, in fact, all evil or good as dictated by perspective.
just a thought.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
A Worg is a monstrosity, not a beast. Mechanically, the druids seem tied to beasts as those represent creatures of the natural order.
As for "there is but one Druidic organization", not really. There could be, but that doesn't have to be your world. They tend towards neutral (both/neither good and evil) but you can absolutely play an evil druid who is driven by evil goals. D&D has codified Good and Evil (with capital letters, and specific objective meanings) and those things are supposed to carry weight if you're using them. You can also play the game without the alignment system meaning anything, but if you're going to introduce it and use it, it's not really a subjective thing. If a Good player does enough Evil things, that player is no longer Good. In the older editions, they experienced game play effects, but at the very least they had their alignment changed.
There aren't any alignment restrictions on druids the way there were in older editions. But there aren't a lot of druidic role models in popular culture period, much less evil ones. And druids are stereotypically associated with wanting to protect the environment, something not generally regarded as an evil motive. So evil druids are pretty rare, though perfectly possible. I've never actually seen someone play an evil druid, so I'm not sure how that would work in practice, but I assume it would have something to do with being indifferent to humanoid life or, at least, regarding it as less important than some other objective.
I think you missed my point CBMoate.
evil CAN ally with nature and therefore the druid
druid's affiliation with nature is the one overarching organization.... because nature chooses a side.
all this to say, evil druids: yes you can.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
I see an evil druid being very casual with life. Regardless of what kind of creature (humanoid or otherwise) the druid would see them as one of a million, like a single ant in the colony. Nothing wrong with removing one ant for the greater good. One human, or orc, or elf is a small price to pay for furthering your own goals. Nature will provide more of their ilk soon enough.
There is always more living beings where the last ones came from. Sometimes you might even have to remove a whole village, but there are plenty of villages out there, and one of them can easily be lost. The race will survive without a handful of individuals.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Oh I definitely missed, and am still missing, you point.
Things we agree on: Evil Druids can exist.
Things we disagree on: what a druid represents in the greater world.
"Nature" isn't a side. Unlike "Evil" and "Law" and even "Neutrality" there is no hard and fast mechanics for what nature is. "The Circle of Fangs and Fury" and "The Order of the Holy Grove" can both be Neutral druidic orders in service of nature, but working entirely against each other because of what they view nature as. "Nature" doesn't chose a side, the druids decide what they view as "natural" and then act in accordance with that.
That said, there can be a druid of some kind of Evil alignment who is doing Evil things because he feels that is in service for his druidic order (which might be serving "Nature" or even a God associated with "Nature"). It's still even possible that another force representing "Nature" may work with or against this evil druid. "Nature" by its very...nature...doesn't really pick sides, but could actually be represented on both sides of a conflict.
perhaps this thought then:
it is not a stretch to say that druids are guided by natural order, in this philosophy there are winners and losers... or... sides I.e. the wolf does not starve unless there is a reason (possibly unnatural).Enter the druid, who is informed by "nature", to intervene. in the case above an evil druid might kill the wolf's enemies and a good druid might relocate the wolf.
both druids are likely to side with the wolf, because nature order, the druid God, whatever; there is a common thread among druids. that is my point.
cheers
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
In 5th edition, I don't think we can say that druids are all part of the same organization, or guided by the same natural order, or anything resembling the same philosophy. Take the new Golgari-themed Circle of Spores, for instance. They're founded by and revere a "god-zombie" and deal in undead. The Circle of Dreams is aligned with Fae courts, rather than any allegiance to any natural order.
The closest thing to a uniting philosophy that all druids share is "balance." The four elemental planes need to remain in balance, or the world is destroyed. Civilization (Law) and the wilderness (Chaos) must remain in balance or bad things happen. This has a lot similarities to a modern day neo-pagans, which lends itself more towards "good" than "evil," by simple virtue of that good lends itself to moderation and balance, and evil lends itself to imbalance (the abyss, abominations, Elemental Princes of Evil). Balance also suggests that druids won't necessarily side with wolves. Sure, most druids won't stand for wolves being hunted to extinction, but that's unlikely in a fantasy world, and Shepherd druids would protect the creatures that wolves hunt over the wolves themselves (including humanoids).
Anyways, most evil druids are those that choose to embody the destructive aspects of nature. The followers of The Gods of Fury, the Children of Winter and Ashbound are prime example. They still hold to philosophies of balance though their ideas of balance are rather extreme - Ashbound hold that arcane magic is unnatural, for instance, though I suspect that is more aimed at wizards than anything else. Followers of the Gods of Fury want to spread the were-critter curses, whereas most druids wouldn't.
sure,
I would say that druidic balance is the natural order. the planes are in check, the wolves (or any animal) live in harmony within their system. cities and nature, fey and undead; all stakeholders are represented and managed...
also,
they all speak druidic and no one else does. this indicates some organization. I will agree that not all druids will work together at all times. but they all have more in common than they have differences.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.