I just kicked off a campaign last night with a small group of all-new players to D&D. This is my first time to DM the game in probably 30 years. So we're all pretty green.
To make a long story short — the party sought shelter for the night in an abandoned watch tower, the top story of which housed a small colony of Stirge. The PCs could see them flitting about the top of the tower (after a Perception check, natch). The druid player had the great idea to use Faerie Fire to try to light up the critters so the other party member could make ranged attacks on them without disadvantage (for darkness). The party ended up dispatching the Stirge pretty easily.
Afterward, I got to thinking: Should the druid character have been so eager to fight the little critters? They are, I believe, classified as Beasts which are animals of the natural world, after all. They were just doing what Stirge do. I'm thinking maybe the druid should not have volunteered to make it easier to kill them, and in fact should have argued AGAINST killing them, and possibly even tried to foil or prevent the character for killing them.
If one is being true to the class ethos, it seems like a druid character would at the very least not participate in killing Beasts UNLESS its a matter of self defense. If the Stirge had attacked, I think the Druid would defend herself, and her fellow party members. But a pre-emptive strike like this? No.
Next session my players are going to actually enter the tower. They will find it infested with rat swarms and giant spiders. I need to clarify the above philosophy with my Druid player, because these are Beasts too. Although I must say I'm a little surprised that "giant" beasts are considered natural in the RAW. I think in my world, giant varieties are going to be unnatural — the result of wizard experiments or whatever — and thus fair game for Druids. Even though they are otherwise natural except for their size, they seem more like Aberrations to me. They would certainly upset the natural ecosystem they inhabit.
I guess I see Druids as sort of extreme treehuggers and PETA types. They would not harm any Beast for any reason (save self-defense or maybe when considering rabid animals that they couldn't cure), would likely find other ways to diffuse such threats (though Talk with Animals and similar spells, etc.), and would actively try to prevent their companions from doing harm to Beasts (through Persuasion or by any means necessary). At the least, they would be appalled by such behavior, which could lead to reproaches of their fellow party members, possibly to the point of being obnoxious.
There can be evil druids. Druids are more like... guardians of nature. If Mr.Lich burns down an entire forest, they chase, but if a lightning storm did it, ok. ‘‘‘Twas meant to be. They are also a force of nature, using the magic of the earth to defend themselves and others, while crushing their enemies with blows of Tsunamis. Tree hugging and being PETA doesn’t save anything, it just really make Mr.Lich burn down more forests because he doesn’t like you.
Protecting Beasts? No. Usually, I think, beasts protect them, or at least don’t attack. In my opinion. The beast tag wasn’t even meant to be a classification- they just said Beast in their spells and now needed something to define Beast.
There are many types of druid. Perhaps one druid may be a strict vegan and friend to all animals. But another may simply see life and death as part of the great natural cycle (after all, animals kill other animals for food or defence all the time).
The original Celtic druid (the 'real' druid on which the class is based) were said to have practiced human sacrifice!
To me it depends. After all, predators kill other animals to eat and a lot of herbivores kill wolves, lions, and other predators in self defense. Druids will kill animals that are threats, they will definitely kill beasts that are out of control and disrupting the rest of the life in an area, etc.. I’d have no problem with a Druid killing swarms of giant rats and giant spiders in the scenario that you described as long as the Druid agrees with the end goal that is causing them to explode the tower.
I think I've allowed for druids killing in self-defense and for rabid or magically controlled beasts that are likewise a threat to the community. I may make allowance for hunting for food as well, because circle of life and all that. So scratch my original PETA comment, as that was too strong in retrospect. Still, my question is about nuking animals that are part of the natural world just 'cause. Exploration doesn't seem like a very good reason to take an animal life (for those who profess to love nature, and get their power from it) unless you are defending yourself from an attack. Then all bets are off...
The player decides now his character acts, not his class. Classes do not have attached personalities; saying 'druids cannot attack animals' is like saying 'rogues have to steal from the party'. It's nothing more than an outdated stereotype.
I agree, don't mandate the players actions based upon the class they have chosen. Let em loose, not everyone will enjoy having reins put on them. Honestly why wouldn't a druid remove a CLEARLY dangerous group of creatures that could harm or threaten the party at a moments notice. Those bloodsuckers can quickly kill a party if there are enough of them. The druid would likely know this, and would take steps to avoid such an event. They might leave, and find better sleeping arrangements, or remove the problem (because a problem they are). Just because they are a druid does not mean they cannot be practical and or ruthless in their judgement.
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."
I would say as DM you are free to impose limits on how you expect a class to be played in session zero, so that everyone has those same expectations. Beyond that 5e has separated the mechanics of the game from the RP (which I think is good) in such a way, that as long as everyone at the table agrees, you could play a chaotic evil paladin or an animal slaying druid without affecting the dice rolls.
A lot of people dont even consider what there class / background / previous actions mean to world building or consequences. Its saddening.
Druids are protectors of the natural world. they will protect the natural world, so in this described circumstance how they act could be:
Dont attack them their all special stirgeflakes!
Life finds a way, they found a way to die, giving away there position. Terrible hunters die, the strong survive.
Hey there are thousands of stirge, we wont endanger the species
Hey there are only a few stirge left in the wild, knock them out dont kill them.
Nature is beautiful and capricious like the fey. Every day is a challenge, today they failed twice. Once for challenging us, and once again for not having learnt how much danger we would be, pathetic predators.
Or anything in between. I dont agree that you can decide to ignore everything about your class and play how you want - atheist priests, atheist non worshipful divine power spewing paladins. warlocks without patrons but having patron powers. wizards that claim they cant read, sorcerer's that 'learnt' sorcery. All are blatantly ignoring class powers and obvious mechanics as well as explanatory text. I do agree there is more freedom from some of the more restrictive previous editions strictures. you might want to talk to the player about how they view their stewardship and role to the natural world. It would help if you develop your own druidic circles which espoouse different styles and build up your world, and help colour in your concern.
Good luck and have fun with it!
Oh, in previous editions stirges were monstrosities, which makes that specific example funny. Go go stirge P.R. team!
A lot of people dont even consider what there class / background / previous actions mean to world building or consequences. Its saddening.
Druids are protectors of the natural world. they will protect the natural world, so in this described circumstance how they act could be:
Dont attack them their all special stirgeflakes!
Life finds a way, they found a way to die, giving away there position. Terrible hunters die, the strong survive.
Hey there are thousands of stirge, we wont endanger the species
Hey there are only a few stirge left in the wild, knock them out dont kill them.
Nature is beautiful and capricious like the fey. Every day is a challenge, today they failed twice. Once for challenging us, and once again for not having learnt how much danger we would be, pathetic predators.
Or anything in between. I dont agree that you can decide to ignore everything about your class and play how you want - atheist priests, atheist non worshipful divine power spewing paladins. warlocks without patrons but having patron powers. wizards that claim they cant read, sorcerer's that 'learnt' sorcery. All are blatantly ignoring class powers and obvious mechanics as well as explanatory text. I do agree there is more freedom from some of the more restrictive previous editions strictures. you might want to talk to the player about how they view their stewardship and role to the natural world. It would help if you develop your own druidic circles which espoouse different styles and build up your world, and help colour in your concern.
Good luck and have fun with it!
Oh, in previous editions stirges were monstrosities, which makes that specific example funny. Go go stirge P.R. team!
I disagree. I treat classes as nothing more than "what you can do" and impose nothing more on it. I am fine with Athiest Clerics: the power may not be a "God" it could just be a concept they follow so strongly that it might as well be one and their power isn't a being giving it, just them accessing the weave of magic - like how any wizard can use magic, nobody gave them that ability and they are not "born" with the power, they just learn to use it as a mental exercise, and so clerics could just learn how to do magic as a result of their strong belief in that concept: it's still a mental exercise, just it happens by developed instinct (Wis) instead of active thought (Int).
Anyone who lives in nature and connects with it enough can be a druid: they need not be special protectors, they just understand nature (and nature is anywhere, even buildings and such as still part of the natural world: natural materials/atoms constructed by natural beings) enough that they instinctively (hence Wis) learn to manipulate the weave and do magic.
The class is "what you can do" not "who you are". I would rather characters be unique, not "just another tree-huggin' druid" or "just another priest with spells".
Cyber, even without disregarding all the background information on the classes if you play two characters of the same race class, subclass and background with exactly the same stats and they are the same, then you are falling into a rut, there is no need for it to happen.
I agree a class is what you can do, but it is also part of how you were raised, along with your background and perhaps race, there is a lot of material to work with there to build a concept of what they play like. It should effect you going forward. I admire your dedication to freedom of choice but I would caution that the line is usually smudged over by those who care nothing about character at all, and 'just what they can do' when major details are ignored.
A druid in this case is in tune with nature, its a part of them, but nature is a complex living breathing creature, my examples included multiple ways a druid could have developed and of course there are more. Again painting within the lines still gets different pictures every time.
Regardless, if your table has no issues and everyones enjoying the game then play on and enjoy your journey into worlds of imagination. May each trip be different from the last.
That is 'a druid', Moondruid, but not 'THE druid' or 'all druids'. Just because you are of the Druid Class does not mean you are of the Druid Concept, just as being a member of the Barbarian Class (raging warrior) means you are of the Barbarian Concept (rude, primitive, unwashed savage), and you can be an Assassin ('I kill people for money') without being an Assassin (rogue subclass). If my wizard-class character kills people for money, they he is most definitely an assassin and may well refer to himself as such (in the proper surroundings).
Class is not concept, concept is not class. Thinking of a class in this way is not inimical to roleplaying; I argue the opposite, as it prevents Generic Elf Cleric #8592 (Snotty Treehugger) Syndrome.
That is 'a druid', Moondruid, but not 'THE druid' or 'all druids'. Just because you are of the Druid Class does not mean you are of the Druid Concept, just as being a member of the Barbarian Class (raging warrior) means you are of the Barbarian Concept (rude, primitive, unwashed savage), and you can be an Assassin ('I kill people for money') without being an Assassin (rogue subclass). If my wizard-class character kills people for money, they he is most definitely an assassin and may well refer to himself as such (in the proper surroundings).
Class is not concept, concept is not class. Thinking of a class in this way is not inimical to roleplaying; I argue the opposite, as it prevents Generic Elf Cleric #8592 (Snotty Treehugger) Syndrome.
This, and this again.
Paladins and Druids suffer from class expectations... Most people in my age group who play expect Pally's to be lawful stupid and druids to be green peace tree huggers with various levels militancy.
A class is a framework for skills and abilities your character knows, it's a job, not who your character is or how they act. Many times our jobs inform who we are, but there are millions of other experiences that get taken into account when we make a decision, it's no different for a PC.
No DM should be trying to interfere and declare a character would not make a given choice because of the class they've chosen to play. A DM can however control how the world reacts to a player's decisions.
I fear what I have been misunderstood. Clearly suggesting multiple ways a druid could act (even in opposition to other druids) is problematic. To simplify, you could have multiple druids with differing values, and indeed play the exact same race stats class etc character of any class and it wouldnt limit you to playing the same character unless you were stuck in the concept mindset from a previous play through.
A class with restrictions and lore, Gods or spirits granting power to a mortal is not something you should just be able to ignore. You can ask your DM if you can alter your class restrictions, or the background. Somethings are less likely to be acceptable. (For example druids wearing metal armour or clear cutting woodland to build a town / paladins who violate the tenets of their sacred (holy) vow (promise) non elven bladesingers, non dwarven battleragers. I stated that as long as the table you play at has no problem with it, enjoy it but just be aware of and clear about what why and how you are modifying rules, it may not be received as well somewhere else. If a cleric expects to pray and receive power from 'their' Deity/force after acting against its interests? They may well be disabused of that notion.
A class with restrictions and lore, Gods or spirits granting power to a mortal is not something you should just be able to ignore.
Agreed with most everything else you said in your post but just wanted to highlight this: The only classes that are dependent on another being to grant them power are clerics and warlocks. Paladins can get their power from their Oath, and Druids can draw power from raw nature. Both those classes often worship appropriately aligned gods or spirits, but they don't have to.
But they do worship something, call it spirits, power, reiki, Ki, floofie the world turtle, it is still something they are granted power from. They are servants, not all are necesarily good at their job, some enjoy kickbacks too much or otherwise abuse the position. If however that abuse violates the tenets of the faith or oath? Then beware. Many would assume that excommunication or renunciation of your service is on the cards. After all a cleric that kills his congregation on a whim and tells his deity to jog on and expects prayers in the morning is (to me) ludicrous.
But they do worship something, call it spirits, power, reiki, Ki, floofie the world turtle, it is still something they are granted power from. They are servants, not all are necesarily good at their job, some enjoy kickbacks too much or otherwise abuse the position. If however that abuse violates the tenets of the faith or oath? Then beware. Many would assume that excommunication or renunciation of your service is on the cards. After all a cleric that kills his congregation on a whim and tells his deity to jog on and expects prayers in the morning is (to me) ludicrous.
That's exactly the pigeon-holing that needs to be re-evaluated. Neither a paladin nor a druid must 'worship' something any more than a wizard or a rogue must. It's entirely viable to have a druid who has turned their back on the gods of nature and receive power directly from 'nature'. Furthermore a paladin, while bound to behavior outlined by their oath, are not necessarily subjected to the whims of another being anymore than a bard is. The strength of their conviction is enough to grant them power.
I do agree with you however that if a Paladin or Druid is going to go this route, it should be made clear and the beginning of a campaign so that the DM can work it into their campaign appropriately. My point is more that there is less to functionally tie these two classes to gods and spirits than their has been in the past, but much of the DnD audience still believes these two classes to be bound up in that pre-existing lore. Paladins and Druids can in fact exist in a religious vacuum.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I just kicked off a campaign last night with a small group of all-new players to D&D. This is my first time to DM the game in probably 30 years. So we're all pretty green.
To make a long story short — the party sought shelter for the night in an abandoned watch tower, the top story of which housed a small colony of Stirge. The PCs could see them flitting about the top of the tower (after a Perception check, natch). The druid player had the great idea to use Faerie Fire to try to light up the critters so the other party member could make ranged attacks on them without disadvantage (for darkness). The party ended up dispatching the Stirge pretty easily.
Afterward, I got to thinking: Should the druid character have been so eager to fight the little critters? They are, I believe, classified as Beasts which are animals of the natural world, after all. They were just doing what Stirge do. I'm thinking maybe the druid should not have volunteered to make it easier to kill them, and in fact should have argued AGAINST killing them, and possibly even tried to foil or prevent the character for killing them.
If one is being true to the class ethos, it seems like a druid character would at the very least not participate in killing Beasts UNLESS its a matter of self defense. If the Stirge had attacked, I think the Druid would defend herself, and her fellow party members. But a pre-emptive strike like this? No.
Next session my players are going to actually enter the tower. They will find it infested with rat swarms and giant spiders. I need to clarify the above philosophy with my Druid player, because these are Beasts too. Although I must say I'm a little surprised that "giant" beasts are considered natural in the RAW. I think in my world, giant varieties are going to be unnatural — the result of wizard experiments or whatever — and thus fair game for Druids. Even though they are otherwise natural except for their size, they seem more like Aberrations to me. They would certainly upset the natural ecosystem they inhabit.
I guess I see Druids as sort of extreme treehuggers and PETA types. They would not harm any Beast for any reason (save self-defense or maybe when considering rabid animals that they couldn't cure), would likely find other ways to diffuse such threats (though Talk with Animals and similar spells, etc.), and would actively try to prevent their companions from doing harm to Beasts (through Persuasion or by any means necessary). At the least, they would be appalled by such behavior, which could lead to reproaches of their fellow party members, possibly to the point of being obnoxious.
Do I have that right?
I don’t feel that.
There can be evil druids. Druids are more like... guardians of nature. If Mr.Lich burns down an entire forest, they chase, but if a lightning storm did it, ok. ‘‘‘Twas meant to be. They are also a force of nature, using the magic of the earth to defend themselves and others, while crushing their enemies with blows of Tsunamis. Tree hugging and being PETA doesn’t save anything, it just really make Mr.Lich burn down more forests because he doesn’t like you.
Protecting Beasts? No. Usually, I think, beasts protect them, or at least don’t attack. In my opinion. The beast tag wasn’t even meant to be a classification- they just said Beast in their spells and now needed something to define Beast.
Extended Signature! Yay! https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/3153-extended-signature-thread?page=2#c21
Haven’t used this account in forever. Still a big fan of crawling claws.
There are many types of druid. Perhaps one druid may be a strict vegan and friend to all animals. But another may simply see life and death as part of the great natural cycle (after all, animals kill other animals for food or defence all the time).
The original Celtic druid (the 'real' druid on which the class is based) were said to have practiced human sacrifice!
To me it depends. After all, predators kill other animals to eat and a lot of herbivores kill wolves, lions, and other predators in self defense. Druids will kill animals that are threats, they will definitely kill beasts that are out of control and disrupting the rest of the life in an area, etc.. I’d have no problem with a Druid killing swarms of giant rats and giant spiders in the scenario that you described as long as the Druid agrees with the end goal that is causing them to explode the tower.
Professional computer geek
Thanks for the replies, everyone.
I think I've allowed for druids killing in self-defense and for rabid or magically controlled beasts that are likewise a threat to the community. I may make allowance for hunting for food as well, because circle of life and all that. So scratch my original PETA comment, as that was too strong in retrospect. Still, my question is about nuking animals that are part of the natural world just 'cause. Exploration doesn't seem like a very good reason to take an animal life (for those who profess to love nature, and get their power from it) unless you are defending yourself from an attack. Then all bets are off...
The player decides now his character acts, not his class. Classes do not have attached personalities; saying 'druids cannot attack animals' is like saying 'rogues have to steal from the party'. It's nothing more than an outdated stereotype.
I agree, don't mandate the players actions based upon the class they have chosen. Let em loose, not everyone will enjoy having reins put on them. Honestly why wouldn't a druid remove a CLEARLY dangerous group of creatures that could harm or threaten the party at a moments notice. Those bloodsuckers can quickly kill a party if there are enough of them. The druid would likely know this, and would take steps to avoid such an event. They might leave, and find better sleeping arrangements, or remove the problem (because a problem they are). Just because they are a druid does not mean they cannot be practical and or ruthless in their judgement.
"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."
Who would understand the predator prey and circle of life dynamic better than a Druid? Top of the food chain baby!
I would say as DM you are free to impose limits on how you expect a class to be played in session zero, so that everyone has those same expectations. Beyond that 5e has separated the mechanics of the game from the RP (which I think is good) in such a way, that as long as everyone at the table agrees, you could play a chaotic evil paladin or an animal slaying druid without affecting the dice rolls.
A lot of people dont even consider what there class / background / previous actions mean to world building or consequences. Its saddening.
Druids are protectors of the natural world. they will protect the natural world, so in this described circumstance how they act could be:
Dont attack them their all special stirgeflakes!
Life finds a way, they found a way to die, giving away there position. Terrible hunters die, the strong survive.
Hey there are thousands of stirge, we wont endanger the species
Hey there are only a few stirge left in the wild, knock them out dont kill them.
Nature is beautiful and capricious like the fey. Every day is a challenge, today they failed twice. Once for challenging us, and once again for not having learnt how much danger we would be, pathetic predators.
Or anything in between. I dont agree that you can decide to ignore everything about your class and play how you want - atheist priests, atheist non worshipful divine power spewing paladins. warlocks without patrons but having patron powers. wizards that claim they cant read, sorcerer's that 'learnt' sorcery. All are blatantly ignoring class powers and obvious mechanics as well as explanatory text. I do agree there is more freedom from some of the more restrictive previous editions strictures. you might want to talk to the player about how they view their stewardship and role to the natural world. It would help if you develop your own druidic circles which espoouse different styles and build up your world, and help colour in your concern.
Good luck and have fun with it!
Oh, in previous editions stirges were monstrosities, which makes that specific example funny. Go go stirge P.R. team!
Dragon: *clears throat loudly* "Beg your pardon, WHO is top of the food chain?"
That’s debatable. Dragon vs humanoids. It’s like a shark vs a school of piranha.
I disagree. I treat classes as nothing more than "what you can do" and impose nothing more on it. I am fine with Athiest Clerics: the power may not be a "God" it could just be a concept they follow so strongly that it might as well be one and their power isn't a being giving it, just them accessing the weave of magic - like how any wizard can use magic, nobody gave them that ability and they are not "born" with the power, they just learn to use it as a mental exercise, and so clerics could just learn how to do magic as a result of their strong belief in that concept: it's still a mental exercise, just it happens by developed instinct (Wis) instead of active thought (Int).
Anyone who lives in nature and connects with it enough can be a druid: they need not be special protectors, they just understand nature (and nature is anywhere, even buildings and such as still part of the natural world: natural materials/atoms constructed by natural beings) enough that they instinctively (hence Wis) learn to manipulate the weave and do magic.
The class is "what you can do" not "who you are". I would rather characters be unique, not "just another tree-huggin' druid" or "just another priest with spells".
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
Cyber, even without disregarding all the background information on the classes if you play two characters of the same race class, subclass and background with exactly the same stats and they are the same, then you are falling into a rut, there is no need for it to happen.
I agree a class is what you can do, but it is also part of how you were raised, along with your background and perhaps race, there is a lot of material to work with there to build a concept of what they play like. It should effect you going forward. I admire your dedication to freedom of choice but I would caution that the line is usually smudged over by those who care nothing about character at all, and 'just what they can do' when major details are ignored.
A druid in this case is in tune with nature, its a part of them, but nature is a complex living breathing creature, my examples included multiple ways a druid could have developed and of course there are more. Again painting within the lines still gets different pictures every time.
Regardless, if your table has no issues and everyones enjoying the game then play on and enjoy your journey into worlds of imagination. May each trip be different from the last.
That is 'a druid', Moondruid, but not 'THE druid' or 'all druids'. Just because you are of the Druid Class does not mean you are of the Druid Concept, just as being a member of the Barbarian Class (raging warrior) means you are of the Barbarian Concept (rude, primitive, unwashed savage), and you can be an Assassin ('I kill people for money') without being an Assassin (rogue subclass). If my wizard-class character kills people for money, they he is most definitely an assassin and may well refer to himself as such (in the proper surroundings).
Class is not concept, concept is not class. Thinking of a class in this way is not inimical to roleplaying; I argue the opposite, as it prevents Generic Elf Cleric #8592 (Snotty Treehugger) Syndrome.
This, and this again.
Paladins and Druids suffer from class expectations... Most people in my age group who play expect Pally's to be lawful stupid and druids to be green peace tree huggers with various levels militancy.
A class is a framework for skills and abilities your character knows, it's a job, not who your character is or how they act. Many times our jobs inform who we are, but there are millions of other experiences that get taken into account when we make a decision, it's no different for a PC.
No DM should be trying to interfere and declare a character would not make a given choice because of the class they've chosen to play. A DM can however control how the world reacts to a player's decisions.
I fear what I have been misunderstood. Clearly suggesting multiple ways a druid could act (even in opposition to other druids) is problematic. To simplify, you could have multiple druids with differing values, and indeed play the exact same race stats class etc character of any class and it wouldnt limit you to playing the same character unless you were stuck in the concept mindset from a previous play through.
A class with restrictions and lore, Gods or spirits granting power to a mortal is not something you should just be able to ignore. You can ask your DM if you can alter your class restrictions, or the background. Somethings are less likely to be acceptable. (For example druids wearing metal armour or clear cutting woodland to build a town / paladins who violate the tenets of their sacred (holy) vow (promise) non elven bladesingers, non dwarven battleragers. I stated that as long as the table you play at has no problem with it, enjoy it but just be aware of and clear about what why and how you are modifying rules, it may not be received as well somewhere else. If a cleric expects to pray and receive power from 'their' Deity/force after acting against its interests? They may well be disabused of that notion.
Agreed with most everything else you said in your post but just wanted to highlight this: The only classes that are dependent on another being to grant them power are clerics and warlocks. Paladins can get their power from their Oath, and Druids can draw power from raw nature. Both those classes often worship appropriately aligned gods or spirits, but they don't have to.
But they do worship something, call it spirits, power, reiki, Ki, floofie the world turtle, it is still something they are granted power from. They are servants, not all are necesarily good at their job, some enjoy kickbacks too much or otherwise abuse the position. If however that abuse violates the tenets of the faith or oath? Then beware. Many would assume that excommunication or renunciation of your service is on the cards. After all a cleric that kills his congregation on a whim and tells his deity to jog on and expects prayers in the morning is (to me) ludicrous.
That's exactly the pigeon-holing that needs to be re-evaluated. Neither a paladin nor a druid must 'worship' something any more than a wizard or a rogue must. It's entirely viable to have a druid who has turned their back on the gods of nature and receive power directly from 'nature'. Furthermore a paladin, while bound to behavior outlined by their oath, are not necessarily subjected to the whims of another being anymore than a bard is. The strength of their conviction is enough to grant them power.
I do agree with you however that if a Paladin or Druid is going to go this route, it should be made clear and the beginning of a campaign so that the DM can work it into their campaign appropriately. My point is more that there is less to functionally tie these two classes to gods and spirits than their has been in the past, but much of the DnD audience still believes these two classes to be bound up in that pre-existing lore. Paladins and Druids can in fact exist in a religious vacuum.