You missed the Boat on the Druid segment.

[Silverquick]

In the game the Devs took the wrong direction with this one.
And might contribute to the (SWJ bad reputation the game is getting)

First of all Druids are true Neutral. So they just frankly don't give a damn either way. They are not about compassion at all. They are about the laws of nature and their mentality is like that.

So the scene with the little girl where Kagha threatens her and the other Druid "feels compassion" like he wants to save her, isn't going to turn out like that.

No one really have questioned Kagha as the strong kill the weak all the time in nature. They may have considered it pointless, but offering compassion? No that's not a part of Druids. You're playing with the wrong tools here... You'd need a good aligned Priest or Paladins for that.

Though admittedly Kagha herself acted more Lawful Evil than Neutral, or even Neutral Evil. But its unlikely Halsin would fly off the handle like that. Though he would be suspicious that she were no longer Druidic. Kicking the Teiflings out and letting the Goblins hunt them down wouldn't have been a problem... which brings me to the next point.

Secondly...

Druids as a whole would have a large problem with Teiflings. They are completely unnatural and foreign to that world. They are truly abominations.

As to where Druids would have no problems with Goblins or Gnolls specifically... Teiflings would be an anethma to them. And as a whole would have no problems with kicking them out and letting the Goblins and Gnolls hunt them down.

[Oubley]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Silverquick:

In the game the Devs took the wrong direction with this one.
And might contribute to the (SWJ bad reputation the game is getting)

First of all Druids are true Neutral. So they just frankly don't give a damn either way. They are not about compassion at all. They are about the laws of nature and their mentality is like that.

So the scene with the little girl where Kagha threatens her and the other Druid "feels compassion" like he wants to save her, isn't going to turn out like that.

No one really have questioned Kagha as the strong kill the weak all the time in nature. They may have considered it pointless, but offering compassion? No that's not a part of Druids. You're playing with the wrong tools here... You'd need a good aligned Priest or Paladins for that.

Though admittedly Kagha herself acted more Lawful Evil than Neutral, or even Neutral Evil. But its unlikely Halsin would fly off the handle like that. Though he would be suspicious that she were no longer Druidic. Kicking the Teiflings out and letting the Goblins hunt them down wouldn't have been a problem... which brings me to the next point.

Secondly...

Druids as a whole would have a large problem with Teiflings. They are completely unnatural and foreign to that world. They are truly abominations.

As to where Druids would have no problems with Goblins or Gnolls specifically... Teiflings would be an anethma to them. And as a whole would have no problems with kicking them out and letting the Goblins and Gnolls hunt them down.

Kagha didn't kill the girl though, the girl killed herself.

Kagha felt very unemotional to me so from that perspective it's seems true to what you are saying.

The other guy felt more like a different non conventional line of thinking so from that perspective I think it fits.

To some degree even he wan't disagreeing as much as asking are we going to far, does the punishment fit the crime.

To be honest, the jist of what I got was you need to sit and be still was the punishment and understand you did something very serious that can have serious consequences.

And the young adult darts and gets herself killed.....lets not forget the young adult was in that situation because she stole some important relic to begin with.

[Pipinpadaloxicopolis]

Oprindeligt skrevet af GrandMajora:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Sieglinde Eilserv:

Factually incorrect. Nice try though.

Druids have no alignment in 5e,

Alignment not existing in 5E is also factually incorrect. Just because the alignment system was toned down, does not mean it was completely removed. Alignment is not just a set of moral ethics in D&D, they are literal forces of nature, who form a metaphysical component to the game's cosmology. You can not remove the alignment spectrum, without completely retconning the Outer Planes.

last i checked the whole alignment system was still there, just WAY less important. for example theres no class requirement on alignment for a druid, or paladin, or any of the others. maybe im just missing it in the phb but i cant see it. maybe thats what he was talking about? they have no alignment simply because they are druids

[Jorian Drake]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Pipinpadaloxicopolis:

last i checked the whole alignment system was still there, just WAY less important. for example theres no class requirement on alignment for a druid, or paladin, or any of the others. maybe im just missing it in the phb but i cant see it. maybe thats what he was talking about? they have no alignment simply because they are druids

Paladins can be evil, the oath replaced the requirement of alignment, and many oaths are more evil anyway, while the oath of Ancients is more fitting a good druid ('forest knight')

Same with Druids, no alignment requirement, a Lawful Evil druid is just as possible as a Chaotic Good one.

Alignments became so meaningless that I'm not surprised Larian removed them from the game, I actually like this as it keeps you guessing what your companions are, and if they can or did change their ways later on.

[Pipinpadaloxicopolis]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Oubley:

Kagha didn't kill the girl though, the girl killed herself.

full stop, the druid set the snake on the girl. thats like saying "i didnt kill those people i just set the bomb"

Druid killed the child because the child stole an idol. a child who was terrified her parents were going to be murdered because the druids put them out onto the forest road thats swarming with goblins and gnolls.

by dnd metrics, thats evil.

[Jorian Drake]

Kagha tries to act Lawful Neutral in public and argue her decisions with laws, traditions, and fight against chaos, while in truth she's Neutral Evil

edit: at least how I understand this situation

[Silverquick]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Ard Feainn:

True Neutral isn't the same as being an emotionless golem, you muppet.

Actually it is,

If you are really, truly neutral on something it really means you just don't care one way or the other.

You don't have any emotions on one side or the other.

And when you apply it to Druids... who's "culture" so to speak is about Nature and the natural order. You end up with something that doesn't really care much about life but rather the cycle of life.

As I'd said in my first few posts,
They don't make a distinction between young and old because both are culled by Nature if they are too weak to survive it. Whether that be predators or disease, they may consider it a waste to kill for no reason, but they have no qualms or concience about killing the young either.

That's not an emotional issue for a Druid. They are not tree hugging hippies... they're quite the opposite.

They are everything that Nature really is, even the downsides... cold, cruel, and unfair.

They accept this as a way of life.

Ergo why I said compassion doesn't enter into it.

[Oubley]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Pipinpadaloxicopolis:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Oubley:

Kagha didn't kill the girl though, the girl killed herself.

full stop, the druid set the snake on the girl. thats like saying "i didnt kill those people i just set the bomb"

Druid killed the child because the child stole an idol. a child who was terrified her parents were going to be murdered because the druids put them out onto the forest road thats swarming with goblins and gnolls.

by dnd metrics, thats evil.

she set the snake in front of her, she didn't sick it on her.

that place the non druids are in is not theirs, they are guests.

It was already mentioned they don't want the guests any longer for reasons that it doesn't really matter because you are a guest.

It doesn't make them evil but it def doesn't make them kind. It makes them indfferent.

also even more reason not to steal something of high importance when have chance going to have to leave. She isn't a "child" she is a young adult. calling her a child doesn't excuse the fact 5 year olds know you're supposed to not steal.

["Eighty-Eight Fingers" Eddward]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Silverquick:

In the game the Devs took the wrong direction with this one.
And might contribute to the (SWJ bad reputation the game is getting)

First of all Druids are true Neutral. So they just frankly don't give a damn either way. They are not about compassion at all. They are about the laws of nature and their mentality is like that.

While I understand where you're coming from, true neutral is not a complete requirement for druids in 5e, you're thinking of much older editions. In fact as far back as 3e, druids that worshipped Silvanus could be any sort of neutral, so long as it wasn't lawful or chaotic. The reason there are shadow druids / Circle of the Land should have answered your question that there are differences within druidic circles. Some of them are flat out nice and help people, some are secluded and hermitic, some are violent and savage.

I'm not really sure you bothered to do research before blaming the game, lorewise it checks out, you're simply mistaken about druids in 5e, sorry.

[Luciano StarKiller]

Oprindeligt skrevet af GrandMajora:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Luciano StarKiller:

Oh yes, lets have our characters act as one dimensional aspects of what should be considered more as guidelines for beginners in TTRPG games than actual rules.

The problem that people have with alignment, is that they are gauging it from the standards of a real life perspective, and not from the standards of a world where there is no question as to whether or not the gods exist, and have control over your immortal souls.

The gods of D&D have laid out very clear guidelines of what they deem to be righteous and sinful, and when your character dies, their soul is judged according to those guidelines. Whatever your character's personal views on the morality spectrum are is completely irrelevant. The only judgement that matters is Kelemvor's when he's deciding which version of the afterlife he should send you off to.

Honestly, I fail to see how anybody who claims to be religious in real life can argue against this kind of system. If they truly believe that "morality comes from God," well guess what, that's exactly the case in D&D.

The gods of the Forgotten Realms just have a more strict idea of morality, than real world religion.

I disagree with every word you said, but hey, that's that

[Pipinpadaloxicopolis]

Oprindeligt skrevet af GrandMajora:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Pipinpadaloxicopolis:

theres no laws in the hells (like avernus), but most of them are still "lawful"
they have their own rules and play within them.

Also not true, Hell is the realm of Lawful Evil, and is dedicated to the pursuit of tyrannical authoritarianism. It might surprise you to know that Asmodeus actually despises criminals, and considers giving free will to mortals to be one of the greatest mistakes the gods ever made.

Devils are organized into a strict, militaristic hierarchy, which gives them the power to fight back against the Demons of the Abyss. The demons may have the advantage of numbers on their side, but they are little more than a chaotic mass of raving lunatics who turn against each other just as much as they do their enemies.

It is because of their ordered and disciplined hierarchy that devils can get the upper hand by outmaneuvering the demons, even if they lack the numbers to carry a full scale invasion.

i mean yea, but also whats that have to do with what i said?
kind of an esoteric argument tbh cuz its fiction and they can do whatever they want, lol. at the end of the day a lawful evil character follows their own internal beliefs, not just the "laws" of the land.
just because a place is authoritarian doesnt mean all the devils dont have their own outlook on whats okay and not okay to do. just gotta make sure not to piss off the guys above you cuz their own outlooks more important than yours (for your own survival) so they stay within the bounds of the "law"

this is the difference between a lawful evil, and say, lawful neutral. they dont give a ♥♥♥♥ about their own personal beliefs, only what the written law says.

Chaotic evil doesnt give a ♥♥♥♥ about anything, themselves included
and neutral evil are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

[Jorian Drake]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Silverquick:

Druids as a whole would have a large problem with Teiflings. They are completely unnatural and foreign to that world. They are truly abominations.

Tiefling are born and raised on the same plane of existence as the world with its druids, they are not automatically evil, they are part of Faerun's natural order just as genasi are, even if racists and terrified people are hostile to them.

OOC they're also a playable race, and can be druids themselves. Being a tiefling (or if implemented from Volo's, a goblin) druid in Act I will be very interesting.

[epic meow]

the way to get them to stop is to appeal to the natural order, unless you are a tiefling in which case you can feign responsibility. what's more kagha is framed as an imposter more or less who's got the whole camp lead astray.

[titanopteryx]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Silverquick:

In the game the Devs took the wrong direction with this one.
And might contribute to the (SWJ bad reputation the game is getting)

First of all Druids are true Neutral. So they just frankly don't give a damn either way. They are not about compassion at all. They are about the laws of nature and their mentality is like that.

So the scene with the little girl where Kagha threatens her and the other Druid "feels compassion" like he wants to save her, isn't going to turn out like that.

No one really have questioned Kagha as the strong kill the weak all the time in nature. They may have considered it pointless, but offering compassion? No that's not a part of Druids. You're playing with the wrong tools here... You'd need a good aligned Priest or Paladins for that.

Though admittedly Kagha herself acted more Lawful Evil than Neutral, or even Neutral Evil. But its unlikely Halsin would fly off the handle like that. Though he would be suspicious that she were no longer Druidic. Kicking the Teiflings out and letting the Goblins hunt them down wouldn't have been a problem... which brings me to the next point.

Secondly...

Druids as a whole would have a large problem with Teiflings. They are completely unnatural and foreign to that world. They are truly abominations.

As to where Druids would have no problems with Goblins or Gnolls specifically... Teiflings would be an anethma to them. And as a whole would have no problems with kicking them out and letting the Goblins and Gnolls hunt them down.

You're assuming that druids are one dimensional. Maybe not all druids are good at being druids. Like one is more compassionate, or one more heartless. Humans aren't robots.

Regarding the tiefling thing, frankly considering how many different species there are in faerun they might have given up and decided to just go with the flow. "Half dragon, half ogre, half gargoyle? Sure, why not.".

[zero]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Silverquick:

In the game the Devs took the wrong direction with this one.
And might contribute to the (SWJ bad reputation the game is getting)

First of all Druids are true Neutral. So they just frankly don't give a damn either way. They are not about compassion at all. They are about the laws of nature and their mentality is like that.

a)imagine caring about "SJW" as if thats a big deal

b)druids aren't true neutrals, druids are neutral SOMETHING, which inclues neutral evil, or neutral good, along with lawful/chaotic.

kaga is neutral evil, the other is neutral good, or at the least, chaotic neutral and feels pity to children.

and druids would feel nothing about tieflings, it has nothing to do with being a druid

your ENTIRE post shows a lack of understanding of druids and D&D lore in general

[Pipinpadaloxicopolis]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Oubley:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Pipinpadaloxicopolis:

full stop, the druid set the snake on the girl. thats like saying "i didnt kill those people i just set the bomb"

Druid killed the child because the child stole an idol. a child who was terrified her parents were going to be murdered because the druids put them out onto the forest road thats swarming with goblins and gnolls.

by dnd metrics, thats evil.

she set the snake in front of her, she didn't sick it on her.

that place the non druids are in is not theirs, they are guests.

It was already mentioned they don't want the guests any longer for reasons that it doesn't really matter because you are a guest.

It doesn't make them evil but it def doesn't make them kind. It makes them indfferent.

also even more reason not to steal something of high importance when have chance going to have to leave. She isn't a "child" she is a young adult. calling her a child doesn't excuse the fact 5 year olds know you're supposed to not steal.

the snake... the dangerous venomous snake that she set there to attack the child if it even flinched? didnt tell it to watch her? didnt tell it to do anything? (did i imagine all the weird hissing in that cutscene?)

it was just a random snake that came up and was hanging out that she kept talking to and threatening people with?

its
a
child

yes they're guests but the person who actually did something wrong was a child. there was no permanent harm done and the only thing it attempted to do was stop the druids from intentionally and maliciously killing a ton of people. what the druid did was evil, full stop. not saying its something a druid wouldnt do (or couldnt) just more that her actions were evil in any metric you wish to measure within the world of faerun and dnd as a whole.

she's a shadow druid so evil is as evil does.

god forbid the little girl try to save her family from them people trying to kill them