Druids of Verossa

[Liithus]

I have a concept of a character I think that I would enjoy playing.

I envision a druid, living on the fringe of society, that is an extremist.. perhaps an eco-terrorist, if you will. My first thought on alignment was Chaotic Neutral. My initial thoughts for this was that he would be impulsive, brazen, rather non-conformist, and maybe even loud-mouthed. As far as the good/evil scale, he would be neither outright malevolant and cruel, nor would he be a pious individual.. caring only for himself and the natural surroundings of wherever he happened to be. After looking over the diety chart, it seems Verossa would be the closest match for what I am looking for.

Unfortunately, Verossa is Chaotic Evil, which is a bit different (I think!) than what I have laid out here. It is my understanding, that preistly characters must follow the same alignment as their chosen deity. Is this a correct assertion? Reading this thread: viewtopic.php?t=29310, I have come to understand that this is the case, however, current game mechanics limit which alignment a druid is able to choose at creation. It is also my understanding that I could, for instance, choose Verossa as a deity, and still retain the Chaotic Neutral alignment, but that when the mechanics go in that can forcibly limit druidic alignments, druids that do not match their chosen deity will not be able to advance in their profession. I read in the player's guide that clerics and druids of Verossa are always Chaotic Evil. However, reading about Verossa on the main web site, it says that only clerics are Chaotic Evil. I am now thoroughly confused on what to do.

I really think that this character would be great fun for me to play. I understand that Chaotic Neutral is a difficult alignment to play, but I feel that I would be able to portray the alignment properly. Does what I have laid out here seem like a Chaotic Neutral character, or does it lean more towards Chaotic Evil? I am not looking to strike down anyone for taking a stroll through the forest and wrinkling some grass, but I don't see allowing anyone to enter and do as they please, either.

Any insights, comments, or suggestions would be greatly welcomed.

[CPU]

I have a concept of a character I think that I would enjoy playing.

I envision a druid, living on the fringe of society, that is an extremist.. perhaps an eco-terrorist, if you will. My first thought on alignment was Chaotic Neutral. My initial thoughts for this was that he would be impulsive, brazen, rather non-conformist, and maybe even loud-mouthed. As far as the good/evil scale, he would be neither outright malevolant and cruel, nor would he be a pious individual.. caring only for himself and the natural surroundings of wherever he happened to be. After looking over the diety chart, it seems Verossa would be the closest match for what I am looking for.

Unfortunately, Verossa is Chaotic Evil, which is a bit different (I think!) than what I have laid out here. It is my understanding, that preistly characters must follow the same alignment as their chosen deity. Is this a correct assertion? Reading this thread: viewtopic.php?t=29310, I have come to understand that this is the case, however, current game mechanics limit which alignment a druid is able to choose at creation. It is also my understanding that I could, for instance, choose Verossa as a deity, and still retain the Chaotic Neutral alignment, but that when the mechanics go in that can forcibly limit druidic alignments, druids that do not match their chosen deity will not be able to advance in their profession. I read in the player's guide that clerics and druids of Verossa are always Chaotic Evil. However, reading about Verossa on the main web site, it says that only clerics are Chaotic Evil. I am now thoroughly confused on what to do.

I really think that this character would be great fun for me to play. I understand that Chaotic Neutral is a difficult alignment to play, but I feel that I would be able to portray the alignment properly. Does what I have laid out here seem like a Chaotic Neutral character, or does it lean more towards Chaotic Evil? I am not looking to strike down anyone for taking a stroll through the forest and wrinkling some grass, but I don't see allowing anyone to enter and do as they please, either.

Any insights, comments, or suggestions would be greatly welcomed.

Talk to Tangleroot in game or send him a PM. He loves Druids of Verosa!

[Tangleroot]

With the new fixes, druids of Verossa are apparently able to level when they are chaotic evil. Can't really confirm this, since I haven't leveled for a while now. But on Avlis priests and druids need to exactly follow the alignment of their god, in this case CE.

I envision a druid, living on the fringe of society, that is an extremist.. perhaps an eco-terrorist, if you will. My first thought on alignment was Chaotic Neutral. My initial thoughts for this was that he would be impulsive, brazen, rather non-conformist, and maybe even loud-mouthed. As far as the good/evil scale, he would be neither outright malevolant and cruel, nor would he be a pious individual.. caring only for himself and the natural surroundings of wherever he happened to be.

Add in a desire for destruction, and you've got a druid of Verossa right there. Verossa is the goddess of random natural destruction, so you shouldn't be afraid to blast away some divine wrath from time to time. Since I'm the only currently active Verossan at the time, I heartily encourage you to make this character. The more the merrier. Also, my shrine to Verossa is already ingame, but the transition there's bugged currently..

Send me a PM or meet me ingame. You can't miss Tangleroot, he's a naked old guy with a lot of tattoos. He's usually very bearded, but the cep head bug's caused him to have a bald head at this time..

I am not looking to strike down anyone for taking a stroll through the forest and wrinkling some grass, but I don't see allowing anyone to enter and do as they please, either.

Chaotic Evil doesn't mean chaotic stupid, so no need to kill everyone. Total serial killer characters may suit the alignment, but they are not fun to play or be around with. With moderation, it should work out.

[Dralix]

Since I'm the only currently active Verossan at the time, I heartily encourage you to make this character.

I've been resisting the urge to roll up a druid of verossa for a while now. Maybe when I have more time. Hell, I haven't even logged in with Dralix for days.

[Liithus]

With the new fixes, druids of Verossa are apparently able to level when they are chaotic evil. Can't really confirm this, since I haven't leveled for a while now. But on Avlis priests and druids need to exactly follow the alignment of their god, in this case CE.

Are these fixes in now? I have not started, yet, but I read elsewhere that only LN druids are able to advance, and that GM intervention is required. Would I be able to choose CE from creation, or will I have to pick a neutral based alignment and alter it through my actions, due to in-game mechanics?

Add in a desire for destruction, and you've got a druid of Verossa right there. Verossa is the goddess of random natural destruction, so you shouldn't be afraid to blast away some divine wrath from time to time.

This really sounds like exactly what I am looking for.

Since I'm the only currently active Verossan at the time, I heartily encourage you to make this character. The more the merrier. Also, my shrine to Verossa is already ingame, but the transition there's bugged currently..

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. I think I will go with it.

Chaotic Evil doesn't mean chaotic stupid, so no need to kill everyone. Total serial killer characters may suit the alignment, but they are not fun to play or be around with. With moderation, it should work out.

I think it will work out great.

[Sindol]

With the latest CoPaP version of the haks (4.2) now live on all servers the druid leveling bug should be gone. This means that druidic leveling is probably back to the bioware standards.

Last thing I heard is that another attempt at unlocking all alignments for druids was not made for these haks, but will likely be included in the next version (4.3, probably due sometime after patch 1.63 for NWN).

This means that you'll probably have to go with CN or NE for now for your Verossa druid. Good luck with your character.

[Gairus]

What about CE but getting DMs to do temporary alignment changes when levelling?

It's not like levelling is a daily occurance, and i'm pretty sure it's a painless process for a DM?

[Sindol]

What about CE but getting DMs to do temporary alignment changes when levelling?

It's not like levelling is a daily occurance, and i'm pretty sure it's a painless process for a DM?

Also possible, not a big hassle, but it can be hard finding a DM with time sometimes. You can prevent yourself even that loss of time by just choosing a viable alignment that is closest.

[choraldances]

Two and still counting...

[Tissa]

Can one be an extream worshipper of Dru'El, using eco-terrorist tactics to defend nature for the greatrer good?

[Keflex]

Can one be an extream worshipper of Dru'El, using eco-terrorist tactics to defend nature for the greatrer good?

Heh, see: Hands of Dru'El.

Not exactly eco-terrorists, but definitely terrorists (okay, one person's "terrorist" is another person's "intelligence agent", but I digress). That's just the sort of thing they do, the bastards (though maybe not quite as extreme as that).

[srn]

Can one be an extream worshipper of Dru'El, using eco-terrorist tactics to defend nature for the greatrer good?

I guess so; you'd have to be pretty certain about what you were doing, though, since you have to retain a Good alignment to worship Dru'El...

As Keflex says, some try to make the Hands out to be this sort of group. Of course, we know the Hands are really just one person.

[Nob]

Honestly, given the definition on alignments:

The Chaotic Good mindset is a paradox of the desire for individuality and a benevolent concern for others. Chaotic Good characters are almost always strong minded and each tends to possess a unique moral compass about what exactly is right and what is wrong. These characters have a tendency to pass moral judgments based on their beliefs, and to hell with what anyone else thinks. Despite this individualism, the definition of good, for most Chaotic Good characters, is don't hurt anyone else.

No, I don't think an eco-terrorist should be considered "CG" given the nature of their behavior being intrinsically destructive and harmful to other beings.

Personally, a lot of the CG alignment behavior by some PC groups bugs me a bit. Ignoring the whole compassion and mercy part of the equation with simple thirst for justice or getting even doesn't really feel like it jives with the intent placed on good alignments believing in a general sanctity of life.

[Tangleroot]

What Nob said.

[Tissa]

I am just a newbie and don?t yet understand how the definitions and balance of alignments are important to this world, and realize that these words can have many meanings depending on what side you are on, so I greatly appreciate all the explanations that have been given.

To take this a little further some would call the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) ?environmental terrorists? (eco-terrorists), some even apply this name to such caring organizations as the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Greenpeace. I don?t see any of these organization as Chaotic Evil.

Chaotic Evil characters will do anything that will have a pleasing result to them. They are interested in maximum gain for minimum risk. They often do not care to undergo the very
treatment they inflict, but they have no interest or belief in the principle of "treat others as you expect to be treated." Chaotic Evil characters rarely plan very far in advance, preferring to handle situations on a day by day basis.

Dru?El teaches that doing good is a matter of following your own heart. How this good is accomplished is less important then what is accomplished. A Druid of Dru?El, sees this most keenly in how the forest lives and grows. Druids of Dru?El would view hunting down and destroying evil as an acceptable past time for a druid, provided that that evil is a threat to the forest.

[GreyLynx]

I think followers of Dru'El would be more inclined to see forces unfriendly to the forest as mis-guided rather than evil. They would be expected to try to peacefully deal with such adversaries first, and only use violence if their foes showed that they themselves are violent or a threat to others.

To place the value of the forest above that of other people, irregardless of whether those people are simply mis-guided or truly evil, smacks of having relatively low respect for the inherent value of sentient life, which starts to put characters into the realm of neutral or, in the more extreme case, evil. This respect for others is one of the definitions of good in Avlis. There are plenty of non-good options for druids, though - Skern, Dagath and Verossa come to mind.

[Aloro]

Personally, a lot of the CG alignment behavior by some PC groups bugs me a bit. Ignoring the whole compassion and mercy part of the equation with simple thirst for justice or getting even doesn't really feel like it jives with the intent placed on good alignments believing in a general sanctity of life.

Personally, I find that players making judgements about other player's roleplaying motivations, especially when they lack most of the pertinent facts (which is almost always the case) bugs me a bit.

- Aloro

[Nob]

I'll rephrase then. I find a lot of the conceptualization of "good" to be rather misplaced when it becomes too skewed towards "destroying evil" rather than any other motivation. This happens with every single good alignment, but it often becomes rampant in Chaotics because of the tendency for players in general to come to the conclusion that CG allows for "slip-ups" without losing anything. It's similar to the misconceptualization of CE as "Stupid Evil" except replacing chaotic with "sloppy" in this case.

I've seen this behavior as much as a DM on CoPaP as I have as a player. (And yes, I've given alignment hits for this sort of thing.) Borderline CG/CN as found in the heroic domain might be close to this standard, but when you go higher up the "good" axis there should probably be a higher standard placed on how important mercy is on your priority list.

Back to the original point. Eco-terrorism shows a fundamental lack of respect for other individuals and more importantly tosses away compassion which is at least from a D&D alignment perspective the largest part of the good alignment. I'd rather not get into any political debate about environmental terrorism groups, except to say that in many respects their basic arguments stem from short-sighted or self-centric views that tend to ignore the requirements of others. (Several notable cases, for example, burning SUVs, resulting in creating more air pollution through the act than said vehicles would have produced through their operating lives. Attempts by Greenpeace to stop environmentally unsound industries even to massive detriment(and against the wishes) of local workers, etc.) Treating others as they expect to be treated, I highly doubt they'd want people coming into their private property and setting things on fire or making initiatives that would force them from their jobs and into further unsanitary conditions.

[Emprod]

That concept of a character would certainly think it was doing the right thing, and it very well may be doing the best thing, but in terms of alignment he's evil.

[Bear]

Can one be an extream worshipper of Dru'El, using eco-terrorist tactics to defend nature for the greatrer good?

Yes, and No.

No - if you ultimately place defending nature above defending the "Good" and the precepts of Dru'El.

Yes - if you ultimately place worship of Dru'El and the "Good" above defending nature.

If worship of Dru'El and good are your mainstays, then it will most certainly limit some of the tactics you may otherwise use. For example, a Dru'El worshiping eco-terrorist may give a Verossan Druid who has been destroying crops an opportunity to leave, whereas a non-good worshiper would probably just drop the hurt.

I think that the concept is doable, just as long as you remember your focus.

Thanks,

Bear

[szabot]

Warning: as usual in these discussions about morality and the D&D alignment system, we may often be talking past one another. On the one hand, someone may be talking about morality simpliciter. On the other hand, someone may be talking about the stipulations built into D&D morality due to the alignment system. Having said that...

To place the value of the forest above that of other people, irregardless of whether those people are simply mis-guided or truly evil, smacks of having relatively low respect for the inherent value of sentient life, which starts to put characters into the realm of neutral or, in the more extreme case, evil. This respect for others is one of the definitions of good in Avlis. There are plenty of non-good options for druids, though - Skern, Dagath and Verossa come to mind.

I respectfully disagree, or, at least, I wish to say that this should be an open question. To say that it is good to prioritize the values of people, and evil to prioritize the values of the forest begs several questions. To say that sentient beings have inherent value is to beg an important question. To imply that all and only people are sentient beings begs important questions.

In other words, for example, a reasonable and good person could believe, among other things: all animals are sentient; not only sentient beings have inherent value; the values of the forest are comparable (perhaps even equal to ) to those of sentient beings; etc....

Back to the original point. Eco-terrorism shows a fundamental lack of respect for other individuals and more importantly tosses away compassion which is at least from a D&D alignment perspective the largest part of the good alignment. I'd rather not get into any political debate about environmental terrorism groups, except to say that in many respects their basic arguments stem from short-sighted or self-centric views that tend to ignore the requirements of others.

Similar points as above. This view assumes, without giving any reason for believing, that the value of certain inviduals (and, it seems to be implied that this means persons, as in human persons- thus, begging another question) trumps other values (or, worse, are the only values that matter). But, again, that is an open question, and may even be false. Also, it's very uncharitable to imply that ALL environmental groups of this sort have bad arguments for their principles. Furthermore, their arguments tend to NOT be short-sighted and self-centric. In fact, they tend to be long-term and eco-centric, which just is what you were initially accusing them of. Finally, both their views and actions may in fact be BASED UPON compassion. They just - possibly reasonably - disagree with you about what are the proper objects of compassion.

[Aloro]

Good post, szabot. I agree with pretty much all you said there.

- Aloro

[szabot]

Good post, szabot. I agree with pretty much all you said there.

- Aloro

Well, that's a first.

[choraldances]

People people!

Please stop clogging up my druid's thread. Just because we're few, doesn't mean you can pick on us!

Just follow the Deific chart, and you'll be right!

And the rest of you, git!

[ornot_demar]

Hi.
I'm a newbie on Avlis, though I'm experienced with D&D. I was planning a druid character from Tyedu. More of a shaman type than druid really, but that sort of nature worship struck me as appropriate for the spirit-kin.
Basically I wanted a neutral human druid from Tyedu of the Tor-ered clan who worshipped Pruodhon.
Would this be acceptable, or can I only play a druid of the gods listed in the World Documents: Character Classes, namely O'Ma, Dru'El, Pelar, Dre'Ana, Titanea, Dagath, Skern, and Verossa.
Thanx