Druid & Mummy dust & Undeath. The definitive question.

[Queen Titania]

I think you're 100% wrong, both due to how druid lore works, and from an integrity of how the classes should work and be interpreted standpoint, and that this view is going to have bad results in the future...

But if the DM team's view is 'Druids can summon undead,' then the DM team's view is that druids can summon undead. Another question for you, then: If druids, the main non-paladin opponents to undead, are now given carte blanche to summon undead- can people of any alignment do so? If even the champions of the natural world can do it against all logic, surely there are 'good reasons' for those of neutral and good alignments to do so as well?

Summoning undead is an inherently evil act, which is why my response to the OP was that they make their Talona druid evil, given I don't see the concept working with any other alignment.

The answer is case by case, but for those good aligned: The Answer is almost-always going to be never, and for those neutral aligned, it's a little more flexible (The ends justify the means being an example), but heavy use may see your alignment shift. It's an evil action and should be thought of that way.

[Nitro]

You can be jimmy goodpants the lawful good and use animate dead without any problem at all. Hell, if it's only once and Jimmy is real remorseful and tries to atone for it later he probably won't even drop in alignment.

If Jimmy keeps animating dead, well, then jimmy's probably going to drop in alignment. If he couldn't do necromancy because he was good, doesn't that sound a little stale? The good guy getting swayed by the lure of evil is a pretty big cornerstone of fantasy after all.

[One Two Three Five]

Alright, DM Titania, let me ask you this as specifically as possible:
In the past. People (including me, back in the days of yore) have asked: 'Can I make a druid that summons undead,' this concept, as far as the forgotten realms is concerned, is contained entirely in the Blighter class. Which is an ex-druid specifically. A fallen druid. The answer these people have been given:

Blighters

Roleplay of Blighters or "forest destroying" druids is not allowed on Arelith without the 5% roll. Blighters are basically the "anti-druid." Instead of getting their powers from nature (as a gift, so to speak), they steal them, causing a lot of negative effects for the forest.

This is no longer the case? Undead summoning 'blighter' style druids are now perfectly fine so long as you can pull out the correct deity?

Specifically, ignoring the class description of druids in 3/3.5 and the lore of the Forgotten Realms involving druids, we can do this?

[Queen Titania]

To All: After a lengthy Team Discussion on this, we've actually decided to code out Mummy Dust to not be selectable by druids at all in the future.

OP: Sorry OP! I would advise tweaking the concept in a way to not use animation. Tolerating undead as a druid can certainly be okay, but we decided that creating may be a bit much. This is to avoid them becoming a norm.

[BegoneThoth]

And that's the end of that.

Glad to see if it's not allowed, then it's being made not selectable.

[Wytchee]

Huzzah! Sticklers rejoice!

[Cortex]

On a previous topic touched:

Using Animate Dead a few times in times of need is not the same as using a higher arcane spell called Mummy Dust that calls for vampires, dread mummies, etc.

[yellowcateyes]

To clarify, it will still be select-able. However, the feat will be unusable so long as you have at least 1 Druid level.

[Roketter]

To All: After a lengthy Team Discussion on this, we've actually decided to code out Mummy Dust to not be selectable by druids at all in the future.

OP: Sorry OP! I would advise tweaking the concept in a way to not use animation. Tolerating undead as a druid can certainly be okay, but we decided that creating may be a bit much. This is to avoid them becoming a norm.

Thanks Titania! I'll jus pick the usual op powers instead. Whatever the result Its good to have a final word on this!

[RedGiant]

Can we go back to something RedGiant said?

Oh wait, that's me! *blushes*

I was actually on the verge of suggesting Mummy Dust be overwritten with a custom Arelith summons, since this would totally be hated as you mentioned.

Instead of cacking a Druid epic spell possibility, what if we just allowed them another epic summons option that actually fits Druids? Like a Treant, or a Legendary Snowbeast, or a [insert animal, beast, or magical beast here]? Meaning, along the lines of what YellowCatEyes said, if you have even 1 Druid level you get the custom/DM/Druid Lore approved summons?

This could even be taken one step further with some alignment flavor, yielding results along a spectrum of nicer to not-so-nicer. Just spit-balling here but...Good gets a Legendary White Stag; Neutral gets a Legendary Grey Render; Evil gets a Legendary Kreshnar?

[Sab1]

Also to my knowledge there is nothing specifically on Arelith prohibiting a druid using metal. When I played on Narfell no druid could use metal unless you worshipped a specific nature god, but I have never actually seen anything saying druids are banned from metal or have to hate metal weapons/armor.

[One Two Three Five]

Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor. (A druid may also wear wooden armor that has been altered by the ironwood spell so that it functions as though it were steel. See the ironwood spell description) Druids are proficient with shields (except tower shields) but must use only wooden ones.

A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.

It's like, in the original class description. I don't necessarily agree but it's there.

[hoshi]

It's one of those things like evil clerics being unable to cast Protection against Evil, etc (same for good clerics and undead, protection versus good, etc) in the base game that hasn't been enforced. From the same book as above:

A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). For example, a good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) cannot cast evil spells. Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions (see Chapter 11: Spells).

Quoting lore as law always has been tricky IMO as I've yet to see a game whether online or in tabletop that completely follows it.

Edit - And I'm happy that the DM team weighed in on this topic, glad to see a ruling being given.

[One Two Three Five]

I mean, the rules are a guideline, which is also there in there somewhere, so your mileage varies- but you mentioned you hadn't seen where it was from, thus the quote from a quick google.

[hoshi]

Think you're getting some posters confused, that was Sab1 asking not me.

[One Two Three Five]

Yeah I didn't bother checking.

[Rivace_Silver]

whats evil .. whats good?

pertaining to casting good or evil spells .. the protection vs alignment specifically.
Consider this:
-Surfacers fight things like hobgoblins and orcs werewolves, hunters, trolls... use protection vs evil to help defend againt these defilers.
-Underdarkers fight things like slimes and derro .. hobgoblins, .. undead.. tribal hunters in the plains, orgrillions.. uses .. protection vs good? no .. protection vs evil to defend against all the evil on the server ..

Quesiton though ... Derro say things like "I havnt done nuthin to ye!" as you swash through their ranks in short order .. Are they aligned good?

Name one dungeon populated by hostile GOOD npcs.

Prot vs good appears to be a PVP thing. not a PVE thing.

Observations....

[hoshi]

I meant from the source of the spell in the same book:

Protection from Good Abjuration [Evil]
Protection from Evil Abjuration [Good]

Do I think it should be enforced on Arelith, of course not. But the D&D game has a lot of lore/rules, a lot of them even conflict with each other that spawn 50 page threads elsewhere. Add in multiple editions going into the same source and you get a mess of stuff. Which is why I firmly believe that arbitration should be left to the DM team and not players quoting select bits of text.

[One Two Three Five]

Prot vs good is one half of the secret 'Protection from NPCS that smiterdins got turned neutral back in the day' spell, "Protection from Everything."

[Sab1]

For me I have always liked it being left up to the individual druid so each druid isn't cookie cutter. The Narfell policy simply meant you had a lot of druids worshipping the same god that just so happened to allow using metal. If a druid can justify it, I have always been for it. One could easily have the Metal is of the earth so why not use it mentality. Where a druid from someplace like Chult where metal is extremely rare, would probably not see a need for metal.

FYI I always wondered why there was no protection for neutral in D&D, seemed odd only good and evil you needed protection from and not the people who might decide an evil act is needed today and might do a good act tomorrow.

[Cortex]

Protection from good has its uses now in PvE, some of the mobs I have created myself are neutral and I'm certain they're not the only ones. And since having both PfA grant full effect vs neutral targets... you see where this is going.

[hoshi]

FYI I always wondered why there was no protection for neutral in D&D, seemed odd only good and evil you needed protection from and not the people who might decide an evil act is needed today and might do a good act tomorrow.

Bad implementation of the "original" spell moving forward. The "original" Protection from Evil gave blanket protection regardless of alignment (remember in original D&D there was no Good and Evil, only Law, Neutral, and Chaos).

So the spell operated more as "Protection from Enemies, especially anything with DR because screw those guys". You can see that version in the Rules Cyclopedia for example.

Later on they split the spell into Law, Evil, Good, Chaos. By 3.x Protection from Evil (and the other alignment ones) had 3 different effects. 1 of them only helped against Evil, 1 helped against any alignment, and 1 helped against Evil AND Neutral. So quite a bit did work against Neutral critters.

[JediZero]

So having read most of this, I feel like there is some. . .arguing to be had regarding what a 'balance' means.

I mean rationally, 'balance' could be held as an axis of every action having a counter-action.

For instance a bandit attempting to mug someone getting killed, and then their body animated to try and protect said someone could be technically 'balancing' things out due to the moral act of them attempting to kill someone for money, and their body being used to protect them afterwards.

The point is as long as you're not stupid with it, lore can be bent. As long as you're not saying that you have a half celestial half infernal with a demonic grandfather on your mother's side and you alone know the whispered words that can and will end all of existence and BOY howdy these people who're bugging you better hope you don't say them 'cause they got on your nerves. . .

You should probably be fine.

Also technically the 'balance' that has been brought up several times is p.much secured forever now with the construction of the Astrolabe holding the realms together so. . .I guess in island 'lore' druids are no longer needed because no need to maintain any planar balance. Again. Don't be stupid, don't be a jerk and 90% of people will roll with it. And the other 10% don't really matter.

[Wytchee]

Balance really has nothing to do with morality. In DnD, druids aren't even supposed to resurrect the dead, let alone reanimate them; instead, they cast Reincarnate, which brings the soul back into a different vessel. A well-played druid would see that bandit's death as part of the natural order and would more likely leave his corpse to the birds and beasts of the forest rather than animate it to ward off further banditry in the area. Of course, druids aren't held to this standard on Arelith for good reason: it would suck, gameplay wise. Still, druids aren't largely concerned with morality in the way a cleric or paladin would be; that's why they are required to be of a neutral alignment. A druid's job is to maintain an equilibrium between civilization and nature and to prevent excessive incursion by extraplanar forces onto Toril. If you want to play a character that is largely concerned with morality, play a cleric.

Furthermore, "maintaining the balance" is about more than fretting about warlocks and necromancers; a druid can be a spiritual, or even political leader; she can involve herself in politics to the end that she might guide rather than lead; she can be subversive (think eco-terrorist) or war-like and confrontational (think traditional warrior-druids of Roman-era Briton) or even a divine champion of a nature deity (Mulhorandi deities work best for this). As you said, the lore can be bent, but the end goal of every druid must always be the same: maintaining the balance. How she goes about that is up to the player, but it's commonly accepted that druids do not upset the balance in their endeavors to maintain it. So no reanimating the dead. Ever.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

I agree and disagree with everything Wytchee and JediZero have said. I should disclaim I think druids are one of the most highly conservative classes, in terms of roleplay - "conservative" because their approach has long been guided by principles like,

- being a reactive force in the Arelith Woods (rangers only get riled up when necromancers trot through)
- clinging to a moot system
- "the Balance" has often been used as a tool by entrenched and established players to maintain control (similar to Light Keep)
- druid roleplay has lacked consistent vision, or arguably memorable "presence" on the island

With that out of the way, druids are fundamentally an estranged class. I think they would be a lot better conceptually if they were not bound by a neutral-alignment restriction. I don't think the neutral-alignment system makes any sense, as its often articulated (see above) that druids do not take extreme moral stances. Like a Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil character would take. That seems presumptuous at best, and pretty reductive at its worse. A Lawful Neutral or Neutral Evil character can be just as extreme.

Extremity of morality, thus, can't be argued as something druids don't uphold because of their alignment system.

Further, the idea of "cosmic balance" seems more fascinating, but more plagued by inconsistencies. Druids, often argued, should be as abhorrent by a demon as an angel, because both manifest outsider intervention into the natural ecosystem of Abeir-Toril. The principle of this seems fair (they don't like cosmic interventions). However, and this is just because of the mechanics of the class, druids do rely on summoning elementals from the Elemental Planes, and druids have often roleplayed animal companions as coming from "somewhere else." If a druid is irreconcilable with planar presence, it seems bizarre they don't mind external weather demigods. The "science" of ecosystem preservation runs at odds with summoning a Water Elemental that can flood a forest.

So, by extension, it makes sense why druids dislike warlocks and undead. Undead are animated via the use of magic from the Negative Energy Plane (which is why they are healed by it), and warlocks are literal agents of Extraplanar powers (with varying impact).

But to say druids aren't concerned with morality doesn't seem consistent with what the class is: they are guardians, teachers, and arbiters. In fact, actual historical druids were also ruling members of Celtic society, important legal administrators, preservers of culture, and more. I cannot help but disassociate DnD druids from real life druids, because (like almost every class), the original comparison bleeds a lot into the concept. It would be fascinating to see druids take on a more "legal" stance within what they believe to be just and fair principles - aka Abeir-Toril has to solve its own problems, don't rely on others; or, rather, actively using external powers undermines Abeir-Toril's natural laws and natural morality.

I just don't think druids should be reduced to discussions of The Balance. There is the "balance of nature" but that's not with a capital B. They are different concepts. So I agree and disagree with everything stated.