Consider the following, NAUX.

There are 3 primary forces in the universe: the dynamic, the entropic, and the static. Dynamism is defined as creation, or "forward" progress (natural or civilized); entropy is the proceeding downswing, which can be destruction, it can be death, it can be misfortune, it can be regression; these two universal concepts comprise the cycle every druid by virtue of being a druid adheres to, with or without any formal training from a Circle of Druids. Some favor the dynamic over the entropic (certain Chauntean agriculturists, for example), and some favor the entropic over the dynamic (predatory druids of Malar, for instance, or blighters, which are still technically druidic). Most you will see encourage the whole "balance" aspect, and while they apply the concept of balance to a lot of themes - civilization vs. nature, tend to nature vs. let it do its own thing, good vs. evil, etc. - they are ultimately operating within the universal confines of the Dynamic/Entropic cycle.

Druids have access to their divine abilities because they have made an implicit or an explicit "pact" with their deity to ensure that the Dynamic/Entropic cycle is affected to some combination of their deity's will and the druid's will. In my estimation, there's always a little bit of breathing room there for personal interpretation (though not as far as dealing with the undead, and I will explain precisely why to you shortly). Let's take an Aurilite druid for example. A druid of Auril would have the responsibility to ensure that winter does as winter should do, in all its glorious themes. Drive away autumn and forestall rebirth of spring as long as possible. Chill mankind to the bone and lay waste to his crops. Put certain mammals into hibernation and others into vicious hunting cycles for food to keep their metabolism/body heat going. Snowblind. And somewhat like a cleric of Auril, a druid of Auril might have the secondary responsibility (it would be primary for a cleric) to remind people of the association between winter and Auril. It is not frostbite that destroyed your child's fingers and toes, it was Auril's breath. That avalanche was not a circumstance of pent-up snow, it was Auril's heaving breast, or the full weight of her displeasure with your mountain community. Alternatively, a frozen lake is Auril's gracious gesture, allowing a possible yet treacherous passage across the water to those who would otherwise have too much difficulty in a boat.

Where this decidedly personal notion that the druid is responsible for the Dynamic/Entropic Cycle comes from is up to you to decide, but it is an imperative you must accept of playing the druid class.

I mentioned 3 different forces. The third is the Static. When most people tend to consider the iconic "good" and "bad", they have the kneejerk belief that dynamic is good and entropic is bad. In actuality, it is the static that is more often than not "bad", because entropic is really just part of the cycle of life.

The Static, on the other hand, is alien. It is Other. It is outside of the normal flow of events. Unnatural. There are a few things which belong to the universal static force (constructs, architecture, civilization when it stops being dynamic and reaches a peak and becomes the concrete jungle before it starts to crumble entropically, ideas, whatever one might associate with unchanging, unaffected, and non-moving). The undead are a prime example of the static. They are neither living nor dead and thus exist outside of the Dynamic/Entropic cycle that druids are naturally prone to defending.

Therefore, any druid who tolerates the presence of the undead is, in fact, courting not only violation of the principles the druid personally holds dear (and has to hold dear for his or her magic to work!), but is also at great risk of angering their divine patron, particularly if that patron is anti-undead.

The situation you raise is an interesting one. A druid of Auril and a non-druid of Auril together, and the non-druid summons an undead. Both of them serve the same deity. One would think the deity would provide some slack to the druid, right?

Not so, for at least two reasons:

- Regardless of the deity, the undead is ANATHEMA to the druid...again, regardless of any formal training or teaching in a circle. You are naturally, almost preternaturally disposed against the undead as a druid. To tolerate the presence of the undead without so much as demanding it go away or putting it away or leaving the area is to have the druid force him or herself into a quandary: by failing to act, am I failing my principles? Doubt is the enemy of any magician, arcane or divine. Arcanists combat doubt with knowledge (Int-based), or with raw personal force (Cha-based). Divine casters combat doubt with faith (Wis-based, generally). By going against your faith and courting doubt, you immediately risk Falling...even if Auril has no problem with you hanging around, YOUR OWN construct of being a druid is threatened and you spiritually abandon the connection to your deity.

- Alternatively, the druid may have the very question you have: the person who summoned the undead serves my goddess. Is She telling me to tolerate it, even against my will, even though it makes me sick to my stomach to be near it? Not likely. Let's frame Auril here for a moment. Winter's chill is intended to slay people...and never let them come back to life, unless it is through Auril's grace, with people making great sacrifices to her. She wants the bitter bite of cold to have a very physical effect on everything it touches, be it man, animal, life, matter, flora, fauna, emotions, whatever.

Now, you could logic to yourself, "Oh, the undead are cold! Therefore, they must be approved by Auril, yeah, because they have chilling touches! Especially winterwights!"

The chill of the undead is NOT winter's chill. It is negative energy chill. There's a significant difference. That significant difference being that the former is Auril's domain, her control, the extension of her divine will in the world, and the other is not.

The keener logic for the druid to apply is the idea that Auril might not actually like the undead. Why? They don't feel her cold. They're immune to the freezing temperature and the harshness of the snow. They just get buried and come out again unaffected when springtime rolls around. They don't suffer, and they'll never worship her. Auril is a goddess with a domain and a power of nature, a domain/power that is firmly within the Dynamic/Entropic Cycle, and therefore anything from the Static is probably an affront to her because it is "immune" to her winter.

And therefore, why should the druid tolerate the undead? It may come from the same source, but any divine caster should have the wisdom to understand that the deities do not necessarily approve every single spell that is cast, they merely approve of the ability for the faithful to cast it. If the faithful casts it incorrectly or wrongly, then the deity is likely to be incensed...if they notice. And therefore, the non-druid Aurilite summoning the undead is using Auril's divine gift incorrectly and needs to be corrected by the druid.




...after all of this, I hope you have become aware of the fact that I am not presenting an absolute truth here as a DM, in the manner of "this is how things work" (outside of the dynamic/entropic/static and druids place in that). I am providing you with the kinds of assumptions and in-roads you need to be making when playing a druid in order to play that druid correctly according to your class. You claim the "easy answers" lead you to a no that has no sensible source, and that clearly a more complex handling of the matter will lead to your assertion: that there is no problem at all for the druid to be in the presence of the undead.

I have taken a rather complex approach to that same situation and come out with an entirely different conclusion from your own, and likely with better reasoning all around. That's the level of attention I like to see people putting into their classes and characters. There are certain things you simply must accept as mechanical fact, but when you use your damn brain you can find all kinds of great explanations to make it work.

Exactly.

The thing that some people fail to understand is that a Druid is more than just a "priest." Like the Paladin, they -must- obey a certain code of conduct or fall. It's really that simple. A Druid looks to nature/Druidic code as well as his god, just like a Paladin looks to Paladin code as well as his god. They are not Clerics who look only to their god to conduct themselves as they must. What they look to is two fold, always. Exactly like the Paladin. So Undead are -never- okay. Aberrations are -never- okay. It simply is how it is. This has nothing to do with what you call "Druid = Good." A Druid can be plenty rotten and evil and murderous without undead use or co-existence.

To reiterate: the Druid must be faithful to code and god. Never one or the other, but both. Always. That is why they can never be okay with undead. Not ever. Unless they wish to fall.

There's a reason the Clerics of nature are seen as the converters and the Druids are seen as the ones who act. That's because those are their primary jobs for each priest class. The Druid works within nature, always. The Cleric doesn't actually have to, they work within their gods grace and if that gods grace just so happens to allow undead, then undead are a-go. The Druid, even when working within the grace of a god who allows undead can never allow the undead to happen. It's simply no in their nature, because undead are not a part -of- nature. They are abominations. They are corruptions. They are mockeries of nature. They are everything a Druid stands against. There is no having an open mind about it here. When it comes to nature and things alien to nature, the Druid does not have an open mind. All that is alien on Toril is what they stand against, always.

How you choose for your character to rationalize why that is so in his own mind is for you to decided. That's for your creative side to take and do it's thing, as a role player. If it's out of your characters way of being to be able to rationalize this, then they were never meant to be a Druid to begin with. Perhaps the Cleric class is where it belongs.

The Druid isn't as simple a class as people think. Once you choose to really investigate it's complexities, it's actually a very detailed class, almost like a Wizard and it does take time to really start to understand it and appreciate it for what it is. It has it's restrictions, but it also has a lot of liberties. Be creative about it.

_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth

Druid also isn't a Greenpeace worker. He understands that there is a part for every living creature, others are prey others predators. They don't allow meaningless slaughter, however, they understand if you hunt a deer and use the meat it offers. Hell, druid might as well hunt the deer himself and eat it. The kill has a meaning, it is not wasted.

At least I have understood, this is how the druids/rangers work.

_________________
http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/spells.htm

Not all greenpeace wrokers are Vegans, Magiros

_________________
Amia Minecraft Server Ip: vps1602.directvps.nl
NWN Damage Calculator: http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott/dnd/
NWN Build Calculator: http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Other.Detail&id=856

Malarites?

_________________

The issue is here exactly. It's easy to say that, but it's the fundamental problem of any and all deontological ethics: when you follow more than one imperative, they will conflict. This isn't anything D&D-specific, it's acknowledged in the study of ethics as a real issue. You cannot adhere to two different rules in all imaginable situations. It's not something you can dismiss by referring to creativity, because no amount of inspiration can overcome a true logical contradiction. When two duties conflict, how should you put them in perspective? Which one should you dismiss? Should you compromise both? It's true that in practice you can usually avoid situations like that, though. If you can avoid the difficult decision, it's probably safer (from an IC perspective) to do so. It may not be very heroic or devoted, of course.

There's no real right answer, as people largely admitted here. Your character should do what he must and act on his best knowledge, and that's all you can expect. I think it's safe to say that a druid and a cleric animating undead can work towards the same goal aware of eachother (just like paladins of Mystra or Hoar need not/must not foil the work their fellow faithful do for their church), but actually working together is a different issue. My answer (and the answer DMs mostly agreed on earlier when my paladin lore was authorized, but that may have changed when it comes to druids) is that god is always the priority. Everything else must be subjected to interpretation through contextual faith. Universal generalizations (and in practice, core rules) should always be secondary and dismissed or modified as evaluation of the most immediate and concrete lore requires.

Personally, I think druids are an abomination of a class and should be reduced to "guy with elemental, plant and/or animal skillz" and that's the direction 3e took with introducing Malarite druids etc. (A ridicilous concept if your druid concept is narrow, considering Malar is originally completely anti-druid.) But that developement was sadly unfinished, so we're in the situation of conflicting ideas and different tastes that many lore-heavy classes have ended up in.

_________________

I have to outright say that your post Yossarin, is exactly in all its entirety what I was looking for in an answer to my question. You clearly went out of your way to give me information that has already bettered me as a player before even having the chance to put this knowledge into action yet, so thank you greatly. I am aware that I might of been rather simplistic with my question, but I felt that I had no other way to word it than to throw out the situation to you as it was. Let me try and respond by showing some acknowledgement about some of the things you have said:

"Druids have access to their divine abilities because they have made an implicit or an explicit "pact" with their ../.. water to those who would otherwise have too much difficulty in a boat" This "pact" has been the strength of the character so far, she has done everything in her power to ensure this pact and her connection to her goddess has remained strong, and it was because of this that she was lead to fellow members of her clergy in the first place.

"The Static, on the other hand, is alien. It is Other. It is outside../.. druids are naturally prone to defending." and "The situation you raise is an interesting one. A druid of Auril and a non-druid of Auril together, and the non-druid summons an undead. Both of them serve the same deity. One would think the deity would provide some slack to the druid, right?" I believed that interaction with the undead was violating the static force, and in her time on Toril/Amia she has ensured any undead in her presence are removed instantly, and so far that has been the case, but it was the second quote and the question regarding the deities lenience towards fellow clergy members and the interaction of undead that I was not sure about but your clarification about "going against your doubt" that brings the answer home, as I had to doubt myself and ask here on the lore thread in the first place if it was OK to do something that I naturally felt was wrong when playing my druid.

"The keener logic for the druid to apply is the idea that Auril might not actually like the undead. Why? They don't feel her cold../..probably an affront to her because it is "immune" to her winter." This is a very very interesting and valid point that I clearly didn't put a lot of thought towards. It is hard to see how she would even find the idea of undead amusing for any longer than perhaps the time required for their use to be fulfilled (defense of a temple or in a time of war where warriors who are immune to her cold and controlled by a member of her clergy, can continue to fight against a foreign foe who is unable to survive in such conditions).

"And therefore, why should the druid tolerate the undead?../..Auril's divine gift incorrectly and needs to be corrected by the druid." This is something that IC'ly my character would not have the wisdom to question, due to her circumstances, anything conjured by a member of her faith would just simply be correctly procured as a boon from her goddess even if the caster actually committed an offence against my characters knowledge. This is simply because her loyalty to her goddess surpasses that of worship and is more akin to a concious she questions before acting, almost to the point that if she was told by her patron that the clergy in a temple dedicated to her deity were false and required cleansing, she would do it without question. But mechanically, I will find the means to alter my RP to ensure that I meet the expectations outlined here.

"You claim the "easy answers" lead you to a no that has no sensible source, and that clearly a more complex handling of the matter will lead to your assertion: that there is no problem at all for the druid to be in the presence of the undead." To clarify, I was not expecting someone such as yourself to come out the woodwork and present a well written explanation that gave me a reason to bypass what may of been core rules, I only wanted an answer with more backing than the normal "no's" so that I ensure that I wasn't missing out on potential RP when I may of been able to co-exist with undead in the circumstances presented to you. I have received that clarification and dodged what may of ended up being a bullet in the form of a fall widget and further more, the end of my character. Thank you once again Yossarin.

"The thing that some people fail to understand is that a Druid is more than just a "priest." Like the Paladin, they -must- obey a certain code of conduct or fall../..evil and murderous without undead use or co-existence." It's interesting to learn how much a druids core is based around this passive code, I knew a code existed, but I was under the impression that it was something that was specifically taught and reinforced by those of a circle. Your point about the undead described as "They are abominations. They are corruptions. They are mockeries of nature." co-insides with Yoss's point to Auril having no power over them, as they are immune to the cold, for this reason the above applies more so for my character than just the basic rule of thumb. So thank you for taking the effort to provide a more detailed answer than your first GnR.


"Druids don't deal with undead either. Regardless of your deity you're a Druid. It's like the difference between being a Cleric of Hoar and a Paladin of Hoar. Thank you Tormak for being correct, it just took Yoss and GnR to beef out your reply a little more for me to appreciate your one



Right, I think I have learned my lesson for today and have enjoyed my time in the "NOOB" spotlight, hopefully others can find this page and learn from it. Thanks all who replied. I look forward to bringing winter to you all this summer. If anyone else wishes to still reply and offer their thoughts, please continue to do so, I am sure there is more to learn from this.

_________________

Yea, they missed the memo. They are free to kill willy nilly, as I have read, so long as the -hunt- is justifiable, and yes "because we are stronger, duh" is acceptable to their dogma. Meaning that the emphasis is on the hunt and kill more so than what happens to the carcass, or at least that is how I understand it.

However, they tend to wear their dead prey ((kind of a literal understanding of the phrase "A wolf in sheep's clothing")), so I suppose they could be considered even more strict when it comes to animal death as they use the whole darn thing...

_________________
Eli Hodgewall <{/,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~X
Sven <=={o===========>
Qeelak \ | / ,

It seems somewhat futile to try to make sense of Malarite druids, because Malar's extended dogma states: "Suffer no druid to live, for they believe not in survival of the strong, but a weak-minded balance that allows the inferior to survive and often to rule." (F&A, pg.106) Malar and the narrow view of druids, or the "original druid lore", don't mesh at all. This is changed in 3rd Edition where Malarites can be druids, which shouldn't be understood as a change in Malar's dogma but rather a broadening of the concept of the druid. That's why all 2e druid lore isn't completely applicable to 3e druids; it's no longer just the "real" druids who can take the class.

_________________

I suppose my post wasn't so much a question but a counter argument. I'm just lazy.

_________________

Na, don't think of it like that. None of us have all the answers to all things FR. Not even brains over there. ::points to Iron Angel::

It was an honest question and one that comes up often enough for exactly the reason Iron said. The Druid class took a major shift between editions. However, I disagree with Irons view that the Druid class an abomination. It is what it is. You can't cling to the past and hate what it is now because of that, imo. I actually like that it's broader now.

The way I see the Druid is like this, as a generalization, of course:

As a Druid, you don't have to work with nature, but you do have to work within it.

That might not make sense, I realize, so I'll try to rephrase it as best I can: A Druid works within the boundaries of nature, not necessarily to it's benefit, however.

So what does that mean exactly? It means that some Druids can spread disease, some can murder in cold blood, some can poison and some can cause destruction. But only while using the tools nature itself would be able to provide.

Let's take spreading disease as an example. Spreading disease might not be natures intention in a certain geographical location on Toril, but it is within nature's realm of influence still. Or better yet, let's take an Aurilian Druid. Okay, so here's winter, right, and it's, let's say -1 degrees Celsius. The Aurilian is not pleased with this level of cold, so he makes it -30 with his powers over the weather. That might not have been natures intention, but it's within nature still. Those things are okay, if you worship a god that allows it. In these to cases, Talona and Auril were my gods to base it on respectively.



Indeed. It made the class something totally different so that people of other faiths besides Silvanus and those under him can utilize the class as something else. And that's actually exactly how my Druid sees it. She considers Druids who are Silvanites, Mielikkians, Eldathians, Nobanites, Chaunteans and the gods allied with them "true Druids" and those of gods like Malar, Talona, Auril, etc. as "false Druids" or "Blighters."

_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth

Druids also hate Aberrations, as they are something that can not exhist according the law of nature

Something that I also should ask about is, would a druid instantly know if something was undead if by all it accounts it did not look undead at all? And further more, would they fall for being around such undead if they did not know about its presence?

_________________

They have no special sense and no, you typically can't be held accountable for something not in your power to change. That's not to say a druid wouldn't have the responsibility to learn what he reasonably can about the situations he's in. If it's reasonable to expect him to know, then ignorance is a poor excuse. But if there's clearly no reason for suspicion and the druid did everything he's typically expected to, he'd harbly be morally accountable. (I guess some capricious god might disagree, but you'll find out IC.)

_________________

Interesting to know and something I will more than likely be encountering IC.

_________________

Druids have nothing in specific to detect undead, like Iron said. So if you, for example ran in to a very life-like vampire and you really just have no idea, then I highly doubt most Druid supporting gods would hold it against you for not trying to do something about it. It's when the Druid actually embraces undeath or co-exists with it without the intent to ever do anything about it that are the real fall worthy situations.

_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth

Hate to repost, but it got lost in the shuffle of the massive druid posts.

No clue.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

You may want to lay off the crack.

I dunno, never heard anything like that before.

_________________

"Let's unwrite these pages and replace them with our own words."

Happens

Thanks for the timely responses.

Never hoi'd of it either.

_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth

I don't think there is any racial hatred there apart from the elves probably finding the formians destructive to the forest.

_________________
...Hereof follows that the social contract is only beneficial as long as all have something and none have too much...
- Rousseau Book 1 Chapter 9 in "The Social Contract"

Formians = Lawful to the extreme

Elves = Chaotic tendencies

Conclusion: The usual Order vs Hippies case.

_________________
Gagis Silvarna, the Robocop with wings who shoots lasers from his fingertips
Lily Havthorn, the Waukeenar
Silwe, the elf

I think the elven tendency for Chaos is nonsense, if you actually look at their history and society. But that's another discussion. Formians generally live on Arcadia and Mechanus, so I don't see many opportunities for interaction between the two races anyway.

_________________

What would the most common alignment be for Ghostwise halflings? Neutral? Something neutral?

_________________
Amia Minecraft Server Ip: vps1602.directvps.nl
NWN Damage Calculator: http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott/dnd/
NWN Build Calculator: http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Other.Detail&id=856

In PnP, the ghostwise's favored class is barbarian, so... CG?

Amia's ghostwise seem to be a bit different, but still, their Amia description says, "Their nomadic lifestyle means that most Ghostwise are barbarians, rogues or rangers." Still suggests Chaotic, to me.

_________________
Winner of Amia's "Most Ethical Time Traveler" award 2026

Character Portraits!

Halfling Lore Thread

They, like all Halflings, are free to choose their own way in life. CN though, I believe, is the most common though for them within the Hin player base here on Amia.

_________________
Eli Hodgewall <{/,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~X
Sven <=={o===========>
Qeelak \ | / ,

Are you certain you aren't thinking of the animosity between Elves and Fomóraig in other settings?

About Ghostwise: Judging by how the Ghostwise act, I would say TN is their most common alignment, actually. I don't agree that CN would be all that popular, in fact, I'd argue LN would be more popular.

Also, Urogolan and Sheela Peryroyal are their two most favored gods too and they're LN and TN respectively. Of course that alone doesn't dictate their more typical alignment, but it does show you what they might favor. Urogolan is a pretty strict god, if only by Hin standards. And Sheela surely isn't a "care free" kind of god either. She can actually be pretty aloof and overly serious, even. This tells you a lot about where the Ghostwise come from all by itself.

By default, -all- Hin are pron toward the TN alignment. A lot of people tend to think that Hin are pron toward Chaos, but that's a bunch of BS when you actually read about them, but I digress.

Here are some reasons why I say that, in general, Ghostwise are pretty unlikely to be chaotic in alignment:

- Hin in general are very loyal to clan and family, but this is especially true to the Ghostwise. They're -extremely- loyal to both clan and family. This is a lawful trait, if you ask me.

- Ghostwise went through -- and continue to go through -- a self imposed exile. A part of that is that they went silent, choosing not to speak until they feel they've atoned. Some remain silent to this day. To remain silent is something that would take discipline, a lawful thing, I think. Self imposing an exile isn't really lawful or chaotic, I don't think. Neutral there, I'd say.

- One of the main reasons Urogolan is so important to Ghostwise Hin is because he's the god of death. They want to live a life they feel Urogolan would be proud of them for. They want to be worthy of his judgment. This is something that goes back to their intense loyalty (again, lawful). I'd say that this also means they would know Urogolan very well, and some might, but I'd say they have a different understanding of Urogolan than the other Hin. I say that simply because they're forest people, very tribal and pron to a more uneducated way of life. But there are plenty of Clerics and Druids among them, so they would have to know a decent amount about their god anyway. Why does this matter in an alignment talk? Urogolan is LN and has some pretty strict rules to live by, so that would mean they'd have to be willing people.

- While wanderlust is still a part of the Ghostwise, it's to a much lesser degree than the other Hin. Yes, their wanderlust is even more suppressed than that of the Stronghearts. Wanderlust is a chaotic trait, I'd argue. That's one of the big chaotic traits about Hin that lead people to believe Hin are pron to chaos, but there's too much else that counters this, in my opinion. But Ghostwise have only a very mild wanderlust tendency.

- Ghostwise travel the Chondalwood as their clan leaders see fit. Again, a nod toward loyalty and authority. Lawful.

- Ghostwise carry a token that symbolizes their clans territory. If they lose it, they're punished by the clan leader, however he or she see's fit. It's an atonement process. If they were to destroy or dispose of the token willfully, they would be exiled from their clan. In Ghostwise culture, that's worse than death. More loyalty and authority nods. Lawful.

Of course, they also have their barbarian class tendencies. But remember that barbarians aren't restricted to chaotic alignments, they simply don't allow lawful alignments. Not to mention, there are plenty of Rogues, Druids, Clerics and Rangers among Ghostwise too.

And there you have my case for why Ghostwise would tend toward TN! With a minority in LN, rather than CN.



Totally agree.

_________________
My Characters:
Yuilith Kethil Menaiivan Garadeth

I think the alignment system tries to define too many things, and that in trying to do to many things, it fails at all of them. Specifically, the system tries to describe a character's morality using the same terms as it uses for describing the character's personality. This can work quite well for some characters (paladins spring to mind), but for most, the system is just incredibly feeble and inadequate.

In the case of elves, for example, many traits that are strongly associated with elves (individualism, self-reliance, spiritual freedom, self-actualization, artistic expression, adaptability) are defined by the alignment system as being Chaotic traits, even though they have little to do with ethics or societal structure. At the same time, many other strongly "elven" traits (respect for tradition, respect for oaths, intense dedication to a chosen craft, self-sacrifice for the good of the community) are defined as Lawful.

The same is true for hin. Sure, hin are often community-oriented and have a deep commitment to their families and traditions (Lawful), but they're just as often nomadic, respectful of trickery and guile, and easily swept away by their emotions (Chaotic).

So are elves and hin Lawful or Chaotic? The only viable answer is that they are both and neither, because the definitions of Lawful and Chaotic are too broad and too nebulous to be useful. I think that one of the few things that 4th Edition DnD did right was to largely scrap the alignment system, and that almost all debate over Lawful vs. Chaotic is basically a waste of time, because there's rarely even going to be any agreement on what those terms mean.

_________________
Winner of Amia's "Most Ethical Time Traveler" award 2026

Character Portraits!

Except it didn't scrap it at all.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

My understanding is that they got rid of seven of the nine alignments... the only two alignments carried over into 4th Ed are LG and CE. If you're not one of those two, you're either just "good" or "evil," or you have no alignment at all (unaligned). They scrapped the whole idea of neutrality (because it's stupid), they scrapped the distinctions between CG/NG and LE/NE, since they never really made any sense. That's what I meant by "they largely scrapped it." They kept the few pieces of it that make sense, and dropped most of the stupid.

_________________
Winner of Amia's "Most Ethical Time Traveler" award 2026

Character Portraits!

No, I mean, it didn't scrap it. 4e realms still works off the 9 alignments.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

Really? Mainline 4e managed to finally do something smart with the alignment system, but 4e FR went back to the 3e alignments? That's... incredibly disappointing.

_________________
Winner of Amia's "Most Ethical Time Traveler" award 2026

Character Portraits!

The base setting in 4th Edition is FR... and Lizzie is correct... it went from 9 down to 5:
Lawful Good
Good
Unaligned
Evil
Chaotic Evil

Unless my dead tree 4th ed. Player's Handbook is incorrect...

_________________
Eli Hodgewall <{/,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~X
Sven <=={o===========>
Qeelak \ | / ,

Pretty sure the base setting in 4th ediition isn't FR, but Eberron, last I checked? Or Dark Sun. Or possibly still nebulous Greyahwk.

In any case, the 4e FRwiki still lists deities and persons under the 9 alignment grid.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

Actually, the 4th Ed default is the 'Points of Light' which has no specific details save for an upcoming product/setting known as something Nenthyar Vale and was a setting for some of the printed adventures.

And I'll need to doublecheck my FR book but I think it actually (at least in the Player's Guide) stuck to the 5 defining alignments not the 9 from 3rd).

Racial personalities and societies aside, I think you hit the nail on the head. This is exactly why I don't put much weight on the system. A good, believable character will probably be Lawful in some ways and Chaotic in others, and the alignment grid cannot represent this. The lawfulness of the paladin is not the same as the lawfulness of the monk, and the chaotic tendencies of the barbarian have nothing to do with the alignment of an urban anarchist. And so on.

_________________

Are the Were-creatures in the Forest of Despair afflicted, or natural, or a mix of each?

_________________
- "The fiend is less hideous in his own shape....then when he rages in the breast of man"

Just a guess, but I'd say they're either natural lycanthropes, or a mix of natural and afflicted. If they were all afflicted, you wouldn't see wererats and wereboars in both animal and hybrid forms at all times; they'd be governed by phases of the moon, right?

_________________
Winner of Amia's "Most Ethical Time Traveler" award 2026

Character Portraits!

They are a mix.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

Can anyone divulge any and all information on Anchorome and the Aeeree?

_________________

From the novels or lore alone, is Elminster known for developing or favoring any particular spells?

_________________

All the spells. Literally. ALL THE SPELLS. The books themselves say that if a DM invents a spell, that Elminster has it too. His preference is EVERY SPELL.

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

He does have some staples though, I think. At least he's developed his magical pipes and some spells related to them, IIRC.

That said, Elminster isn't quite the celebrity he's made out to be. Alustriel of Silverymoon or Khelben Blackstaff Arunsun are probably more famous. Elminster is more of an old coot who few people take seriously and most don't even really know, because he keeps a low profile. The Dalelands and other areas of his activity excepted, I guess. He's not unknown by any means, but there are more famous mages.

_________________

Pft... Elminster is to Faerun what Ulrik is to Amia

_________________
Eli Hodgewall <{/,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~X
Sven <=={o===========>
Qeelak \ | / ,

Question: Does Tethyr exist at the moment? (I have no clue what year it is going on and seem not to be able to find out from th forums either..)

_________________
http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/spells.htm

Re: Tethyr. Yup, its around. Or should be, unless our DMs blew it up.



He wishes.

_________________
Playing:
Marcus Valis

Tethyr is around...

No wishing!

_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham

hey there. does anyone know where to find additional information on the Knights of Silver, the standing military/defensive body of Silverymoon? I've found some scattered across sites like Forgotten Realms wiki but I would like to find more extensive stuff if it even exists. ill keep looking but if anyone knows where to find better info I would love to hear. thanks.