His druid doesn't sacrafice animals

>His druid doesn't sacrafice animals
>His druid doesn't sacrafice humans
>His druid doesn't foretell the future from animal guts
>Instead he made generic lame vegan treehugger ecofaggot
When will hippy druid meme finally die?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fili
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>sacrafice

Druids are allowed to be evil-aligned.

There's nothing evil about anything mentioned in the OP.

Technically true I guess, if only because we have no way of knowing what a 'sacrafice' is.

I assume OP meant sacrifice as "sacrificing someone or somethings life to achieve a goal". But that's not evil in the slightest.

Forgive my retardation, English is not my native language.

>His druid isn't a celtic lore keeper
>His bards aren't a form of druid
When will DnD druid meme finally die?

Human sacrifice is almost unequivocally evil. It is nearly always portrayed as such, and there are very few exceptions or decent un-arbitrary justifications to doing so.

Animal sacrifice is at the very least dubious.

>his druid is always some antisocial faggot with a murder-boner
>his druid can't just be a glorified gardener
When will the edge-fag meme die?

When did this happen?

Before third edition, druids could only be true neutral, but from thereon they could be of any partially neutral alignment, including neutral evil.

Why would human sacrifice be deemed evil?

> Why is murdering someone to fulfill my own ends an evil act?

Gee I don't know.

Morality is always, in every single case, subjective. What you deem evil is not necessarily so.

It is an act of deliberate ritualistic murder, usually of an innocent person, most of the time motivated either by personal power or domination, to stave off an evil entity, or for the sake of a superstitious belief that is in fact completely false.

It is possible to perform human sacrifice for neutral or even good means, at least if the person being sacrificed is completely willing, but such portrayals are extremely rare, rarer still to be written well.

I thought we ran this meme to the ground like five years ago?

>His druid doesn't multiclass Monk and Barbarian so he can wrestle any threat to a standstill

>his druid is asymmetrical
>his druid is not rated M for mature twice

The site will always have a supply of underaged.

Prove to me that all moral isn't wholly subjective.

because 'evil' is not a scientifically defined term, it's defined by the views of the person who is judging an act.

That being said, most people define good and evil along two axises of beneficial/harmful to society and beneficial/harmful to an individual in respective to the one responsible for or commiting the act, because that's how human societies and brains work and there's literally nothing 'wrong' with that.

so 'evil' is defined as 'harming society or other individuals for own benefit' while 'good' is defined as 'benefiting society or other individuals', even more so if you harm yourself for that cause.

TLDR
stop being an edgelord ffs

Everything that was ever said of the subject was already said, a thousand times too often. I don't care to engage on the subject again.

>his barbarian is constantly fighting animals of all sorts (even squirrels) to show to animals that HE is the top of the food chain

Druids can be Neutral Evil. They just need one of their alignments to be neutral.

Perceptions are subjective.
->Everything a person knows is subjective.
->Your knowledge that morality is wholly subjective is wholly subjective.
->Subjectivity of morality is subjective.

This.
Plus, it really only applies to humanity. You can't make this argument when it comes to fiends and celestials.

>Greek and Roman writers frequently made reference to the druids as practitioners of human sacrifice. According to Caesar, those who had been found guilty of theft or other criminal offences were considered preferable for use as sacrificial victims, but when criminals were in short supply, innocents would be acceptable.
Using criminal scum as sacrifice to nature/gods is not that bad if you consider times.

Excellent. So we have confirmed that human sacrifice for the benefit of society is good and just. Worked for human societies before.

>You can't make this argument when it comes to fiends and celestials.
Is good so because it pleases God or does it please God because it's good?

>It is an act of deliberate ritualistic murder, usually of an innocent person

But we're talking about Druids, in which case neither "murder" nor "innocent" applies.

>so 'evil' is defined as 'harming society or other individuals for own benefit' while 'good' is defined as 'benefiting society or other individuals', even more so if you harm yourself for that cause.
>Excellent. So we have confirmed that human sacrifice for the benefit of society is good and just.
Only if you sacrifice yourself.

A fine question for a philosophy class. But in a fantasy world like D&D, there are creatures that are intrinsically good and evil. It doesn't have to follow any conventional logic, as they are subject solely to metaphysical laws.

not why I've written at all. you're harming another individual, in the best case for the benefit of society, which in the case of sacrifice is questionable. so at best this is lawful neutral, but by most chances it would be considered evil.

The very definition of "murder" is deliberate and pre-thought act of killing. It most certainly still applies.

No, murder is the unlawful, premeditated killing of a human being.

The key word is "unlawful."

Druids were basically government officials/magistrates/etc, so their sacrificing of criminals is not murder. It's not unlawful.

Greek and Roman writers, particularly Caesar, were also writing propaganda pieces of questionable validity.

>But in a fantasy world like D&D, there are creatures that are intrinsically good and evil.
Yeah, but why are they intrinsically good (evil)? Because absolute good (evil) exists and they follow it or because their own subjective respective moralities is taken by people as standards for what is good(evil)?

but them being lawful evil is not working in D&D, so you can't use this model on D&D druids. instead use a lawful evil cleric with domain nature.

The point is that it isn't evil.

Not any more evil than a paladin slaying an orc or a town magistrate hanging a criminal.

Many - perhaps even most - of the genocides in history have been lawful, as in brought forth by the ruling officials of the time, yet in hindsight they could and indeed are consistently described as a whole lot of murder.

It's because absolute good and evil exists. It exists because it does, that is the very nature of the divine. In reality, that's just circular logic, but we're talking about a fantasy setting here. This isn't a point of contention.

Why would they have that domain over, say, divination? Or something having to do with writing and lorekeeping?

Many executions in human history could easily be deemed as human rights violations, breaking natural law.

that question is entirely dependent of the concrete aim of the sacrifice, though. if it's simply an act of ritually punishing crimes, it's lawful neutral, as I said. but the term 'sacrificed' in a D&D context usually implies other otherwise.

>It exists because it does, that is the very nature of the divine. In reality, that's just circular logic, but we're talking about a fantasy setting here.
No, it means either there is something above gods which dictates to gods what is good and what is evil or gods are bunch of assholes who abuse their powers to force their own opinions about good and evil on to mortals.

you're right, but then it would be even farther from the druid in the OP.

They could call it murder, but that's a cop-out for justification purposes and not in-line with the definition.

I don't actually see anything whatsoever in the OP that this is about DnD druids.

Original bard was part druid wasn't it? Because it was a prestige class.

The definition being "sacrifice", which fits closer to murder than lawful execution. If it were just criminals being executed, that'd be what it were called, instead of sacrifice, where it also implies they're given to some higher power that could care less on under what excuse they were killed.

Yup. 5 Levels of fighter, then 5 thief, then begin druidic tutelage.

Your character had to be a badass in order to become a bard back in AD&D. I suggest people go look it up to see how insane the requirements were.

If a wolf kills and eats a rabbit, is it murder? There is no true law but the law of the jungle.

Dude, like, the whole discussion with alignments and shit, it's like, TOTALLY about D&D

>which fits closer to murder than lawful execution
Says who? That's nowhere in the definition of "murder."

If it's legal, it's not murder. No loopholes about it.

Doesn't even have to be an execution for it to be legal.

Killing in self-defense, when and where it's legal, isn't murder either.

Murder has a lot of negative connotations, what with it being a crime by definition, and people who call things "murder" when they aren't are just attempting to appeal to emotion rather than present a more reasoned argument.

If human sacrifice is legal and even government sponsored, it cannot - by definition - be murder.

>>His druid doesn't sacrafice animals
>>His druid doesn't sacrafice humans
>>His druid doesn't foretell the future from animal guts
>>Instead he made generic lame vegan treehugger ecofaggot
>When will hippy druid meme finally die?

I'm pretty sure the discussion is all about hippie druids and how they're doing it wrong.

even that's not a true law. the wolf is just unable not to kill the rabbit and think about other means of supporting himself. he is only driven by his own needs, but humans for example do know other concepts than just always striving for direct satisfaction of needs. that is LITERALLY what elevates them above animals n' shit.

>I'm pretty sure the discussion is all about hippie druids and how they're doing it wrong.

... in D&D.

...

This is why nobody likes DnD fans.

Huh. It's weird they ended up arcane casters then.

No one said dnd but you, and there are plenty of other systems with druids in them.

Leave or gtfo.

I'm not even a D&D fan, it's just that the whole discussion has spun around alignments and this is a system which is pretty unique to D&D and pathfinder.

>His druid isn't a respectable robed city elf dwelling in the court of the King as his Minister of Agriculture and Ambassador to the Fae
>His druid isn't a wise old man living in a cottage in the woods with his fat wife.
>His druid isn't a Victorian Naturalist
>His druid isn't a Native American known as Many Bears for his ability to become [actually summon, but the peasants don't know that] a half dozen bears.

For shame.

>his druid doesnt just hit things with astick when spells arent working

Fili is great underrated middle ground between druid and bard. Too bad there is not a single RPG system/setting that use them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fili

Just finished watching Wicker Man, huh? Yeah, I had the same reaction my first time. Just don't watch the remake, other than the meme scene, the whole thing sucks, especially without Sarum- I mean, Christopher Lee.

Depends on if it's considered murder. A lot of pre-industrial societies that had shamans, druids, priests, etc. had sacrifices who were more than happy to give themselves to their gods.

germans go and stay go

The Aztecs had it too, and the Norse.

Polynesians too.

I don't think it ever will.

Nice dichotomy dickface.

Unless your RPG is specifically set in medieval Ireland, it doesn't make sense to have separate bard and filid classes.

PLEASE tell me there's more of this

...

Your spooks are the greatest evils of all, by your own logic
“Just observe the nation that is defended by devoted patriots. The patriots fall in bloody battle or in the fight with hunger and want; what does the nation care for that? By the manure of their corpses the nation comes to "its bloom"! The individuals have died "for the great cause of the nation," and the nation sends some words of thanks after them and - has the profit of it. I call that a paying kind of egoism.”
― Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own and The False Principle of Our Education

>Destroying all meaning, what do you mean?
IT'S WORKING.

...

>Sacrifice captured enemy to get a good harvest.
Literally 100% goodie two shoes by your definition

>average atheist

>druid encounters an elder thing
>becomes obsessed with it's super-physical form and otherworldly physical manifestation
>determines it is the ultimate life form
>molds himself and his environment in it's image
>goes to great lengths to mimic it's percieved behavior
>allows himself to be given over to it's influence to be that much more in contact with it's power
>helps it invade and transform the dark corners of the wild
Outer Druid is best druid

Norse are north germans, no?

Saved.
It really pisses me off that this guy visually looks like me.

...

The crime is murder.
People can still volunteer once they are of age.

...

When I am finally freed from my Forever DM Prison and allowed to wander the planes as a PC.

...

No, they are not.

Pretty cool concept, druid using some kind of chaos magic to create mutants and abominations.

>not roleplaying druid as an ecologist in the field/outdoorsman wanderer
>someone who does refer nature and wants mankind to be able to enjoy it for generations to come
>someone who understands all things are born, live, and then die