Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In my group, we have an undead skeleton necromancer and a Druid. The Druid is very, very against necromancy and the undead because he is under the assumption of "that's how Druids are role played because Druids worship life".

I was under the impression that Druids didn't worship life, but specifically nature. That and Druids are traditionally neutral. I would understand if the Necromancer was creating undead plant life, but is it mentioned somewhere that a Druid should be at least ambivalent to undead creatures if they are used for the common good?

This is in the Forgotten Realms setting.

share|improve this question
    
@GMJoe I've updated to point out it is in the Forgotten Realms setting. – Juice Feb 23 at 22:58
    
All please remember "alignment debates" are off topic here - a good answer will probably use Forgotten Realms documented lore. Or point out his XY problem. – mxyzplk Feb 24 at 2:33
up vote 27 down vote accepted

You don't need to appeal to a Druid's alignment for an answer to this. You will find the general answer on page 65 of the PHB in the Druid class description.

Druids accept that which is cruel in nature, and they hate that which is unnatural, including abberations(such as beholders and mind flayers) and undead (such as zombies and vampires)

Does that need to create a conflict between the Druid and another player, or another player character? It depends. The Druid could be a bit of a rogue Druid, or operating under a curse, or something else and thus mitigate the usual opposition to undead. Or, the players can develop that "common good" theme so that the goals of the Druid align with the Necromancer. Something to sort out with the DM at your table, and with the other players. As the campaign goes on, this can create dramatic tension. It depends on how each player plays the characters' roles.

We had a wide ranging discussion on a GITP thread regarding Orcus, undead, and if a Druid would help out someone leading undead.

My take was no, due to the statement in the book.
Others disagreed.
The folks at the table had fun.

In 5e, working things like this out at the table will prevent friction during play. There's a lot of room to work.

share|improve this answer
10  
I'm actually the GM, this is more about two of my players. Your post makes complete sense. I think I'm basically make an ultimatum. Either role play a reason to get along, or re-roll new characters that don't have any fundamental reasons to be at odds. – Juice Feb 24 at 0:04
4  
Well played, that is a GM being a GM. I tip my cap. – KorvinStarmast Feb 24 at 0:50
    
Or role play the angst between the characters with the players knowing full well it's just a game. Mature players and their mature DM can have a great deal of fun with this. – Escoce Feb 24 at 17:22
    
let's not forget the example of the mad druid that cultivated the Gulthias Tree (I don't have the page number handy, but it's under Blight creatures in the MM). Pro-vampire = Pro-undead. – New_DM_Tryingtobesneaky Feb 25 at 0:18
1  
Unfortunately I'm a mature DM with immature players. I never know grown men could bicker like children. – Juice Feb 25 at 17:31

Although the typical druid is probably not wont to traffic with necromancers and undead, there is at least one specific example in official WoTC published material that demonstrates that this attitude is not universal. The 3.5 module Red Hand of Doom includes a major NPC called the Ghostlord who is explicitly stated to be an undead lich druid and who commands undead animals as minions. The module itself does not inherently belong to any particular setting but includes instructions on placing it in several major ones including Forgotten Realms.

Clearly this example is a special case, but I would argue that it indicates that necromancy is not a complete anathema to druids. Presumably the Ghostlord was a druid in life, and completed whatever rituals to ascend to lichdom while not losing any of his druid powers. By comparison, your player's PC merely working with a necromancer for some greater goal would be a much lesser transgression against nature.

share|improve this answer
1  
A module that exists effectively in a void, and can be adapted to work in Forgotten Realms and other systems, is not really a well-founded commentary on how things work natively in Forgotten Realms. You should probably focus your efforts on how things work inside the Forgotten Realms themselves, based on FR material. – doppelgreener Feb 24 at 0:27
    
@doppelgreener Since Faerun is the setting for both 3.5 and 5e, this isn't a bad answer since part of the question focused on the issue of it being Fearun. What is core? Is that where we are going with this? This provides a bit of an out IF the DM wants to flex a bit. – KorvinStarmast Feb 24 at 0:57
    
would be a much lesser transgression against nature But still a transgression. The DM trick to resolve here is What Are The Consequences? – KorvinStarmast Feb 24 at 0:58
3  
@Korvin: "The module itself does not inherently belong to any particular setting but includes instructions on placing it in several major ones including Forgotten Realms." It's not a Faerun module. It's a No Setting module with adaption options for Faerun. – doppelgreener Feb 24 at 1:11

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.