How come you barely ever see evil druids or rangers?
>>92658056I don't see them at all, because I don't use druids or rangers, evil or otherwise, in my games.
>>92658056because i don't play dnd
>>92658056Because >muh nature is good>muh ecowarriorism is good>muh green villain is misunderstood
>>92658056Because druids are required to be neutral and rangers are required to be good. If they were evil they would not be druids or rangers. next question
>>92658056What's wrong with that cat?
Here's some evil-looking druid art for inspiration
>>92658763It's being mindcontrolled.
>>92658056Evil druids make a good villain in some kind of nature vs civilization campaign/scenario, but not much else.The problem with rangers is that nobody likes them, good or evil.
>>92658056Because at the start rangers were required to be Good, I guess? Since the initial idea is that they're meant to be a wandering protector that patrols the wilderness. And that sort of vibe continues, even though the class has changed a lot in many of it's renditions in games. Druids also had their neutral requirement, but that still included neutral evil, I'm pretty sure, so whatever.Really, since the previous things were mostly semantics, I guess it's because of hippy association and the assumption that nature and the natural world are innately just and righteous. If you serve nature, you probably don't want to destroy the planet, subjugate the innocent, or conquer nations. There's other stuff you can do, like extreme ecoterrorism, but I have seen evil druids that do that. The modern west just has a lot of pro-nature sentiment (Avatar (smurfs) being a good example of the schlockiest form of it).
>>92658056They're very good at hiding in bushes
You don't see evil druids much because their fluff and mechanics are too specific (ecology defending shapeshifting wizard), and you don't see rangers because their fluff and mechanics don't make for interesting evil guy material (fighty loner dude who sneaks around in the woods).
>>92659616How do I mind control my cat?
>>92658056In the very first campaign I ever ran the main villain was some petty kings abandoned lame son. He was a druid and man of his allies were beast races, sapient plants/fey and other druids. I remember one of the traps he had once he had taken control of the castle. Which he really just inherited once he secretly killed the king. Was burning poison ivy. It was brutal to the players and unexpected as well.
>>92659998The way you describe it, both of these would make for great slasher movie villains.
>>92658056Been considering a druid based on an insectoid race. He uses parasites to emulate necromancy. The parasite takes control of the nervous system and takes commands through pheromones.
>>92658056Because druids are True Neutral, my friend. They do not stray from the Balance and remain druids.
>>92660132No, they both make for *a* great slasher movie villain. As in exactly one for each. After that, you've tapped out the archetype. You aren't going to throw a *second* ecology defending shapeshifting wizard slasher at your party after they beat the first, are you? Or keep sending sneaky edgelord assassin after sneaky edgelord assasin after your players.
>>92658056Depends what you play.Warhammer fantasy 3e druids weren't evil, but they absolutely did not give the slightest fuck about humanoids at all from newborns to the ancient, men and women, it didn't matter. They would walk by a pack of goblins slow roasting screaming toddlers and not give a single shit, but if those same goblins punched a mule for refusing to move, they would slaughter every greenskin there, AND THEY STILL WOULDN'T TAKE THE TODDLERS OFF THE FIRE WHILE DOING IT.
I use them as support-villains for the rural Baphomet cultists in my campaign. My players hate them almost as much as they hate gnoll.
>>92658056>druidsThe bad guy in The Sunless Citadel is a druid (and not just a "kill all humans to save nature" druid, either)>rangersNo one cares about rangers
>>92658056How come you don't make your games how you want?
>>92658056An "evil" druid would basically be Ted Kaczynski, but was he really evil?
>>92658056Necause it requires nuance and a existentialist perspective on the concept of 'evil' and that's a lot to unpack unless your intelligence is greater than your shoe size.
>>92658056Because who the fuck actually uses rangers or druids? They are pretty "meh" and get passed over by the majority of people. They're like gnomes. Who the fuck really uses gnomes? I mean sure you can probably think of that one guy, but who else?
>>92662191Artificer in the woods.
>>92658056Shadow Druids, while not necessarily evil, are hostile to civilization and can be minor antagonists in all three Baldur's Gate titles (or a recruitable companion in the first).A ruthless trapper or trophy hunter could well be represented by a ranger.Hard mode though is making the conflict about something else than nature vs. civilization.
>>92662955Rangers are pretty cool and they appear quite often by my table.Druids are more rare because clerics offer many other more interesting flavors.
The recent changes to fantasy rpgs that make this possible coincided with an inflated concern for political themes.So you're unlikely to see any cool evil ecoterrorist rangers or druids.But by all means write them. Great characters.
>>92658056I had a dream where I stumbled into a roman encampment in Britain when a bunch of druids turned into bears and started attacking everyone
>>92658056Nature is inherently amoralIs is fucked up that a young die would be devoured by a pack of wolves, sure. But that’s the pecking order of the food chain. Is it awful that a flood can devastate a village’s corps and doom them, yeah, but that’s just a natural misfortune.Nature does not act with good or evil intent, it mearly acts. But I suppose you can make an Eco-terrorist if the setting is heavily industrialized to facilitate the “darker” aspect of nature lashing out at the structure of man and the inorganic
>>92658056An evil ranger is just an assassin with an animal friend An evil druid is just a witch, shaman, or witch doctor Next question
>>92658056[insert political opinion] people don't believe pro-environment can ever be evil.
>>92658750I liked Third Edition allowing NE druids, that was fun...even if it completely lost the point of making them be True Neutral.But then, Third Edition largely tossed away the idea of True Neutral as being dedicated to maintaining balance in favor of TN as being agnostic to these things.
>>92658056Because their archetypes tend to overlap with other villain archetypes. Winter/Decay/Disease themed druids overlap with similarly themed wizards, priests and necromancers. Evil rangers could be bounty hunters, assassins, beastmasters and other such things but often other classes make for better fights while having the same narrative abilities as a ranger.
>>92658056Because Druids can only be Neutral and Rangers have to be some kind of Good alignment.Haven't you faggots even read your PHB?
>>92658056They're basically like evil Paladins, except using two far less popular classes.That said, evil druids can be cool, like Slough Feg from Slaine
>>92668190More about the dude
>>92658056What the fuck is a ranger, and how would one range evilly?
>>92658056Huh. My group tends to include them pretty regularly. Well, maybe not regularly but often enough. Often as players rather than NPCs but even as villains I can think of a few. Maybe it's because one of our two regular GMs is a vet and a complete animal nerd.
>>92658056>evil rangersSo just, dudes with bows who are evil?
Read campaign of Britain by roman writers for druids; Do bush rangers for rangers. Solved.
>>92668355I'm playing one right now in 3.0, human who has other humans as favored enemy, due to a relatively uncreative gm i get the bonus in most fights. He doesn't do that much ranger things through and i chose him because i never played a ranger before
>>92668355I mean there's a bunch of ways you can do it. Super knowledgeable about the woods and wilderness and the things that live in it, because you need to be knowledgeable to poach effectively and not get caught. You can also do the militant wilder who'll literally kill anyone for trespassing in the forest like you're goddamn Artemis or something. Or maybe you're simply a protector role for the local evil druid sect that's trying to overthrow civilization (at least locally) because they keep releasing invasive species and chopping down sacred trees and junk.
>>92668190>SlaineBased 2000AD enjoy.
>>92658056They're called shadow druids, and they're basically ecoterrorists.
>>92658056Druids are supposed to be true neutral. Rangers meanwhile are just Aragon larpers.
>>92658056It's the industry. It's almost always called "church" instead of temple, and it's never a "synagogue" or a "mosque" despite the last two having neutral literal translations. Don't question the industry, or the fans of the industry will come out of their reddit hiding place.
>>92658056Because Primal-oriented antagonists have never been well supported, both mechanically and narratively, so you never see them as more than one-offs.Where do you escalate from "blightcasters in the woods conjure plague" or "rangers killed the king's son for poaching" that isn't completely interchangable or involved with any other magical or extraplanar threat?And even if you do build a suitably intense campaign centered around antagonistic natural forces, what do you have to actually throw at the party? Blights? Treants and Dryads? Elementals and spellcasters? The moment you use something more than an uppity houseplant you're just dipping back into the usual Evil Wizard/Dark God bag of tricks, or worse even worse having to pivot into using Fae creatures and concepts and completely divorcing yourself from any 'natural order' or 'balance' ideals Druids would have in the first place.
>>92674348Some kind of bizzare christian schizopost here.
>>92658056Because an evil druid that can't be replaced by any other spellcaster would come off as neutral evil at best. Same with an evil ranger, that's just a poacher, or a bounty hunter or bandit that can easily be mistaken for a fighter or rogue.
>>92674348lol>"monks still did philosophy in the middle ages, so there was no such thing as a dark age, you guys!">whereasthe totally-not-a-dark-age (which occured BEFORE the medieval period) got so bad in Britain that they lost the art of fired pottery for generations, as everyone who knew how either died of starvation, or was killed by the warlords and bandits that burned through the countryside with alarming regularity for centuries>let's also ignore how medical science went to pot, among many other thingsYeah, what a great time to have been alive.
>>92675408>the notion of the Middle Ages being an intellectually blighted era because the Church is wrong and here is why>um...actually sweetie...Imagine being so desperate to tip your fedora you not only try to argue with an image of a book review in a schizopost, you also miss the point of the book and spout some false bullshit about British history as well.
>>92676118>tip your fedoraWow, that's a blast from the past, do other christian schizos still use that? I only bothered to reply to your ramblings because "the Dark Ages didn't real" is an annoying meme espoused by some recent "historians" who basically strawman the shit out of the concept, in what seems to be the academic equivalent of clickbait.
>>92658056an evil ranger would be a total chud that hates an entire race without any particular reason, he would get advantages when fighting said race and perhaps evem go full edgy and fashion their scalps and bones in his armor to get some kind of fear presence.an evil druid would simply be a druid that serves a powerful and somewhat intelligent evil aligned monster in his local wilderness, like a dragon or a hag. you could imagine it leading victims into his master's lair to be murdered and steal their gold and magic items.
>>92675408>>92676419>they stopped making this one kind of pottery in England>BILLIONS MUST (HAVE) DIE(D)
nature isnt evil. it just is. its reasons and methods are primal.nature is the baseline of our morality.
>>92676709We know from archeological evidence that population declined massively, and towns were burnt to the ground over and over. The end of the western Roman empire proved disastrous for a big chunk of Europe. Cope harder, revisionist.
>>92676785>The end of the western Roman empire proved disastrous for a big chunk of Europe.Of course it did. There was also, by implication, a big chunk that it wasn't disastrous for, and nowhere did civilization stay on pause until the Renaissance.
>>92676683>Campaign starts>Wood chud is a mild but unassuming annoyance >if the party somehow doesn't kill him he starts to up his antics>lures strong woodland monsters into the location of the party>tries to turn the public against whatever race is most common in the party>mostly petty drunks and other wood chuds>whether or not this movement gains traction, he begins to go on the hunt himself.>turns out to be quite good at it, kills a lot of npcs>eventually catches the notice of a big name nature elemental >convinces him to declare genocide on whatever race he autistically hates>now the entire forest is plunged into chaos.Unironically would try as a throwaway idea.
>>92676813>nowhere did civilization stay on pause until the Renaissance.This is the strawman part, where the revisionists claim that if you say "dark ares" you must therefore mean literally nothing happened and no progress was made from the years 500 to 1600. That's horseshit, nobody claims that. The "Dark Ages' are called that because of warfare and strife, crop failures, banditry, and loss of scientific and technological knowledge that came with it. For an example, these guys rarely talk about medicine, and how bad that got after Roman medicine went out the window. With shit like "maybe you should lance the boils" being a strange new idea in the 14th century, despite Galen talking about it at length a thousand years before.
>>92668908These are just fighters..
>>92675076Sluggish schizophrenia was a communist tactic and nations colonized by Soviet Russia tend to treat those who use this tactic very poorly. Next time I'll try that. Demons who call you all kinds of names just like in real life.>>92675408>>92676419You fell for the forced meme.>>92676118Question the establishment and they who depend on the system will defend its myths and fictions to feel better about themselves. We're living in the shadow of a better society.
>>92681572that's some choice schizo babbling right there
>>92660039Be a druid/witch.
>>92686755You glow.
>>92692060kek, hallucinations are another symptom of being a schizo
>>92658056https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daTihhL0NxE
>>92658056They'd just feel like warlocks or rogues
