Oh! MAYBE their metal goods are taken off of the people they were forced to kill, and their weapons and armor that wasn't used was melted down and reforged into tools and weapons the druids could use.
ofc not,druids live in a natural way and hunting is a part of it,predators also kill other animals for food after all.
killing for leather is also acceptable,killing for trophy or for sport is not.
as for the reasoning behind why one would become druid it's because they either worship gods related to nature,or due to the desire to preserve and protect nature while being part of it
for druids it's not nature against man,it's nature against industialisation so only activities that harm nature would provoce the druids reaction
finally they do not view civilisation as something hostile,but rather something different,that needs caution if it goes out of hand.
As someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about this and someone who gets P.O.'d whenever someone attempts to depict me as a "Tree-hugging hippie druid" on PnP...I am here to answer many questions druid. I warn you however, this post is practically an essay and only sit down to read this if you have the time >_<
Just like anything else, druids have a spectrum of good to evil. Hence why 3rd edition does a much better job of depicting druid alignments than 2nd edition. In 3rd edition druids can be N/G or N/E as well as any neutral alignment. Also even the term "balance" has a wide definition and its meaning differs from archetype to archetype, which is why the 3rd edition alignment rules are so much better at encapsulating the wide spectrum of balance definitions. And despite what is often suggested, one could theorhetically adhere to druidic philosophy and still use metal's of various refinement depending on the precise philosophy :P
So a druid of each alignment would look like the following:
N/G - "Symbiotic Balance" "Jaheira"/"Arundel" A neutral good druid would be someone who believes that a "balance" is achieved when humanity lives in harmony with nature. More often than not, they would likely have no problems with society but would encourage humanity to live in such a way that they live off the land, but do not interfere with nature outside of what is needed to survive. For this reason, Kuldahar could be seen as the epitome of what a N/G druid seeks. Kuldahar literally is a town carved out of a tree. The people live out of the tree and use the tree, but they also respect it and rather than chop down the giant tree to build houses, they use the tree to provide their needs and build their homes according to the structure of the tree. In this way a perfect balance between an intellect (so any "thinking" race, elves, humans, dwarfs, even yuan-ti and the like) and nature is achieved. Essentially these druids seek to use nature to the benefit of an intellect but do so in a way that it doesn't disrupt cycles which occur within nature. They look for a symbiotic "balance" between intellect and nature where both exist together so that they may both benefit from their relationships with one another. They will most often take action whenever the balance is disrupted in such a way that the symbiotic relationship between intellects and nature is preserved. After all, since civilization/intellects is/are just as much a part of nature as the woods nature can only truly benefit when all things within it thrive, including civilizations/intellects.
L/N - "Nature's Police Department (NPD)" / "Seniyad" A lawful neutral druid would be someone who believes that a "balance" is achieved by preserving natural cycles I.E. strictly adhering to the law of nature. This isn't to be confused with shadow druids who specifically seek to protect the balance from civilization. Unlike the neutral/good and neutral/evil druids there is no division between intellect and nature. There is simply nature and its laws. In fact, it is more likely that L/N druids see civilization as being bound to the laws of nature itself rather an innate threat to it (nature). Whenever a natural cycle is disturbed the laws of nature are in effect being broken. In the case of Seniyad, hunters kill far more animals than is necessary for a single man to take and are in effect disrupting the food cycle present in nature it is for this reason, and perhaps a little vengeance, they interrupt the group of hunters and go so far as to kill one of them so that the hunters will be punished for breaking the laws of nature. For these druids, "balance" is achieved so long as cycles present in nature can continue without interruption. Unlike N/E druids, L/N druids see civilization as a part of the natural cycle and are bound to the same laws as the rest of nature and typically will not conflict with a civilization unless it becomes a direct threat to some other natural cycle. Also, L/N druids would likely NEVER cast healing or destruction spells since they tend to bend nature's cycle of creation and destruction. Exceptions may be made if such actions would compensate for an unnatural generation of entropy within the natural cycle.
N - "Natural Utilitarians" True neutral druids are perhaps the most difficult to describe of all the druids. They seek balance between all things - Literally. For this reason they look for the center point between any two points and detest extremism of any sort. If something becomes a threat to something else in nature they will intervene so that neither side becomes unnaturally more powerful than another. Were some beast to attack a settlement, the druid would intervene only to discover the cause of the attacks and do what was necessary to stop the attacks - attacking the wyverns would not be a desired course of action. Were an act of an intellect to be the cause of the disruption they would seek to stop the intellect but would not punish the town. They are oftentimes confused with N/G druids for their willingness to work with civilizations or with L/N druids for enforcing the laws of nature. Unlike N/G druids however, they look for what is best for all things in the natural world. If a symbiosis between intellects and nature benefits the natural world, then so be it. If the destruction of a corrupt mining village would benefit the most nature in the area then that is what must be done. True Neutral druids can be seen as perhaps the most utilitarian of all the druid archetypes. They look to promote the most good for the most things in nature. Whereas a N/G seeks a symbiosis between intellectual existence and nature, True neutral druids care for symbiosis only if nature as a whole would benefit from such an existence. If a farmer were to cultivate a land and care for it well but arbitrarily hunt local animals for sport, chances are the druids would hunt the farmer or at least seek to remove him from the land despite his symbiotic relationship for the land, as the harm he is causing to the local wildlife is causing more harm than the good he is generating in his symbiotic relationship with the land. Unlike L/N druids who seek to mediate when the laws of nature are twisted, neutral druids view everything as being a part of nature, even entropy. As such, they would likely allow for even un-natural intervention so long as such intervention would be ultimately beneficial to the natural "balance" as a whole. They are VERY similar to N/G druids and the only real distinguishing factor is that they may act against a civilization, if the civilization - as a whole - was damaging to nature - as a whole -. Since destroying an entire civilization is a part of nature, destroying a civilization is oftentimes just as detrimental to the very harm they are causing. It is only likely that a Neutral druid would interfere with a society if doing so became absolutely necessary for the survival of the natural cycle of an entire region.
C/N - "Tree-Hugging Vegans" - These guys are the stereotypical tree-hugging druids who love nature for no particular reason. They really don't evaluate the cause and effect relationship of nature and merely see nature as something intrinsically good. For this reason, C/N druids would be the least philosophical of all the druids as there is no driving motivation between themselves and their relationship with nature. However, they are the most pacifistic of all druid archetypes. Since all things are natural, they love anything natural and do not care to harm the world around them since doing so would only harm nature. The only time a C/N druid would commit an act of violence would be in self-defense, and even that is unlikely as they may very well view death as a part of the natural cycle. As a result, it is entirely possible a C/N may see his own death as a way to become closer with nature.
N/E - "Nature's Hammer" / "Shadow Druids" / "Faldorn" - N/E druids believe that balance is obtained when natural cycles are carried out without outside interaction and see anything that alters natural cycles in any way as an abomination to nature which must be destroyed. Since civilizations and intellects frequently alter the development of nature they are in themselves abominations which must be destroyed. For N/E druids, "Balance" is only achieved when nature is allowed to progress in its natural form without interruption from any external force. In this manner, almost ALL civilization and intellects are perceived as an abomination since civilization is dependent upon using nature and bending natural cycles for survival.
Don't mind the TLDR and hope this answers your question!
(I feel as though I'm writing a treatises on druids here xD)
I think a lot of it has to do with the "balance" the druid strives to reach. I feel as though N/G druids would have the least difficulty justifying the use of metal overall. I believe in their eyes, they would see metals as needing to serve some natural function to be part of the balance. In most cases, ore is already serving a function such as shelter, protection, etc. which is why I think universally druids would be against large scale mining operations since they tend to result in the destruction of natural habitats.
However, if its ore that's simply sitting around and not really serving a purpose, I see no reason why a N/G or N druid would not be willing or even inclined to use the ore to craft a tool. After all, if you are using a shovel, you are doing so to cultivate nature and in so doing, helping it to grow. If you need might to defend nature for whatever reason you may craft a weapon or even armor as you are essentially drawing upon the might of the earth. In this way, a fighter/druid could justify metal equipment through the ideology that metals serve as a guardian element within nature. If you think about it, weapons will eventually return to the earth since their users periodically fall in battle, weapons rust etc. Other than N/E druids I feel as though any druid could easily justify using basic metals for a wide variety of purposes. Where you are going to run into the disconnects is in the area of enchantments and alloys which is going to divide the Neutral/Neutral good druids and the lawful neutral/chaotic neutral ones.
Neutral and neutral good druids are far more utilitarian in their viewpoints imo. They're seeking the "best" possible natural cycle. For N/G druids this means a total symbiosis to make the best possible nature. As long as the metal was responsibly acquired and nothing was done which was damaging to nature I see no reason why they would not be willing to have the full monty - An enchanted aluminum sword or the like. For some it could be interpreted as a cornerstone of nature. It is a symbiosis between raw magic (which is natural) an intellect's mind and the strength of pure nature. That such a thing is indestructible is not an abomination to nature, merely a display that nature has effectively created a system in which it has been allowed to transcend itself. Nature itself has found a way simply to become a "better" nature.
True neutral would be very similar to this but with some differences. Within the T/N belief system the cycle of life and death would be a huge philosophical point. As such, such a weapon/tool would need to eventually rust/decompose and return to the earth. I believe that they would still however, be perfectly okay with alloys since it establishes a symbiosis wherein the nature of one ore is improved by coexisting with the other. Even enchantments would probably be okay so long as the item was still capable of some sort of natural decomposition (death function). So some sort of indestructible eternal item would probably not be something a T/N druid would approve of.
C/N druids would inherently be pacifists and since their view is that nature is intrinsically good any alteration to that is bad. To be perfectly honest, I view a C/N druid as going so far as to be a nudist. Any sort of addition to their own natural self would be a rejection of nature. Adapting something in nature to be something else is to deny the intrinsic nature of whatever that natural thing is. If your looking for the fruitist druid, this one is probably it since eating fruits allow them to spread the seeds to other places for nature to further propagate and grow. They wouldn't use metal only because the ore is perfect the way it is.
L/N druids I could see using basic ore, but not refining and or enchanting them in any way. If you enchant or refine a metal you are effectively altering the natural cycle of that rock. For this type I don't really see them using metal armor simply because they don't refine it. Unrefined metal armor is really not practical or useful so it doesn't really make sense anyways. I could see them using raw ores for basic weapon design, but after awhile they would probably replace the metal component as it wears down. The reasoning behind swapping out the ore component would be both for practicality and so that it can return to the earth.
N/E druids *should* flat-out reject any sort of arcane magic and therefore enchantments. To them, magic would essentially be a direct modification to a natural cycle and although magic is naturally based, it is manipulated by an intellectual element. Truth be told, it is a bit hypocritical that despite this N/E druids use magic anyways being intellects themselves, but what is evil without a little bit of hypocrisy in it? Magic use is probably justified by them being instruments of nature's divine will, never mind the fact it is an intellectual agent wielding and directing the power, but that's evil for you - screw logic! Also, in general the same philosophy applies to the refinement of metals, but again - screw logic. So while philosophically speaking a N/E druid would be against magical or refined equipment this can easily be explained away by the fact that they are acting as a divine instrument of nature itself and don't really have to abide by logic. Its not an intellect casting the spells or making alloys - Its nature doing so through the "evil" agent. Odds are that in something like a shadow grove you would see the leaders i.e. natures most powerful agents casting spells and wielding sparkly things but all the less-powerful members acting exactly the same as L/N druids since they all need to be meatshields and continue the cycle of life and death - by dying - which nature needs to continue its eternal cycle.
As for the isolation of scimitars, I really don't understand the logic on that one. I think perhaps its to highlight the idea of *some* ore being alright since its the only pure metal item you can use and the fact that there aren't really all too many magical scimitars in BG 1 TOTSC which was when they were introduced to the PC game.
Druids using scimitars goes back way farther than Baldur's Gate. That was present in first edition AD&D. The simplest explanation for the druid's weapons list, is that Gary Gygax made up the whole thing to create balance of character classes in his gaming system.
My own trouble with the logic in the druid weapons list as it exists, is that if it's okay to use a scimitar, then why not a shortsword, longsword, greatsword, axe, or halberd? Why not a mace, flail, or warhammer?
I researched it once, and the answer that came up in places like the Forgotten Realms forums was what I said above - Gary Gygax was probably thinking of the scimitar as a threshing instrument, since he didn't have sickles as weapons in first edition.
But my opinion remains that it doesn't make any sense. If scimitars are okay, then other martial weapons should be too. It just seems like a glaring inconsistency in the reasoning behind the creation of the character class.
I would get it if the druids were restricted to club, staff, and sling - leather, wood, and stone. Spears and daggers made through stone and wood craft, only. No metal. Even the leather armor would need leather ties with bone or stone hooks, instead of metal buckles. That's extreme, but at least it's internally consistent.
EDIT: By the way, the flail started out as a farm implement, just like the sickle. The only reason I can see that the flail is excluded, is because you can make a sickle with a stone head, but you need a metal chain to make a good flail. I haven't researched to be sure, but it may be possible to make a primitive flail using a wood handle with reinforced leather straps that have bone attached to the ends. A flail like that should by okay for a druid.
The whole idea, to be consistent, and only in my opinion, is that materials used should be part of the natural cycles of the Earth. Leather and bone come from the natural deaths of prey animals, and stones can be found just lying around. You can craft the shape of one stone with another stone. Wood can be gained from old fallen trees and dropped branches, and perhaps very, very rarely, by cutting, but preferably without killing the tree.
Smelting metal requires extremely hot temperatures that do not occur naturally (other than in lava flow from volcanoes), and creating that heat artificially, and the smelting process itself, pollutes the environment, so I think any smelted metal should be a no-no for a druid. And that's not even considering what you have to do (mining), to get enough raw ore to smelt in the first place.
I don't think any druid would condone the unnatural life forced upon the miner. ("Ohhh, I'm sooo tired! It's sooo dark! I think I'm coughing up blood! Get me out of this hellhole!)
Alignment for good and evil, or even law/chaos has no bearing at all on how and what a druid does. You can find good-natured druids who absolutely believe that arcane magic is an affront to nature that should be purged without mercy, just as likely as any other alignment would, if they disliked magic due to past experiences (had their home-grove burned down by sadistic mages, for instance).
None of that matters in the slightest.
A druids conduct is mostly defined by their god's tenants as a foundation, then their personal opinions add flavor to the result.
There are actually druid specific spells for locating, mining and processing metal, so...no druids have no issues at all with using metal. At least not in general. Some sects might, if they've had issues as a result of mining operations that are a danger to the ecosystem.
Most of the druids restrictions are simply requirements their gods have decided on to separate the truly dedicated from those who are simply looking for power. Kind of like a paladin, but much less severe.
I've griped about this a lot before, but as mentioned before, F/D should have the exact same restrictions as a normal druid. They do in PnP, because their restrictions are due to their vows, rather then lack of training. On the other hand, it's up to gods to decide what those vows are.
In Faerun, they're pretty consistent across the board, with standard druid restrictions being the norm, but Mielikki has looser restrictions. Her druids can be NG and CN in addition to TN, can dual-class or multi-class with rangers if they meet all the other requirements. Can use any armor with a base AC no greater then 6 or elven armors without violating their oaths, and can choose 1 additional weapon type that they can wield without oath violations from those available to rangers (they still have to buy proficiency in it as normal though, they don't get it for free, and it can't be changed).
@ZanathKariashi, that's interesting about the metalworking druid spells you mention. I'd like to read those spells from the source material. Could you please provide a link? I don't remember anything like that in the first edition AD&D rulebooks, but it might have been there, and I just didn't pay much attention to it at the time. Which edition are you referring to? Thanks.
2nd. Some are in the handbook, others are in the complete Druid guide. They also have spells to grow wooden parts or even complete wooden objects out of trees and such, without causing harm.
Druids are bad-ass as hell in PnP...but....their abilities don't translate as combat effectiveness AT ALL. It's mostly just utility stuff. Which is why I lump them in with Bards as jacks of all trades. Their shapeshift forms can do all sorts of neat things, depending on what form they use, some of which are very nice for combat. And their spells are useful for a myriad of utility tasks, but are generally pretty lack-luster as straight combat.
Alignment for good and evil, or even law/chaos has no bearing at all on how and what a druid does. You can find good-natured druids who absolutely believe that arcane magic is an affront to nature that should be purged without mercy, just as likely as any other alignment would, if they disliked magic due to past experiences (had their home-grove burned down by sadistic mages, for instance).
True, but the initial question was asking about the whole concept of the druidic "balance". What I submitted were merely different variations of "the balance" and by no means an absolutist response, or at least I didn't intend for them to be if they did come off that way. The whole intent of my post was to point out that the balance doesn't have any concrete definition. The best response is that the actual definition of "The balance" really does differ from druid to druid, there is no singular response which really encompasses the entire definition. The reason I gave those different archetypes was to show different interpretations from the perspective of someone who interacts with nature from different origin points on the good/evil & law/chaos axis so as to give the OP the widest extremes. As for the weapons, I merely was explaining how the given example from the first post would probably justify or reject metal weapons based on the given philosophy. The *actual* definition of the balance is going to be different based on the individual druid you ask and what past experiences led them to the belief system they ultimately arrived at.
The spell list has Heat Metal, Freeze Metal, Rust Metal, and Ironwood, a spell that makes wood objects as strong as steel. However, none of those spells imply to me that druids approve of large scale metalworking. It means they have magical powers to control the temperature of any object, and can alter the properties of any natural substance at the molecular level.
It does say they will use some metal tools. It also says what I said before that the scimitar is approved as a symbolic weapon, both because it resembles the sickle, and because it is shaped like a crescent moon. This implies to me that druids don't object to localized metalworking on a small scale. It would be large-scale mining and blacksmithing that become a problem to the balance of nature.
If you read the whole guide, it gives very detailed descriptions of several types and personalities of druids in the D&D worlds.
Here's the main paragraph regarding druid weapons and armor:
Armor and Weapons Permitted. Most druids wear natural armor (leather) and use wooden shields. Other armors, especially metallic kinds, are forbidden to all druids. Most of the weapons permitted to druids of a particular branch resemble tools used in herding, hunting, and farming, or hold symbolic meaning to the druid. For instance, the curved scimitar and khopesh represent both the sickle used in the harvest and the crescent moon, which stands for birth, death, and rebirth in the cycle of Nature. The standard druid can use the following weapons: club, sickle, dart, spear, dagger, scimitar, sling, and staff (optional: scythe). Use of metallic weapons and tools usually remains unrestricted, but local availability can prove a problem, especially in areas like the arctic tundra. Nonmetallic materials can make effective weapons, with the following modifiers (compared to similar metallic items): Bone: 30% cost; 50% weight; -1 damage; -1 to attack roll. Stone: 50% cost; 75% weight; -1 damage; -2 to attack roll. Wood: 10% cost; 50% weight; -2 damage; -3 to attack roll.
I wonder why bows and arrows are left off the list of allowed weapons?
I understand these are the in-game rules to balance the class, but philosophically I see absolutely no reason why - under the correct circumstances- a druid could not be permitted to use metal tools. Based on what I read off that guide, druids are all for being pragmatic. If a druid had access to a particularly powerful metal weapon or tool, or even a golem and a control rod, I can understand situations where some druidic philosophies would permit such actions without violating the philosophy in question.
I agree that they would be against large scale metalworking and honestly finding a druid who would actually have metal on them despite the permissive philosophy would be rare since finding the *right* ore and the *right* conditions to refine said ore would be exceptionally difficult, if not altogether impossible for most druids. But I do see conditions in which such instances are permissible, For example, druids who would live near a volcano pretty much have access to a natural forge - why would druidic philosophy discourage its use?
Don't misunderstand....druids can use whatever the hell they want whenever they want. But if they violate their vows, they lose all spell-casting and other supernatural class features immediately and for 24 hours after they stop violating their oaths. Or at least, they're supposed to, shame BG, shame!
Which is why I tend to gripe about F/D's being only restricted to druid weapons, where as they're actually supposed to be under ALL druid restrictions, just with the non-equipment related fighter perks making them better in straight melee.
Don't misunderstand....druids can use whatever the hell they want whenever they want. But if they violate their vows, they lose all spell-casting and other supernatural class features immediately and for 24 hours after they stop violating their oaths. Or at least, they're supposed to, shame BG, shame!
Which is why I tend to gripe about F/D's being only restricted to druid weapons, where as they're actually supposed to be under ALL druid restrictions, just with the non-equipment related fighter perks making them better in straight melee.
See, this is one of my problems with *strictly* adhering to "game law". Druidic vows don't make any sort of explicit reference to using metal, only explicit references to the way Druids are to conduct themselves within a natural cycle. Philosophically speaking, the reason druids rarely use metal is that mining tends to be an environmentally destructive practice, or using metal is considered disruptive to the cycle of generation and destruction. If both the environment is left undisturbed and such a cycle is not disrupted, there is no violation of druidic code simply for using metal. But for a druid to use metal, he would HAVE to know the origins of any given piece of equipment and there would need to be a legitimate reason of why using said tool does not break his druidic vows.
As said previously I see no reason why a druid could not for example, forge a blade or metal armor from a volcano and at the end of his appointed task cast the equipment back into the volcano. In this way he/she has NOT violated their vows as they are working symbiotically with nature and have not disturbed any natural cycle since the metal returns to its source once a task is completed.
Comments
killing for leather is also acceptable,killing for trophy or for sport is not.
as for the reasoning behind why one would become druid it's because they either worship gods related to nature,or due to the desire to preserve and protect nature while being part of it
for druids it's not nature against man,it's nature against industialisation so only activities that harm nature would provoce the druids reaction
finally they do not view civilisation as something hostile,but rather something different,that needs caution if it goes out of hand.
Just like anything else, druids have a spectrum of good to evil. Hence why 3rd edition does a much better job of depicting druid alignments than 2nd edition. In 3rd edition druids can be N/G or N/E as well as any neutral alignment. Also even the term "balance" has a wide definition and its meaning differs from archetype to archetype, which is why the 3rd edition alignment rules are so much better at encapsulating the wide spectrum of balance definitions. And despite what is often suggested, one could theorhetically adhere to druidic philosophy and still use metal's of various refinement depending on the precise philosophy :P
So a druid of each alignment would look like the following:
N/G - "Symbiotic Balance" "Jaheira"/"Arundel" A neutral good druid would be someone who believes that a "balance" is achieved when humanity lives in harmony with nature. More often than not, they would likely have no problems with society but would encourage humanity to live in such a way that they live off the land, but do not interfere with nature outside of what is needed to survive. For this reason, Kuldahar could be seen as the epitome of what a N/G druid seeks. Kuldahar literally is a town carved out of a tree. The people live out of the tree and use the tree, but they also respect it and rather than chop down the giant tree to build houses, they use the tree to provide their needs and build their homes according to the structure of the tree. In this way a perfect balance between an intellect (so any "thinking" race, elves, humans, dwarfs, even yuan-ti and the like) and nature is achieved. Essentially these druids seek to use nature to the benefit of an intellect but do so in a way that it doesn't disrupt cycles which occur within nature. They look for a symbiotic "balance" between intellect and nature where both exist together so that they may both benefit from their relationships with one another. They will most often take action whenever the balance is disrupted in such a way that the symbiotic relationship between intellects and nature is preserved. After all, since civilization/intellects is/are just as much a part of nature as the woods nature can only truly benefit when all things within it thrive, including civilizations/intellects.
L/N - "Nature's Police Department (NPD)" / "Seniyad" A lawful neutral druid would be someone who believes that a "balance" is achieved by preserving natural cycles I.E. strictly adhering to the law of nature. This isn't to be confused with shadow druids who specifically seek to protect the balance from civilization. Unlike the neutral/good and neutral/evil druids there is no division between intellect and nature. There is simply nature and its laws. In fact, it is more likely that L/N druids see civilization as being bound to the laws of nature itself rather an innate threat to it (nature). Whenever a natural cycle is disturbed the laws of nature are in effect being broken. In the case of Seniyad, hunters kill far more animals than is necessary for a single man to take and are in effect disrupting the food cycle present in nature it is for this reason, and perhaps a little vengeance, they interrupt the group of hunters and go so far as to kill one of them so that the hunters will be punished for breaking the laws of nature. For these druids, "balance" is achieved so long as cycles present in nature can continue without interruption. Unlike N/E druids, L/N druids see civilization as a part of the natural cycle and are bound to the same laws as the rest of nature and typically will not conflict with a civilization unless it becomes a direct threat to some other natural cycle. Also, L/N druids would likely NEVER cast healing or destruction spells since they tend to bend nature's cycle of creation and destruction. Exceptions may be made if such actions would compensate for an unnatural generation of entropy within the natural cycle.
N - "Natural Utilitarians" True neutral druids are perhaps the most difficult to describe of all the druids. They seek balance between all things - Literally. For this reason they look for the center point between any two points and detest extremism of any sort. If something becomes a threat to something else in nature they will intervene so that neither side becomes unnaturally more powerful than another. Were some beast to attack a settlement, the druid would intervene only to discover the cause of the attacks and do what was necessary to stop the attacks - attacking the wyverns would not be a desired course of action. Were an act of an intellect to be the cause of the disruption they would seek to stop the intellect but would not punish the town. They are oftentimes confused with N/G druids for their willingness to work with civilizations or with L/N druids for enforcing the laws of nature. Unlike N/G druids however, they look for what is best for all things in the natural world. If a symbiosis between intellects and nature benefits the natural world, then so be it. If the destruction of a corrupt mining village would benefit the most nature in the area then that is what must be done. True Neutral druids can be seen as perhaps the most utilitarian of all the druid archetypes. They look to promote the most good for the most things in nature. Whereas a N/G seeks a symbiosis between intellectual existence and nature, True neutral druids care for symbiosis only if nature as a whole would benefit from such an existence. If a farmer were to cultivate a land and care for it well but arbitrarily hunt local animals for sport, chances are the druids would hunt the farmer or at least seek to remove him from the land despite his symbiotic relationship for the land, as the harm he is causing to the local wildlife is causing more harm than the good he is generating in his symbiotic relationship with the land. Unlike L/N druids who seek to mediate when the laws of nature are twisted, neutral druids view everything as being a part of nature, even entropy. As such, they would likely allow for even un-natural intervention so long as such intervention would be ultimately beneficial to the natural "balance" as a whole. They are VERY similar to N/G druids and the only real distinguishing factor is that they may act against a civilization, if the civilization - as a whole - was damaging to nature - as a whole -. Since destroying an entire civilization is a part of nature, destroying a civilization is oftentimes just as detrimental to the very harm they are causing. It is only likely that a Neutral druid would interfere with a society if doing so became absolutely necessary for the survival of the natural cycle of an entire region.
C/N - "Tree-Hugging Vegans" - These guys are the stereotypical tree-hugging druids who love nature for no particular reason. They really don't evaluate the cause and effect relationship of nature and merely see nature as something intrinsically good. For this reason, C/N druids would be the least philosophical of all the druids as there is no driving motivation between themselves and their relationship with nature. However, they are the most pacifistic of all druid archetypes. Since all things are natural, they love anything natural and do not care to harm the world around them since doing so would only harm nature. The only time a C/N druid would commit an act of violence would be in self-defense, and even that is unlikely as they may very well view death as a part of the natural cycle. As a result, it is entirely possible a C/N may see his own death as a way to become closer with nature.
N/E - "Nature's Hammer" / "Shadow Druids" / "Faldorn" - N/E druids believe that balance is obtained when natural cycles are carried out without outside interaction and see anything that alters natural cycles in any way as an abomination to nature which must be destroyed. Since civilizations and intellects frequently alter the development of nature they are in themselves abominations which must be destroyed. For N/E druids, "Balance" is only achieved when nature is allowed to progress in its natural form without interruption from any external force. In this manner, almost ALL civilization and intellects are perceived as an abomination since civilization is dependent upon using nature and bending natural cycles for survival.
Don't mind the TLDR and hope this answers your question!
(I feel as though I'm writing a treatises on druids here xD)
I think a lot of it has to do with the "balance" the druid strives to reach. I feel as though N/G druids would have the least difficulty justifying the use of metal overall. I believe in their eyes, they would see metals as needing to serve some natural function to be part of the balance. In most cases, ore is already serving a function such as shelter, protection, etc. which is why I think universally druids would be against large scale mining operations since they tend to result in the destruction of natural habitats.
However, if its ore that's simply sitting around and not really serving a purpose, I see no reason why a N/G or N druid would not be willing or even inclined to use the ore to craft a tool. After all, if you are using a shovel, you are doing so to cultivate nature and in so doing, helping it to grow. If you need might to defend nature for whatever reason you may craft a weapon or even armor as you are essentially drawing upon the might of the earth. In this way, a fighter/druid could justify metal equipment through the ideology that metals serve as a guardian element within nature. If you think about it, weapons will eventually return to the earth since their users periodically fall in battle, weapons rust etc. Other than N/E druids I feel as though any druid could easily justify using basic metals for a wide variety of purposes. Where you are going to run into the disconnects is in the area of enchantments and alloys which is going to divide the Neutral/Neutral good druids and the lawful neutral/chaotic neutral ones.
Neutral and neutral good druids are far more utilitarian in their viewpoints imo. They're seeking the "best" possible natural cycle. For N/G druids this means a total symbiosis to make the best possible nature. As long as the metal was responsibly acquired and nothing was done which was damaging to nature I see no reason why they would not be willing to have the full monty - An enchanted aluminum sword or the like. For some it could be interpreted as a cornerstone of nature. It is a symbiosis between raw magic (which is natural) an intellect's mind and the strength of pure nature. That such a thing is indestructible is not an abomination to nature, merely a display that nature has effectively created a system in which it has been allowed to transcend itself. Nature itself has found a way simply to become a "better" nature.
True neutral would be very similar to this but with some differences. Within the T/N belief system the cycle of life and death would be a huge philosophical point. As such, such a weapon/tool would need to eventually rust/decompose and return to the earth. I believe that they would still however, be perfectly okay with alloys since it establishes a symbiosis wherein the nature of one ore is improved by coexisting with the other. Even enchantments would probably be okay so long as the item was still capable of some sort of natural decomposition (death function). So some sort of indestructible eternal item would probably not be something a T/N druid would approve of.
C/N druids would inherently be pacifists and since their view is that nature is intrinsically good any alteration to that is bad. To be perfectly honest, I view a C/N druid as going so far as to be a nudist. Any sort of addition to their own natural self would be a rejection of nature. Adapting something in nature to be something else is to deny the intrinsic nature of whatever that natural thing is. If your looking for the fruitist druid, this one is probably it since eating fruits allow them to spread the seeds to other places for nature to further propagate and grow. They wouldn't use metal only because the ore is perfect the way it is.
L/N druids I could see using basic ore, but not refining and or enchanting them in any way. If you enchant or refine a metal you are effectively altering the natural cycle of that rock. For this type I don't really see them using metal armor simply because they don't refine it. Unrefined metal armor is really not practical or useful so it doesn't really make sense anyways. I could see them using raw ores for basic weapon design, but after awhile they would probably replace the metal component as it wears down. The reasoning behind swapping out the ore component would be both for practicality and so that it can return to the earth.
N/E druids *should* flat-out reject any sort of arcane magic and therefore enchantments. To them, magic would essentially be a direct modification to a natural cycle and although magic is naturally based, it is manipulated by an intellectual element. Truth be told, it is a bit hypocritical that despite this N/E druids use magic anyways being intellects themselves, but what is evil without a little bit of hypocrisy in it? Magic use is probably justified by them being instruments of nature's divine will, never mind the fact it is an intellectual agent wielding and directing the power, but that's evil for you - screw logic! Also, in general the same philosophy applies to the refinement of metals, but again - screw logic. So while philosophically speaking a N/E druid would be against magical or refined equipment this can easily be explained away by the fact that they are acting as a divine instrument of nature itself and don't really have to abide by logic. Its not an intellect casting the spells or making alloys - Its nature doing so through the "evil" agent. Odds are that in something like a shadow grove you would see the leaders i.e. natures most powerful agents casting spells and wielding sparkly things but all the less-powerful members acting exactly the same as L/N druids since they all need to be meatshields and continue the cycle of life and death - by dying - which nature needs to continue its eternal cycle.
As for the isolation of scimitars, I really don't understand the logic on that one. I think perhaps its to highlight the idea of *some* ore being alright since its the only pure metal item you can use and the fact that there aren't really all too many magical scimitars in BG 1 TOTSC which was when they were introduced to the PC game.
My own trouble with the logic in the druid weapons list as it exists, is that if it's okay to use a scimitar, then why not a shortsword, longsword, greatsword, axe, or halberd? Why not a mace, flail, or warhammer?
I researched it once, and the answer that came up in places like the Forgotten Realms forums was what I said above - Gary Gygax was probably thinking of the scimitar as a threshing instrument, since he didn't have sickles as weapons in first edition.
But my opinion remains that it doesn't make any sense. If scimitars are okay, then other martial weapons should be too. It just seems like a glaring inconsistency in the reasoning behind the creation of the character class.
I would get it if the druids were restricted to club, staff, and sling - leather, wood, and stone. Spears and daggers made through stone and wood craft, only. No metal. Even the leather armor would need leather ties with bone or stone hooks, instead of metal buckles. That's extreme, but at least it's internally consistent.
EDIT: By the way, the flail started out as a farm implement, just like the sickle. The only reason I can see that the flail is excluded, is because you can make a sickle with a stone head, but you need a metal chain to make a good flail. I haven't researched to be sure, but it may be possible to make a primitive flail using a wood handle with reinforced leather straps that have bone attached to the ends. A flail like that should by okay for a druid.
The whole idea, to be consistent, and only in my opinion, is that materials used should be part of the natural cycles of the Earth. Leather and bone come from the natural deaths of prey animals, and stones can be found just lying around. You can craft the shape of one stone with another stone. Wood can be gained from old fallen trees and dropped branches, and perhaps very, very rarely, by cutting, but preferably without killing the tree.
Smelting metal requires extremely hot temperatures that do not occur naturally (other than in lava flow from volcanoes), and creating that heat artificially, and the smelting process itself, pollutes the environment, so I think any smelted metal should be a no-no for a druid. And that's not even considering what you have to do (mining), to get enough raw ore to smelt in the first place.
I don't think any druid would condone the unnatural life forced upon the miner. ("Ohhh, I'm sooo tired! It's sooo dark! I think I'm coughing up blood! Get me out of this hellhole!)
None of that matters in the slightest.
A druids conduct is mostly defined by their god's tenants as a foundation, then their personal opinions add flavor to the result.
There are actually druid specific spells for locating, mining and processing metal, so...no druids have no issues at all with using metal. At least not in general. Some sects might, if they've had issues as a result of mining operations that are a danger to the ecosystem.
Most of the druids restrictions are simply requirements their gods have decided on to separate the truly dedicated from those who are simply looking for power. Kind of like a paladin, but much less severe.
I've griped about this a lot before, but as mentioned before, F/D should have the exact same restrictions as a normal druid. They do in PnP, because their restrictions are due to their vows, rather then lack of training. On the other hand, it's up to gods to decide what those vows are.
In Faerun, they're pretty consistent across the board, with standard druid restrictions being the norm, but Mielikki has looser restrictions. Her druids can be NG and CN in addition to TN, can dual-class or multi-class with rangers if they meet all the other requirements. Can use any armor with a base AC no greater then 6 or elven armors without violating their oaths, and can choose 1 additional weapon type that they can wield without oath violations from those available to rangers (they still have to buy proficiency in it as normal though, they don't get it for free, and it can't be changed).
Druids are bad-ass as hell in PnP...but....their abilities don't translate as combat effectiveness AT ALL. It's mostly just utility stuff. Which is why I lump them in with Bards as jacks of all trades. Their shapeshift forms can do all sorts of neat things, depending on what form they use, some of which are very nice for combat. And their spells are useful for a myriad of utility tasks, but are generally pretty lack-luster as straight combat.
http://spillklubben.samfunnet.no/Filer/ad&dbooks/complete druid's handbook.pdf
The spell list has Heat Metal, Freeze Metal, Rust Metal, and Ironwood, a spell that makes wood objects as strong as steel. However, none of those spells imply to me that druids approve of large scale metalworking. It means they have magical powers to control the temperature of any object, and can alter the properties of any natural substance at the molecular level.
It does say they will use some metal tools. It also says what I said before that the scimitar is approved as a symbolic weapon, both because it resembles the sickle, and because it is shaped like a crescent moon. This implies to me that druids don't object to localized metalworking on a small scale. It would be large-scale mining and blacksmithing that become a problem to the balance of nature.
If you read the whole guide, it gives very detailed descriptions of several types and personalities of druids in the D&D worlds.
Here's the main paragraph regarding druid weapons and armor:
Armor and Weapons Permitted. Most druids wear natural armor (leather) and
use wooden shields. Other armors, especially metallic kinds, are forbidden to all
druids.
Most of the weapons permitted to druids of a particular branch resemble tools
used in herding, hunting, and farming, or hold symbolic meaning to the druid. For
instance, the curved scimitar and khopesh represent both the sickle used in the harvest
and the crescent moon, which stands for birth, death, and rebirth in the cycle of
Nature.
The standard druid can use the following weapons: club, sickle, dart, spear,
dagger, scimitar, sling, and staff (optional: scythe).
Use of metallic weapons and tools usually remains unrestricted, but local
availability can prove a problem, especially in areas like the arctic tundra.
Nonmetallic materials can make effective weapons, with the following modifiers
(compared to similar metallic items):
Bone: 30% cost; 50% weight; -1 damage; -1 to attack roll.
Stone: 50% cost; 75% weight; -1 damage; -2 to attack roll.
Wood: 10% cost; 50% weight; -2 damage; -3 to attack roll.
I wonder why bows and arrows are left off the list of allowed weapons?
I agree that they would be against large scale metalworking and honestly finding a druid who would actually have metal on them despite the permissive philosophy would be rare since finding the *right* ore and the *right* conditions to refine said ore would be exceptionally difficult, if not altogether impossible for most druids. But I do see conditions in which such instances are permissible, For example, druids who would live near a volcano pretty much have access to a natural forge - why would druidic philosophy discourage its use?
Which is why I tend to gripe about F/D's being only restricted to druid weapons, where as they're actually supposed to be under ALL druid restrictions, just with the non-equipment related fighter perks making them better in straight melee.
As said previously I see no reason why a druid could not for example, forge a blade or metal armor from a volcano and at the end of his appointed task cast the equipment back into the volcano. In this way he/she has NOT violated their vows as they are working symbiotically with nature and have not disturbed any natural cycle since the metal returns to its source once a task is completed.