you can become evil if you're good/neutral and pick a single evil choice but you don't turn good if you pick good options if you're already evil (even if you pick them all).
I think it's less BS than one good choice turning a downright evil character good. Some of those evil options are pretty dang evil. Like, oh I don't know, letting one of your friends get tortured and killed so you can walk through some doors without penalty. Even if you can resurrect them afterwards... It's painful to watch.
Yeah, that one is pretty evil. Attacking Sarevok, however, is not. The only justification for it is "giving into your anger", and that's nonsense given that turning into the Slayer doesn't turn you instantly evil.
And it's a perfectly pragmatic choice to wear the nymph's cloak, not good-aligned, but acceptable for neutral viewpoints (they're already dead; no helping it now, and there's lots of magic items made out of bits of magic creatures).
On the other hand I frequently *don't* take the Nymph Cloak with evil characters, because the way the trial is worded it basically implies that you're a coward who isn't confident in their ability to overcome the obstacles without some kind of magical 'crutch'. My Evil PCs are usually pretty proud and thus refuse the cloak practically on principle (just a different set of principles from the ones Good characters might appeal to =P)
I think it's less BS than one good choice turning a downright evil character good. Some of those evil options are pretty dang evil. Like, oh I don't know, letting one of your friends get tortured and killed so you can walk through some doors without penalty. Even if you can resurrect them afterwards... It's painful to watch.
Yeah, that one is pretty evil. Attacking Sarevok, however, is not. The only justification for it is "giving into your anger", and that's nonsense given that turning into the Slayer doesn't turn you instantly evil.
And it's a perfectly pragmatic choice to wear the nymph's cloak, not good-aligned, but acceptable for neutral viewpoints (they're already dead; no helping it now, and there's lots of magic items made out of bits of magic creatures).
Well, that's perfectly all right for you, but for my personal choice, I'd refuse to wear it because the whole idea sickens me, regardless of its practicality. Even evil has standards. At least, my brand of evil does. :P
Bonus points to @Eudaemonium for correcting me though. I could've sworn the alignment changes worked both ways. Sorry! >_>;;
That's just plot railroading though, there's not really any good reason charbame shouldn't be able to access the first challenge on the plane he made himself.
'Not being able to make every choice you can envision' is not the same as 'plot railroading'. That kind of argument is reminiscent of the Clara fetishists (ick). After all, you're perfectly free to kill Sarevok YET AGAIN after you bring him back to life.
hmm... I agree with @Blackhawk completely. I actually really enjoy this part of the game. This is one of the few times alignment roleplay actually matters, so I see no reason to complain about it. People who say "but boo hoo I'm usually not evil".... think about it for a second. Is OJ Simpson now a good dude because he only murdered people one day in his life? How sporadic must your douchey actions be in order for you to become a douche? c'mon
I personally don't believe that one evil action makes you a permanently evil person. People are more complicated than that and (in my belief anyway) aren't motivated by some alignment stamp.
Speaking of the game though, I have decided to work with it for my latest playthrough. My character is currently neutral. Not quite evil but with a tendency to resort to violence too quickly and no hesitation to work with... shady characters. While intent on killing Irenicus, my character is also very tempted by the promises of power, and when the Hell trials come, the corruption will be complete. I usually play good characters so this is quite fun to roleplay for me.
Is OJ Simpson now a good dude because he only murdered people one day in his life? How sporadic must your douchey actions be in order for you to become a douche? c'mon
Killing a bunch of people is one thing. Putting on a Nymph Cloak is another...
Killing a bunch of people is one thing. Putting on a Nymph Cloak is another...
I agree. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, the nymphs are already dead. Neutrals might take it because of that, or not take it because of pride. They might even take it and try to make amends somehow, through some sidequest or something.
Has there been word on an BG2EE compatible Questpack/Hell Trials?
@You, yes, he/she will become evil, and in the vanilla Trials all it takes is one evil decision. I think there's no such thing scripted as a "fallen druid" (I will look in the files to confirm) but as far as I remember there's only fallen rangers and fallen paladins. Also, there's only a few triggers that make those classes fall, namely a few quest triggers (like the Hell Trials) and a low reputation.
Since druids don't need to be good (and actually can't be in an unmodded game) it wouldn't really make sense to have them 'fall' for a single evil act. This also shows the problem with the vanilla Trials, there's no middle road.
One of the first things I do after installing a game is actually edit the .2das to have the alignment restriction reflect 3.5e more (I.e. any neutral for druids, add all chaotic for bards, add at least neutral to rangers...) but this does not change the triggers for the 'fallen'-status. My next playthrough will actually be a chaotic neutral druid who might go evil at the Hell Trials...
You all need to remember, we are not in our reality when we talk about the D&D Alignment System. It is a fantasy construct where alignment is real.
Now you are in the 9 Hells. Remember, the 9 Hells are infused with Lawful Evil. It is where Lawful Evil calls its home and it radiates and is infused by Lawful Evil "energy", if you will.
You also need to take into account that many (if not all) rules are suspended when on an Outer Plane - meaning that whoever rules that Plane normally makes the rules (as long as they are in-step with the alignment of said Plane, that is!).
For the Trials, it is a trap for the Bhaalspawn, basically. Any choice other than a "good" one results in an immediate change to evil. And "good" choices result in...no change whatsoever. Exactly what one would expect on a Lawful Evil Plane - remain true to the rules agreed upon, but twist them to the breaking point!
It doesn't matter if the "evil" choice doesn't really seem all that evil - it is a trap, meant to lure the Bhaalspawn down the path of evilness!
As for becoming the Slayer...hmmm. Well, that is not a construct of the 9 Hells, and is not really a part of the Lawful Evil Planes, either. I personally think it should slowly move one on the alignment scale towards Bhaal's alignment. But I am not sure that the BG alignment system allows point movement ala NWN.
So, please keep in mind that the D&D Alignment System is not real in our reality, and thus cannot really be compared to anything outside of D&D, which is where it belongs. And in the D&D reality, the Alignment System is a real thing. Also, please keep in mind that the Trials take place in the 9 Hells - the home of Lawful Evil. By being there, you are being subjugated to the workings of those Planes, basically at every turn. Only the extremely strong willed will resist the overwhelming presence and pressure of Lawful Evil!
For the Trials, it is a trap for the Bhaalspawn, basically. Any choice other than a "good" one results in an immediate change to evil. And "good" choices result in...no change whatsoever. Exactly what one would expect on a Lawful Evil Plane - remain true to the rules agreed upon, but twist them to the breaking point!
Only the extremely strong willed will resist the overwhelming presence and pressure of Lawful Evil!
This I agree with, mostly. A good choice can be seen as resisting the evil of both blood and the location. An evil choice, but only one that is unmistakably evil (i.e. sacrificing a companion) would obviously be a very slippery slope into darkness. Neutral choices can still be seen as resisting evil (for a neutral character) or a less slippery slope (for previously good characters). A few of the neutral choices actually also do the very thing you say, twist the rules as laid out by the fiends to the advantage of the player, just not out of the player's "good heart".
Note that I'm not saying evil (or neutral) characters should become good with the right choices.
Presumably because a cleric has kits that are both god/alignment specific. A kitted cleric could at least become a generic cleric. A druid kit on the otherhand doesn't prescribe to any particular god and there really isn't any class in the game that they can become if they fall.
Ummm...well, they become "fallen druids", right? So a druid that can't cast spells. Pretty much makes sense to me.
So why are there not fallen druids in BG? I mean, you have fallen this, and fallen that, why do druids get a "get out of alignment problems free" card?
Ummm...well, they become "fallen druids", right? So a druid that can't cast spells. Pretty much makes sense to me.
What I mean is a paladin or a fighter that falls can (for instance) continue on as effectively a weaker form of a fighter. They get fighter HLA's and their thac0 improves overtime. If a fallen druid can't cast spells it has nothing to fall back on. You would just be this odd character with basic weapon proficiencies and no spellcasting ability. Theres also no way to remove the fallen status (unlike in the case of Paladin's and Ranger's).
Ummm...well, they become "fallen druids", right? So a druid that can't cast spells. Pretty much makes sense to me.
What I mean is a paladin or a fighter that falls can (for instance) continue on as effectively a weaker form of a fighter. They get fighter HLA's and their thac0 improves overtime. If a fallen druid can't cast spells it has nothing to fall back on. You would just be this odd character with basic weapon proficiencies and no spellcasting ability. Theres also no way to remove the fallen status (unlike in the case of Paladin's and Ranger's).
But that is the way it is supposed to be. And there should be a way to remove the fallen status for Druids as well.
But that is the way it is supposed to be. And there should be a way to remove the fallen status for Druids as well.
It is so in P&P rules, yes, but like so many other tidbits it wasn't implemented. Maybe there's a mod out there that does this.
IMHO though I think it would be somewhat harder to implement than the fallen paladin, ranger or cleric. A true neutral character will do everything for the Balance because he/she know there's no good without evil, no law without chaos, and all have their place in the Grand Order of Things etc etc. He/she might perform an act that would 'safeguard' this balance, but that act might be seen as evil by the good-aligned folk.
There are also a lot of sects of druid who do not always see eye to eye, but I feel you can't put them in the same category as a cleric worshipping one god. A druid might worship a god of nature, but more so than a cleric she might simply worship nature itself, thus making the link to his/her god less important for her spellcasting maybe. But this last bit is just me thinking in flavor-mode...
Well, I mean, the Neutral path is basically almost non-existent in BG IMHO. I mean, they certainly could have made much more out of the Druid's Grove, and included a way there to remove fallen status from a Druid that has fallen, right?
Druids cast divine magic, so it comes from gods - even if they are "just" nature gods iirc.
Ummm...well, they become "fallen druids", right? So a druid that can't cast spells. Pretty much makes sense to me.
What I mean is a paladin or a fighter that falls can (for instance) continue on as effectively a weaker form of a fighter. They get fighter HLA's and their thac0 improves overtime. If a fallen druid can't cast spells it has nothing to fall back on. You would just be this odd character with basic weapon proficiencies and no spellcasting ability. Theres also no way to remove the fallen status (unlike in the case of Paladin's and Ranger's).
But that is the way it is supposed to be. And there should be a way to remove the fallen status for Druids as well.
The 2nd edition players handbook just says they have to be neutral alignment. It doesn't even technically say true neutral only, though I think based on the writing before it thats the expected behavior. Unlike in the case of the Paladin and Ranger it says nothing about what happens when you aren't, including regarding its spellcasting and shapeshifting (its section is page 35 and 37). Page 49 (on changing alignments) also doesn't mention druids (just Paladins). I'll spoiler tag it for size reasons but based on the paragraphs of
"Ethos: As protectors of nature, druids are aloof from the complications of the temporal world. Their greatest concern is for the continuation of the orderly and proper cycles of nature-birth, growth, death, and rebirth. Druids tend to view all things as cyclic and thus the battles of good and evil are only the rising and falling tides of time. Only when the cycle and balance are disrupted does the druid become concerned. Given this view of things, the druid must be neutral in alignment.
Druids are charged with protecting wilderness-in particular trees, wild plants, wild animals, and crops. By association, they are also responsible for their followers and their animals. Druids recognize that all creatures (including humans) need food, shelter, and protection from harm. Hunting, farming, and cutting lumber for homes are logical and necessary parts of the natural cycle. However, druids do not tolerate unnecessary destruction or exploitation of nature for profit. Druids often prefer subtle and devious methods of revenge against those who defile nature. It is well known that druids are both very unforgiving and very patient."
It seems like its more of a code issue to do something that falls outside of the sphere of neutrality. In other words if you happen to become neutral evil you'd certainly draw the ire of your fellow druids but I'm not certainly why you should lose your spellcasting. Especially when there is at least one evil nature god (Auril) out there. @atcDave and @LadyRhian would probably know more about this though.
Well, I mean, the Neutral path is basically almost non-existent in BG IMHO. I mean, they certainly could have made much more out of the Druid's Grove, and included a way there to remove fallen status from a Druid that has fallen, right?
Druids cast divine magic, so it comes from gods - even if they are "just" nature gods iirc.
Except that the Druid Grove is in SoA and the "hell" trial making you fallen largely affects ToB. You also can't access the druid grove at that point. For a ranger or a paladin it makes some sense that an evil action would cause you to fall, since they are restricted to good alignments and this is happening in Bhaal's realm (its very much inner soul testing). For a druid however falling and becoming evil when you make 1 "evil" action and 4 "good" actions doesn't make certainly as much sense.
I mean there are some really big no-no decisions for a druid, like wearing the nymph cloak to get the tear, but if you did that and then went and chose to save the dragon I kind of feel like those two would balance out. Ultimately this is the kind of thing that a DM would decide, and lacking that the game has the restrictions that it has.
As for where druids get their spells from. The players handbook isn't clear. So maybe LadyRhian or atcDave can clear that up as well. It just says that
"His powers and beliefs are different from those of the cleric. The druid is a priest of nature and guardian of the wilderness, be it forest, plains, or jungle.... Druids do not have the same range of spells as clerics. They have major access to the following spheres: all, animal, elemental, healing, plant, and weather. They have minor access to the divination sphere."
Which isn't really illuminating even when you read the full cleric section and about mythos (as I did).
As for where druids get their spells from. The players handbook isn't clear. So maybe LadyRhian or atcDave can clear that up as well. It just says that
"His powers and beliefs are different from those of the cleric. The druid is a priest of nature and guardian of the wilderness, be it forest, plains, or jungle."
Which isn't really illuminating even when you read the full cleric section and about mythos (as I did).
The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (3e, true, but still...) reads: "Like clerics, the druids of Faerûn receive their spells from a particular patron eity, always a deity of nature or animals. However, druids do not necessarily see a clear division between nature and the divine forces that run through nature."
That last bit suggests that their spells do not fully rely on their patron god, at least acoording to them. Also:
"Mielikki ... has more lenient spiritual oaths than most deities that druids worship in the Realms." So Mielikki is probably not the only one in this.
There's a lot of deities in the Realms that are considered nature deities, including Talos (chaotic evil), Malar (chaotic evil), Umberlee (chaotic evil), Lurue (chaotic good), Nobanion (lawful neutral), Anhur (chaotic good), Osiris (lawful good), and others, whose *clerics* cannot even be true neutral. So while Osiris might be pretty pissed if you go full evil, Malar or Talos might not care or may even welcome it.
Obviously for any divine caster moral and ethical issues will be very important. In particular,that the character remain true to the beliefs and values of who (what?) ever is granting them their powers. It's the sort of thing that plays a much bigger role in PNP than it ever will in BG. I'm always insistent that all divine casters remain faithful to their patron deity's alignment or loose all divine abilities. The 2E books themselves make a slightly less big deal out of it than I do as a DM. The Forgotten Realms seems to have many deities with a range of alignments they tolerate. Unfortunately I don't know all the ins and out of Druids in particular. But one impression I get is that they mostly serve an impersonal nature force rather than a more traditional deity. As such, I could imagine that nature force not being terribly interested in alignment; that is, how the Druid interacts with other sentient beings and related moral issues matters far less than how they treat the natural world and natural forces. This could explain some vagueness in the alignment issue. So you could have one sect of Druids helping a local village with a clean water supply, while another nearby sect slaughters any villager they see; as long as they both are protecting their sacred grove, or preserving vast tracts of untamed wilderness, and being kind to fuzzy bunny rabbits; or whatever matters to their particular nature power. IRL Druidism was a specific religion involving nature spirits, community traditions, and human sacrifice. It was truly a mixed bag. The Romans claimed to be so offended by it they declared it illegal and executed any practitioners of it. It's also been suggested there may have been a political motive behind that. There was a Players Supplement devoted entirely to Druids that would probably help with this. But I never used Druids in my setting so I never bought it. But I would say the bottom line is, it certainly should be possible for a Druid to "fall", that is offend their sponsor power in such a way as to loose their abilities. But it may be completely different or separate from the alignment system.
I think this is the supplement you are referring to ( http://wiki.janhoo.net/_media/lostboys/material/tcbo_druids.pdf ). It says "Members of all the branches of the druidic order have the same alignment—true neutral—and worship Nature" but again doesn't say anything about what happens when you lose that alignment.
Yeah that's the book I was thinking of. It is more generic in nature, not Realms specific. But even so it looks like it allows for some very ugly Druidic practices ("Shadow Circle"), things that certainly look more evil than neutral to me. So it looks like there is some precedent for a sort scourging or cleansing mindset. But then it also talks about farming Druids which could be a different thing entirely.
There is probably more Realms specific material for Druids out there. But back to the original question, I think t could be possible for a Druid to lean towards either good or evil without offending their nature power. Certainly an interesting possibility!
It would seem to me that it would be harder to lose the true neutral alignment than say losing a good alignment. Unless you continue doing obviously good or evil things constantly I don't see a way to lose it. If you look at Jaheira and Faldorn you see just what I mean, they are completely different, yet both are the same alignment, and neither has lost that alignment despite Jahiera being obviously good, while Faldorn is obviously evil.
Well, I do not have the 2nd Ed books (nor access to them), but since I have been playing D&D since '79, I am familiar with 1st Ed and so on.
I did find the following on the internet :
The Complete Divine sourcebook for D&D, develops a blighter prestige class for fallen druids. The blighter gains spells by destroying nature, rather than preserving it.
So there is a Prestige class for fallen druids. So druids can fall.
Ex-Druids
A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).
Here is the actual ruling on what causes druids to fall.
I am not sure how much this applies to 2nd Ed, or the FR, however. It does make sense to me that the above are all reasons why a druid can fall. It also reveals that a druid can atone.
Druids who stray from their alignment or cease to follow the tenets of the Order lose major sphere spell access and granted powers until they make atonement. In addition, the circle's great druid may place any subordinate druid under the ban as a temporal punishment for such violations.
Comments
And it's a perfectly pragmatic choice to wear the nymph's cloak, not good-aligned, but acceptable for neutral viewpoints (they're already dead; no helping it now, and there's lots of magic items made out of bits of magic creatures).
Bonus points to @Eudaemonium for correcting me though. I could've sworn the alignment changes worked both ways. Sorry! >_>;;
I agree with @Blackhawk completely. I actually really enjoy this part of the game. This is one of the few times alignment roleplay actually matters, so I see no reason to complain about it.
People who say "but boo hoo I'm usually not evil".... think about it for a second. Is OJ Simpson now a good dude because he only murdered people one day in his life? How sporadic must your douchey actions be in order for you to become a douche? c'mon
Speaking of the game though, I have decided to work with it for my latest playthrough. My character is currently neutral. Not quite evil but with a tendency to resort to violence too quickly and no hesitation to work with... shady characters. While intent on killing Irenicus, my character is also very tempted by the promises of power, and when the Hell trials come, the corruption will be complete. I usually play good characters so this is quite fun to roleplay for me.
Has there been word on an BG2EE compatible Questpack/Hell Trials?
Since druids don't need to be good (and actually can't be in an unmodded game) it wouldn't really make sense to have them 'fall' for a single evil act. This also shows the problem with the vanilla Trials, there's no middle road.
One of the first things I do after installing a game is actually edit the .2das to have the alignment restriction reflect 3.5e more (I.e. any neutral for druids, add all chaotic for bards, add at least neutral to rangers...) but this does not change the triggers for the 'fallen'-status. My next playthrough will actually be a chaotic neutral druid who might go evil at the Hell Trials...
*takes a deeeeeep breath*
You all need to remember, we are not in our reality when we talk about the D&D Alignment System. It is a fantasy construct where alignment is real.
Now you are in the 9 Hells. Remember, the 9 Hells are infused with Lawful Evil. It is where Lawful Evil calls its home and it radiates and is infused by Lawful Evil "energy", if you will.
You also need to take into account that many (if not all) rules are suspended when on an Outer Plane - meaning that whoever rules that Plane normally makes the rules (as long as they are in-step with the alignment of said Plane, that is!).
For the Trials, it is a trap for the Bhaalspawn, basically. Any choice other than a "good" one results in an immediate change to evil. And "good" choices result in...no change whatsoever. Exactly what one would expect on a Lawful Evil Plane - remain true to the rules agreed upon, but twist them to the breaking point!
It doesn't matter if the "evil" choice doesn't really seem all that evil - it is a trap, meant to lure the Bhaalspawn down the path of evilness!
As for becoming the Slayer...hmmm. Well, that is not a construct of the 9 Hells, and is not really a part of the Lawful Evil Planes, either. I personally think it should slowly move one on the alignment scale towards Bhaal's alignment. But I am not sure that the BG alignment system allows point movement ala NWN.
So, please keep in mind that the D&D Alignment System is not real in our reality, and thus cannot really be compared to anything outside of D&D, which is where it belongs. And in the D&D reality, the Alignment System is a real thing. Also, please keep in mind that the Trials take place in the 9 Hells - the home of Lawful Evil. By being there, you are being subjugated to the workings of those Planes, basically at every turn. Only the extremely strong willed will resist the overwhelming presence and pressure of Lawful Evil!
Note that I'm not saying evil (or neutral) characters should become good with the right choices.
So why are there not fallen druids in BG? I mean, you have fallen this, and fallen that, why do druids get a "get out of alignment problems free" card?
IMHO though I think it would be somewhat harder to implement than the fallen paladin, ranger or cleric. A true neutral character will do everything for the Balance because he/she know there's no good without evil, no law without chaos, and all have their place in the Grand Order of Things etc etc. He/she might perform an act that would 'safeguard' this balance, but that act might be seen as evil by the good-aligned folk.
There are also a lot of sects of druid who do not always see eye to eye, but I feel you can't put them in the same category as a cleric worshipping one god. A druid might worship a god of nature, but more so than a cleric she might simply worship nature itself, thus making the link to his/her god less important for her spellcasting maybe. But this last bit is just me thinking in flavor-mode...
Druids cast divine magic, so it comes from gods - even if they are "just" nature gods iirc.
"Ethos:
As protectors of nature, druids are aloof from the complications of the temporal
world. Their greatest concern is for the continuation of the orderly and proper cycles of
nature-birth, growth, death, and rebirth. Druids tend to view all things as cyclic and
thus the battles of good and evil are only the rising and falling tides of time. Only when
the cycle and balance are disrupted does the druid become concerned. Given this view of
things, the druid must be neutral in alignment.
Druids are charged with protecting wilderness-in particular trees, wild plants,
wild animals, and crops. By association, they are also responsible for their followers
and their animals. Druids recognize that all creatures (including humans) need food,
shelter, and protection from harm. Hunting, farming, and cutting lumber for homes
are logical and necessary parts of the natural cycle. However, druids do not tolerate
unnecessary destruction or exploitation of nature for profit. Druids often prefer subtle
and devious methods of revenge against those who defile nature. It is well known
that druids are both very unforgiving and very patient."
It seems like its more of a code issue to do something that falls outside of the sphere of neutrality. In other words if you happen to become neutral evil you'd certainly draw the ire of your fellow druids but I'm not certainly why you should lose your spellcasting. Especially when there is at least one evil nature god (Auril) out there. @atcDave and @LadyRhian would probably know more about this though.
Except that the Druid Grove is in SoA and the "hell" trial making you fallen largely affects ToB. You also can't access the druid grove at that point. For a ranger or a paladin it makes some sense that an evil action would cause you to fall, since they are restricted to good alignments and this is happening in Bhaal's realm (its very much inner soul testing). For a druid however falling and becoming evil when you make 1 "evil" action and 4 "good" actions doesn't make certainly as much sense.
I mean there are some really big no-no decisions for a druid, like wearing the nymph cloak to get the tear, but if you did that and then went and chose to save the dragon I kind of feel like those two would balance out. Ultimately this is the kind of thing that a DM would decide, and lacking that the game has the restrictions that it has.
As for where druids get their spells from. The players handbook isn't clear. So maybe LadyRhian or atcDave can clear that up as well. It just says that
"His powers and beliefs are different from those of the
cleric. The druid is a priest of nature and guardian of the wilderness, be it forest,
plains, or jungle.... Druids do not have the same range of spells as clerics. They have major access to
the following spheres: all, animal, elemental, healing, plant, and weather. They have
minor access to the divination sphere."
Which isn't really illuminating even when you read the full cleric section and about mythos (as I did).
That last bit suggests that their spells do not fully rely on their patron god, at least acoording to them. Also:
"Mielikki ... has more lenient spiritual oaths than most deities that druids worship in the Realms." So Mielikki is probably not the only one in this.
There's a lot of deities in the Realms that are considered nature deities, including Talos (chaotic evil), Malar (chaotic evil), Umberlee (chaotic evil), Lurue (chaotic good), Nobanion (lawful neutral), Anhur (chaotic good), Osiris (lawful good), and others, whose *clerics* cannot even be true neutral. So while Osiris might be pretty pissed if you go full evil, Malar or Talos might not care or may even welcome it.
The 2E books themselves make a slightly less big deal out of it than I do as a DM. The Forgotten Realms seems to have many deities with a range of alignments they tolerate. Unfortunately I don't know all the ins and out of Druids in particular. But one impression I get is that they mostly serve an impersonal nature force rather than a more traditional deity. As such, I could imagine that nature force not being terribly interested in alignment; that is, how the Druid interacts with other sentient beings and related moral issues matters far less than how they treat the natural world and natural forces. This could explain some vagueness in the alignment issue. So you could have one sect of Druids helping a local village with a clean water supply, while another nearby sect slaughters any villager they see; as long as they both are protecting their sacred grove, or preserving vast tracts of untamed wilderness, and being kind to fuzzy bunny rabbits; or whatever matters to their particular nature power.
IRL Druidism was a specific religion involving nature spirits, community traditions, and human sacrifice. It was truly a mixed bag. The Romans claimed to be so offended by it they declared it illegal and executed any practitioners of it. It's also been suggested there may have been a political motive behind that.
There was a Players Supplement devoted entirely to Druids that would probably help with this. But I never used Druids in my setting so I never bought it.
But I would say the bottom line is, it certainly should be possible for a Druid to "fall", that is offend their sponsor power in such a way as to loose their abilities. But it may be completely different or separate from the alignment system.
There is probably more Realms specific material for Druids out there. But back to the original question, I think t could be possible for a Druid to lean towards either good or evil without offending their nature power. Certainly an interesting possibility!
If you look at Jaheira and Faldorn you see just what I mean, they are completely different, yet both are the same alignment, and neither has lost that alignment despite Jahiera being obviously good, while Faldorn is obviously evil.
I did find the following on the internet : So there is a Prestige class for fallen druids. So druids can fall. Here is the actual ruling on what causes druids to fall.
I am not sure how much this applies to 2nd Ed, or the FR, however. It does make sense to me that the above are all reasons why a druid can fall. It also reveals that a druid can atone.
Wooohooo!
Found it!
http://dark-wolf.weebly.com/add-2---druids-guide.html So, that is from 2nd Ed.