Circle druid character idea

[sjksprocket]

I was looking at the books recently, just cause, and thought that if I where to play another campaign I would like to play a circle druid who eventually becomes a blackclad. If the group would be formed it might be a mostly CN group, but not a circle group. I know a little of the circle's back story, mainly what I've read from the hordes prime, but I don't know a lot. I was wondering if anyone could give me ideas of why a circle druid and future blackclad might be willling to travel with a bunch of strangers.

[EinarF]

He wouldn't if they were agents of order and the "civilized" world, but he might work with a group of subversives or other social miscreants, particularly those with some kind of axe to grind with the powers that be.

[Killj0y]

I tend to look at it this way. Religion is something you do on the weekends.

Sure, he believes that the encroachment of civilization is a cancer which will eventually cause the destruction of life as we know it when the wurm turns, awakens and returns the world to primal chaos.

But unless he is a fanatic he can always put aside his agenda. Nature moves slowly but inexorably. Just because he is going to destroy a city does not mean he has to do it "RIGHT BLOODY NOW". Kruger is a good example of a fanatic who would just as soon use his powers to wrack the world with storms and get it over with.

As you climb the ladder of rank for the Circle you should have a greater amount of responsiblity and requirement to enact circle policy. As a low ranked pleb you can probably get away with mouthing the hymns and smoking behind the cloister when no one is looking.

[Morgan Coalburn]

Also, even the Circle has its "friendly faces" (or at least friendlier ones; Baldur and Morvana come to mind here). It's great to crush unbelievers and despoilers of nature. It's better to show them the error of their ways and convert them to your cause. And as has been said, not every druid has to be a hardliner, not even the blackclads. Nature tends to oscillate around an equilibrium, and the way I take it the Circle is concerned with an equilibrium that's currently way out of whack.

So by all means, be a druid aiming for blackclad. But if you're hell-bent on being a hardliner, you might just needlessly antagonise your group, and at the end of the day that's not worth it. You can play it down by constantly lamenting the corruption of cityfolk, and showing the others the wild beauty they're unwittingly destroying. You may even smite somebody with all you can dish out when the opportunity presents itself. But it'd be a boon for druids, too, if they're not perceived as a threat (even if a lot of them definitely are a threat).
That being said, I've played some of my most entertaining games when there was some (good-natured) bickering among the players, with one playing a foil to another. For example, I fondly remember my illiterate and rather simple-minded Warhammer mercenary, who I could play beautifully against both the ethereal, spellcasting elf and the verbose, fast-talking rogue (the player of which felt the same way about that interaction). So if you want to go for a blackclad, make it an entertaining curmudgeon if you must, but not a dour hate-monger.

[sjksprocket]

That's a good point there Morgan. Ill have to keep that in mind. My character might be looking to spy on the cities and it's people to find the best way to bring them down internally instead of siege them from the outside.