Nature's Role in Your Campaign

[Corathon]

Electric Wizard, I think that the view of people in your game might be close to actual Europeans' view of nature in the Middle Ages.

IMC, Nature is true neutral. It includes both the beauty and bounty of the earth, but also the danger and savagery of it. That's why druids (in 1E) are strictly neutral.

 

[nedjer]

Bumped in to this: genestealing plants

 

[Seraphine_Harmonium]

I generally dislike Random-Encounter Tables. The few times that I DO use them though, I make sure to make my own so that what they will encounter will make some kind of sense, and that the crazier things only happen a statistically very small amount of the time.

That said, my homebrew setting, which is very Celtic inspired, makes heavy use of fae, including new fae creatures. I also reclassify other kinds of monsters as "Fae" subtypes. Fae and nature can be pretty nasty when they want to be (or need to be).

 

[Gold Roger]

I'm fond of a clear nature-civilisation dividing line. For example, there are no gods of nature in my setting, every god is somehow tied to civilisation. They might have domains of nature, but that represents their effort to dominate and utilize that aspect of nature. Or their purpose to ward of or deal with that element of nature.

Nature is a scary place for the civilised people (like most PCs) and civilisation is confusing and just as scary for those of the wilderness.

Both have their dark and vile and a bright side. In the wild, cruel fey manifest, gnolls hold unholy rites of natures violent side and terrible beasts walk the ground, but there's also benevolent fey manifestations, places of serene beauty and unicorns. Civilisation has war, oppression, evil gods, the pollution of arcane magic and diabolists, as well as paladins, saints, wonderous cities and arcane marvels.

While the dividing line is clear, neither is a major threat to the other. Rather fiends, aberration, undead and the alien horrors of the underdark all destroying and corrupting both, those who stand for one or the other must often stand together.

Last, on druids. I see druidic magic more as the oldest form of magic that masters the world, rather than its worship. Sure, there are wild worshiping shamans and tree hugging hippies among the druids, but that is not their source of power. They gain their power by learning more and more words of the language of creation itself.

The most recognized force of druids in my settings are the Crownbearers, recognized by ancient pacts as the sovereigns of the wild. While they live and learn far away from civilisation, they are anything but savage. The crowns, tiaras and circlets they wear are as often crafted by the most skilled artisans as they are made of flowers, leaves and bone. They wear fine clothes and best armament. Each of them considers himself or herself at least equal to a prince and they travel the towns and courts to make sure everyone knows it.

 

[Seraphine_Harmonium]

Last, on druids. I see druidic magic more as the oldest form of magic that masters the world, rather than its worship. Sure, there are wild worshiping shamans and tree hugging hippies among the druids, but that is not their source of power. They gain their power by learning more and more words of the language of creation itself.

This is a bit closer to how I use Druids in my setting as well. I draw my druids more from how the Celts saw them: as the wise men who knew how to handle nature. They are the keepers of the rituals that got the gods and the forces of nature on their side. Or at least kept their fury at bay. They bring the rains that make the crops grow, and quiet the fierce winds. They know the mystical secrets of the magic of the natural world--if felling a particular kind of tree will enrage the gods, it is their job to ensure this does not happen, and if it does, they will know what rituals and offerings will appease them.