Druids are not Hippies!

[leporidae]

It seems to me that the complaint about globally-conscious environmental Druids is internally inconsistent. One the one hand these Druids are criticized for taking a 'too-modern' overall view of the environment, but they are also supposed to not be upset because overall, in a traditional campaign, civilization is small in relation to nature.

It seems to me that an actual druid would be more concerned about their own patch of forest, even if there was a continent of available wilderness, why would they necessarily be happy about civilized folk clearing and shaping the patch of forest that he considers it a sacred duty to defend? As to the concern for a wolf and not a goblin - would it be odd for a town's guard to be concerned for a resident of that town and not a goblin? The Druid is concerned about this proverbial wolf because that is his duty.

To my way of thinking Real-Life historical druids are a poor model for in-game Druids. Iron Age druids were priests of a settled, agriculturally based civilization. Better examples would be to look at the religious leaders of hunter-gatherer cultures (Pygmies, New Guinea Headhunters, Yanamoni), which are getting pretty scarce these days, and disappeared from Western Europe about a thousand years before the druids arrived.

The conflict between 'civilized' and 'wild' cultural groups is the opposite of unhistorical (and you can guess which side one by looking at those value-laden words). Just look at the story of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, or Jacob and Esau, or Cain and Abel - conflict between agricultural and traditional ways of life was familiar fodder for drama 3000 years ago.

 

[Reynard]

It seems to me that an actual druid would be more concerned about their own patch of forest, even if there was a continent of available wilderness, why would they necessarily be happy about civilized folk clearing and shaping the patch of forest that he considers it a sacred duty to defend? As to the concern for a wolf and not a goblin - would it be odd for a town's guard to be concerned for a resident of that town and not a goblin? The Druid is concerned about this proverbial wolf because that is his duty.

The Druid as defender of a place -- sacred site, village, unicorn's forest, whatever -- is a fine thing indeed (though it makes life a little tough if the party's adventures cover great distances). I am just saying that concern for the environment as a whole doesn't really wash with me. Conservationism isn't the same thing as defending territory or maintaining reasonable ecological practices to not destroy your own food supply. The druid that serves a community is likely concerned with the latter, which fits pretty well into the 'balance of nature' meme. But at the same time, the druid that is tasked with guarding the First Oak isn't going to get upset if someone overhunts the local deep population, except insofar as it affects his job. He might harry/kill the hunters that enter his wood, but likely because he doesn't want anyone discovering the location of the First Oak.

 

[sniffles]

Thanks, Joe--very cool post!

On the one hand, I agree that the "humans suck!" approach to druids does not have any societal precedent in the real world. Every culture out there has had a way to interact with nature, has altered nature.

<snip> On the other hand, in a world with factual and highly communicative Gods, it's not out of the question that nature gods want to protect and expand their own territory. Yes, the sentient races are a part of nature; however, the sentient races in D&D and the real world tend to alter their habitats more profoundly and more rapidly than the nonsentient critters do. A nature god who wants to protect her domain isn't going to like that rapid alteration, and may develop an antipathy toward humanoids. <snip>

Daniel

Excellent point! A druid's response may depend on which deity is his patron. If he serves a deity who's dedicated to preserving nature at the expense of civilization, then it would be reasonable for him to be antagonistic toward any beings who cut trees, kill game, etc. But if his deity is focused on finding a balance between preservation and wise usage, he'll try to show people how to replant trees, use every part of their kills, avoid erosion, and find a comfortable way to keep livestock without competing with wild game.

I also don't think a druid would automatically look on humanoids as "the enemy". It's the same attitude I see in the real world, exemplified by some militant environmental groups. Humans are part of nature too. We're animals, and we need food and shelter just like any other animal.
I often want to ask those really anti-human activists, if you're so opposed to everything humans do, why don't you just advocate mass suicide?

 

[leporidae]

Conservationism isn't... maintaining reasonable ecological practices to not destroy your own food supply.

Actually, I would consider that an accurate, if incomplete, definition of conservationism (i.e it would need to be extended to cover water/air/other necessary raw materials). Perhaps you mean deep ecology or Gaia theory instead of conservationism. Though both could be used as models for a in-game Druidic belief system, depending on the campaign.

Or, perhaps the problem is that either you or the player are mixing real life political beliefs into the game, which tends to lead to unhappiness. (Speaking as a tree-hugging hippie who games with Republicans.) Part of the responsibility of being GM is to keep the players trust that bad things won't happen to their characters because of out of game disagreements. I think you need to be more clear about what aspect of the character you disagree with, in regard to your campaign, while trying to be impartial as to your own beliefs about conservationism - then communicate that to the player.

BTW, is this really that widespread a cliche? Nearly all of the 3.* Druids I've seen have been played by power-seeking players who liked the abilities, and tended towards bad-assdom instead of peace 'n love.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Just a note, didn't have time to see if it was mentioned upthread.

The Wildscape sourcebook has a couple Druid variants that step farther down the path from the stereotype... even one that embraces Death as the eventual and desirous goal of all living beings!

 

[Reynard]

Or, perhaps the problem is that either you or the player are mixing real life political beliefs into the game, which tends to lead to unhappiness. (Speaking as a tree-hugging hippie who games with Republicans.) Part of the responsibility of being GM is to keep the players trust that bad things won't happen to their characters because of out of game disagreements. I think you need to be more clear about what aspect of the character you disagree with, in regard to your campaign, while trying to be impartial as to your own beliefs about conservationism - then communicate that to the player.

Actually, there is no disagreement or issue with the player. he can play however he wishes. I don't mind. I just detest the concept in general, and needed to rant.

That is all.

 

[DonTadow]

Actually, there is no disagreement or issue with the player. he can play however he wishes. I don't mind. I just detest the concept in general, and needed to rant.

That is all.

I agree that anyone should play any type of character anywya they wish. However, you assertion that conservation is a "new idea" is historically inaccurate. As far back as bc areas rich in vegitation and soil were decreed wholy grounds in some european and african villages. There were even holy orders by churches and priests appointed to tending to the land.

So if youre using D and D as fantasy medievil, you're well within the realm of history to have people whom live among the forest tending to it. As a matter of fact, the modern day take on druids that you suggest is more modern an assumption of druids than historical references.

 

[Ed Cha]

Druids can actually be quite cruel. I don't know if anyone has already mentioned how they used to burn people in giant burning wicker men, but they did (though some debate this).

http://gate.cia.edu/cbergengren/arthistory/celtic/small/image49sm.jpg

I can't imagine how they stuffed all those people in there, however.

 

[fusangite]

Sorry to join the thread so late but I am 100% on board with Reynard here. Because I go for campaigns that are, in not historically believable, at least anthropologically believable, I have a real problem with the way the core rules suggest that people play druids in a number of ways.

"Nature" comes from the Latin word natura which means everything or the rules by which everything operates; it is a synonym of the ancient Greek word physis from which he get "physics." Until sometime between the 13th and 16th century, nature was a concept inclusive of everything including God. But, partly due to Aquinas's decision to lock God outside the crystalline sphere containing the earth, partly due to Aquinas's idea that the world in the sublunar sphere operated by precise, predictable, quantifyable rules largely independent of influences from without and partly due to the re-emergence of Platonic thought in the Renaissance, people began to exclude God from nature.

From about the 15th century forward, the universe was split into two categories: God and his angels (fallen and otherwise) and the physical universe. Because human beings were ensouled and in some ways like God, we, and some things we did that invoked God, like transsubstantiation were, in part, super-natural. We began to function as the point of intersection between the natural world and the supernatural world.

Then, in the 18th century, with the rise of Enlightenment thought, we began to exclude God from our scheme, leading us to see ourselves as both natural and not. We live with the heritage of this completely incoherent, paradoxical and unstable vision of the universe to this day that allows us to somehow believe that things we do and make are not part of nature.

In my view, D&D druids, at their best, should hearken back to the world before the 13th century. In those times, gods, humans, buildings, trees, everything were part of nature because nature meant everything and the principles by which everything operated. So, first of all, I have a lot of trouble with the idea of druids not worshipping gods but somehow, instead, worshipping an impersonal force. This is bad history, bad anthropology, bad theology and bad mythology. Of course, many people like playing campy or modernist versions of RPGs where it is not important or, in fact, not even desirable to do those things well. I'm not saying that people doing that are having the wrong kind of fun; they are just having a different kind of fun than I like to have.

A good druid, for me, is going to be someone who won't distinguish between the altar in the middle of the sacred grove and the trees surrounding it in terms of value; not only will he not see one or the other as inferior; he won't make a category distinction between these things.

Similarly, like early forms of polytheism, as shown in Shinto folktales and North American indigenous cultures north of the Rio Grande, he won't make or perceive any clear conceptual distinction between different tribes of people and different species of animals. He will be just as inhibited about killing animals as people and will likely have a lot of trouble grasping why human sacrifice is a categorically bad thing. This, you may recall, is why the historical druids were suppressed by the Roman Empire -- they practiced human sacrifice.

In my view, the Wild Shape ability fits really well into this; he will not see a clear distinction between his Thousand Faces ability and his Wild Shape ability. Indeed, the way level progression works, it might lead him to conclude that he has greater affinity and similarity with a leopard than an elf.

I currently play a druid and I love doing it. But many people in my group seem surprised that I appear to be doing so little "role playing;" I never talk about my character's theology and seem indifferent to killing "natural" creatures. But, in fact, my character thinking such issues through would, in my view, make him less believable.

Finally, just to reinforce what Reynard says, druids should recognize individual places as specially favoured by the gods and treat them as such. Trees that appear to have faces, stones shaped like genitals -- it's those kinds of things that the druid should espcially care about. But this "balance of nature" thing is just modernist nonsense.

 

[fusangite]

I agree that anyone should play any type of character anywya they wish. However, you assertion that conservation is a "new idea" is historically inaccurate. As far back as bc areas rich in vegitation and soil were decreed wholy grounds in some european and african villages. There were even holy orders by churches and priests appointed to tending to the land.

Concepts like the "balance of nature," conservation and the like are modern ideas insofar they deploy the idea of nature as separate as a concept. But you are quite correct that conservation legislation goes back as far as the written record; people have always been conscious that they can damage their surroundings to the detriment of forage, hunting, air and water quality and agricultural production.

The point is that medieval and antique churches and states trying to prevent the befouling of a river, the salination of soil or the cutting of trees in sacred groves would not have placed these acts in a conceptually different category than cleaning out one's chamber pot or sweeping one's floor.

EDIT: What I'm trying to get at in my posts here is that what makes a druid work for me is the absence of the concept of "nature" from his belief system. Conservation is a fine concept for a druid to adopt, once it is divorced from post-Renaissance ideas of nature.