Druids are not Hippies!

[WayneLigon]

I don't doubt the possibility for this to occur, but I think the perception would be different. People would be much more likely to think something like "the gods are punishing us for our hubris" than to think "nature is fragile and precious, we must work to protect it from humanity". Not that I don't see any conservationists in such a world, but I think they're more likely to be crazy hermits than representatives of the guiding ideology of a powerful political or religious organization.

In our world, they would think that probably because they can't see the damage they are causing because it occurs in tiny bits over a very long period of time. But if they have magic and talk to nature spirits, it's likely that they will know what's happening and, more importantly, why.

 

[lukelightning]

"You spend the night in an inn? A building?!?!? You lose all your druid powers."

I've met at least one GM who says that anyone who plays a druid as anything but a violent eco-terrorist isn't playing the class right. o.o

 

[ssampier]

That's wicked cool, Henry. I've played in one Eberron game, it was fun, but not my cup 'o tea. If the rest of the sourcebook is set up like this, it's a must-buy.

I don't see a problem with a druid portrayed either way, because both are valid with fun to be had by all. In addition, I prefer some of the druidic sects in the Eberron Campaign; it's the first time I've seen a sourcebook devote attention to different druidic philosophies (though there's probably a d20 product out there I've missed):

The Ashbound: ...

The Children of Winter: ...

The Greenwardens:...

The Gatekeepers:...

 

[Slobber Monster]

In our world, they would think that probably because they can't see the damage they are causing because it occurs in tiny bits over a very long period of time. But if they have magic and talk to nature spirits, it's likely that they will know what's happening and, more importantly, why.

Just to be clear, we're getting into very setting specific territory here, so I'm talking more about why conservationist druids don't work in my world more than any general issue with the archetype.

Anyways, let's look at one of the the examples given before - creating the Sahara desert with over-grazing. A conservationist Druid might say "Your grazing is upsetting the balance of nature here. You must stop or face dire consequences". Whereas the pro-civilization Druid in my campaign would say "Our herders are going to destroy valuable grazing land if we keep doing it this way. We need to engineer a solution or our people will suffer". So the analysis and maybe even the solution are the same in both cases, but the attitude is completely different. As a matter of flavor in my campaign, I much prefer the latter.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

One of my friends basically played a druid to be an idiot and emulate this very concept. Went out of his way to stay out of inns, buildings, and even cities. It got old; my PC would've executed the poor bastard if the campaign had continued.

 

[WayneLigon]

One of my friends basically played a druid to be an idiot and emulate this very concept. Went out of his way to stay out of inns, buildings, and even cities. It got old; my PC would've executed the poor bastard if the campaign had continued.

See, now I would say he'd be playing a perfectly good druid unless he was intentionally shafting the party. He could still go into cities but would make comments all the time about what a bad idea it was to crowd so many people together. I'd think the 'not sleeping in buildings' thing would be great RPing. Sleeping on the roof, or sleeping in his wildshape out on the back porch, or just out in the stable with a bunch of dogs and a couple cats to keep him warm.

 

[sniffles]

I don't doubt the possibility for this to occur, but I think the perception would be different. People would be much more likely to think something like "the gods are punishing us for our hubris" than to think "nature is fragile and precious, we must work to protect it from humanity". Not that I don't see any conservationists in such a world, but I think they're more likely to be crazy hermits than representatives of the guiding ideology of a powerful political or religious organization.

While I don't agree with the "hippy tree-hugger" variety of druid and don't run them that way myself, I also don't agree that historically conservationism didn't exist, or that ancient peoples always attributed everything to the gods or supernatural forces. I think we tend to assume that ancient peoples were a lot more gullible and less intelligent than we are, and that's a fallacy of our modern attitudes. I suspect ancient peoples recognized that deforestation and erosion were bad things, but they didn't worry too much about it because there were relatively few of them and lots of land for them to expand into if they overused their current territory.

I could go on about how the druid class as designed ought to be called something else, since historically druids were apparently a priestly caste or organization, and most of the information we have about them is probably inaccurate since it was mostly written by Romans who'd never seen a druid. But I won't.

 

[Andor]

Or a more likely interpretation: that mankind is a disease upon nature's purity. A nature-god probably isn't thinking in terms of carbon emissions and waste disposal. He's probably just pissed that the humans are just there in general and not living like he demands.

Actually the big problem here is not that conservation is new, it's that the entire concept of man (And in DnD, by extension, all language using things) being somehow seperate from nature is, in it's entirety, a Monotheistic one. (Please don't turn this into a flame war.)

In world that is demonsterably polytheistic and contains multiple intelligent races, some of which have no manipulative didgets, in a class that can turn lichen into a class-leveled sophont, I have some trouble seeing this attitude as a valid construction.

 

[DMH]

On Easter Island it's believed that they killed themselves off by cutting down all the trees to help build the menhir? (the Giant Stone Faces).

Huh? There are still natives living there. There were no trees when the Europeans arrived and the population was small due to the loss of food resources (no boats=no fishings or trading), but there were and are people there.

That said, Cure Disease, produce water, control weather and plant growth could fix a host of problems that plagued medieval societies.

That is why I see them as the political power in many societies. What king is going to argue with a group of people that can wither crops and summon tornados?

What I don't like is the new alignments allowed. It was better when they had to be TN; all others provide a bias that doesn't exist in nature.

 

[Dark Jezter]

The "Pacifistic Vegan Tree-Hugger hippie" is right up there with the "Lawful Stupid Paladin" and "Dark, Brooding Antihero" on my list of most annoying D&D character archaetypes.