Druids are not Hippies!

[Reynard]

Really, this comes down to what a druid is (aside from a wildhsaping, animal summoning combat god), which then reaches into setting as much as it does mechanics and D&D-isms. I like to use the druid to represent the priests of the barbarian/savage/uncivilized peoples (regardless of race), not necessarily as specifically nature priests. For nature priests, you have clerics that have access to the Animal and Plant domains, that do the bidding of their dieties -- which might ver well, depending on the deity, include admonishing villagers for overusing resources, or burning said villages to the ground. Even then it isn't so much an issue of conservationism as it is committing to the will of your deity. Since druids need gods even less than clerics, though, I tend to see them as priestly on in the sense that they might impart wisdom and structure on their community. It is a blurry distinction in the real owrld, but in a world where gods walk, it is a very definite one.

 

[Rackhir]

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.

My error. They just had a population crash.

 

[jgbrowning]

Well, that's neither here nor there. My big problem with it is that the idea of conservation and preservation is about 6 minutes old in the real world and while I don't suually have a problem with modern viewpoints invading my fantasy games (I mean -- watch HBO's Rome and tell me you'd want your PCs acting that way with LG alignments), this one is just *so* obviously modern that it gets under my skin. Especially since a Druid is essentially a Nature Wizard who is as likely to bend it to his will as he is to serve it.

There were conservation inititives in the Middle Ages once they realized that they really needed wood and they were cutting down a aweful lot of it. And when you consider their transportation networks, getting wood from other places was a lot more hassle/expense than simply making sure wood was more available locally.

Here's a good read: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jouhs/hilary2004/wilsond01.pdf

Multi-Use Management of the Medieval Anglo-Norman Forest.

joe b.

 

[antman120]

Hummers pollute the air. A druid should drive a hybrid.

 

[WayneLigon]

The "Pacifistic Vegan Tree-Hugger hippie"

Not to bag on the vegans that might be here, but I would think vegan makes no sense in most magical worlds; the whole reason vegans exist is that we here on Earth assume that plants have no mind or spirit to offend and that there is no form of cruelty involved in harvesting a plant. In a fantasy world where Speak with Plants is a valid spell, I think such an idea would only come up in a society that had a large, ignorant urban population that didn't use magic or interact much with spellcasters.

I think, personally, a druid would be offended by either concept. The pacifist because nature is anything but passive; passive = food. The vegan, because it's an attempt to deny the basic nature of the creature (assuming that we're talking about an omnivore). They'd feel the same about an Atkins dieter as well. There wouldn't be a shunning or anything, but they'd clearly be put off by it.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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.

Beyond Mesopotamia, there wasn't a lot of fertile land in which to expand (unless you wanted to invade Egypt), and the people between the rivers were quite aware of the effects of soil salination. So, there were policies to deal with it in most kingdoms -- mandating crop rotation and leaving fields fallow one year out of three IIRC.

However, when the authorities needed more tax revenue (war, new palace, really hot princess to impress, etc.), they'd waive that one-year-in-three rule. Over time, the rule was waived more and more, and eventually there weren't enough fallow periods to preserve the soil. Population crash ensued, so the late kingdoms (1st Milennium BC) had populations less than half that of the middle kingdoms.

 

[jdrakeh]

You're right - they're unstoppable killing machines! Ahh... I have fond memories of Ginsu, The 3.0 Druid (an actual character played by a friend of mine).

[Addendum: Incidentally, does complaining about modern sensibilities being imposed upon on a non-historical game strike anybody esle as odd?]

 

[Mercule]

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.

The ECS is definitely worth buying, even if you aren't planning on running an Eberron game.

 

[Drowbane]

bump

 

[ecliptic]

Don't forget the druids that see humans and their mental and technological evolution as part of the natural world.

I think handing out philosophies of druids based soley on their alignment is kind of goofy.
For example a Lawful Neutral druid may think exactly like my example above. Hey may think that nature can protect itself and who is to say that nature does not deem fit the evolution of the intelligent creatures. They are of the natural world and their intelligence is not unnatural. Not every druid will think the same based on his alignment.

Not to bag on the vegans that might be here, but I would think vegan makes no sense in most magical worlds; the whole reason vegans exist is that we here on Earth assume that plants have no mind or spirit to offend and that there is no form of cruelty involved in harvesting a plant. In a fantasy world where Speak with Plants is a valid spell, I think such an idea would only come up in a society that had a large, ignorant urban population that didn't use magic or interact much with spellcasters.

I think, personally, a druid would be offended by either concept. The pacifist because nature is anything but passive; passive = food. The vegan, because it's an attempt to deny the basic nature of the creature (assuming that we're talking about an omnivore). They'd feel the same about an Atkins dieter as well. There wouldn't be a shunning or anything, but they'd clearly be put off by it.

Atkins diet isn't a carnivore diet. As a low carb dieter I guarantee I eat more vegetables than your average person.