Druids are not Hippies!

[Nightfall]

Funny I thought you posted to keep the rest of us away. *is kidding*

 

[Felix]

Which matters not, I said everythign else for a reason.

Yeah, but there's an assumption in there...

Not if they are acting against each other. Goblins burn the forest and kill the animals. So, let the druid take them out and take out anything else that doesn't play nice with nature. Druids are not palaidns concerned with protecting all life, they are the protectors of nature.

So, like I said, nature doesn't play nice with nature. Nature "acts against" itself. Or there is no direction in which nature is working (except perhaps entropy... is nature chaotic?) so it's hard to work against it. (Unless nature works towards entropy, of course.)

Nature kills and eats nature.

Goblins also kill and eat nature.

What makes goblins (or humans, or whomever) not part of nature? They kill and eat "nature" better than other parts of nature? They're more efficient? They can protect themselves better?

They use tools?

I have a hard time seeing any society, but especially tribal societies, as anything but a part of nature.

So I have a hard time seeing why it should be so that druids would take up arms against them because they're "not playing nice with nature".

 

[Crothian]

What makes goblins (or humans, or whomever) not part of nature? They kill and eat "nature" better than other parts of nature? They're more efficient? They can protect themselves better?

Its all decided by the nature gods, the druid high council, the campaign setting, the DM...doesn't matter who makes the distinction or what the distinction is.

 

[jdrakeh]

Jut becaue it is not a historical sim doesn't mean modern sensibilities fit the milieu. I just don't think the faddish, politically correct kind of eco-love that makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside for recycling our newspapers fits in adventure fantasy. I mean, does the stereotypical 1980s Wall Street Shark have a place in a Star Trek federation game. (Someone is *so* going to answer 'yes'...)

Just because it's a fantasy game doesn't automatically preclude modern sensibilities from making an apperance, either (note that plenty of modern sensibilities exist in the rules by design - no gender bias, gold standard economy, etc). So I wonder... how is it that all of these other modern sensibilities 'fit the milieu' but the environmentally conscious druid doesn't? Could it be *gasp* purely a matter of personal taste?

[Edit: Note that I, myself, do not care for the Green Peace Druid, but am aware that it is no less appropriate for the D&D fantasy milieu than dozens of other modern viewpoints that appear therein.]

 

[Reynard]

So I wonder... how is it that all of these other modern sensibilities 'fit the milieu' but the environmentally conscious druid doesn't? Could it be *gasp* purely a matter of personal taste?

I'm glad, then, that I never suggested otherwise.

 

[Andor]

Its all decided by the nature gods, the druid high council, the campaign setting, the DM...doesn't matter who makes the distinction or what the distinction is.

Except insofar as the distinction, or lack of it makes the tree hugger hippie druid fit the campaign or not. Discussion of which is the point of this thread. Frankly I would consider humans being/not being a part of nature to be a pretty crucial bit of campiagn lore for anyone playing a druid.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

A druid take I'd like to see played is the anti-cleric. This type of druid believes that the only legitimate source of divine power comes from the natural power of nature itself. Clerics are an abomination because they draw divine power from other, non-natural sources.

Come to think of it, they would probably be anti-wizard and -sorcerer too ...

I personally have no problem with eco-terrorist hippie druids, in moderation. It's one of many ways to look at the class.

 

[Crothian]

Except insofar as the distinction, or lack of it makes the tree hugger hippie druid fit the campaign or not. Discussion of which is the point of this thread. Frankly I would consider humans being/not being a part of nature to be a pretty crucial bit of campiagn lore for anyone playing a druid.

The have the druids go after the humans, great plot point

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Caring about whether your people starve and therefore revolt does *not* make you an ecologically minded leadership, nor does knowing how things happen make your society similarly enlightened. Things things really don't have anything o do with one another, at least in the context of the eco-terrorist or tree-hugger druid.

Er, no, it was a reply to sniffles' comment that ancient societies understood ecological impacts (I agree) but generally didn't bother about mitigating them because there was so much good land elsewhere (which was true in some cases but not in other). And that in turn informs the discussion of what degree of ecology would be understood by a primitive society.

Salination was a long process, and there would be periodic famines regardless, so in terms of causing famine-induced revolts it would be a faint signal hidden amidst a good amount of noise.

 

[Kuld]

A druid take I'd like to see played is the anti-cleric. This type of druid believes that the only legitimate source of divine power comes from the natural power of nature itself. Clerics are an abomination because they draw divine power from other, non-natural sources.

Come to think of it, they would probably be anti-wizard and -sorcerer too ...

I personally have no problem with eco-terrorist hippie druids, in moderation. It's one of many ways to look at the class.

A druid I would like to see played would be the most predominate figure in religion; like they once were. They were the wisest and most learned individuals of their time. In fact there was little distinguishing a bard from a druid, and some speculate that they were one in the same.

A druid, I believe, should be one tough mama jama, even in an RPG.