Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="leporidae" data-source="post: 2654671" data-attributes="member: 19624">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.</blockquote>