Environmentalism in D&D

VirgilCaine said:
NE druids are the "archetypal" enviroterrorist, squish-the-loggers-with-trees-and-collapse-the-mines-on-the-dwarves types.

I suddenly got this cool picture of an NE druid serial killer, who's extending nature's rules to the city, and hunting humans in their own nest.

Brad
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I usually think of 'Nature' as the various spirits inhabiting plants, stones, etc. They are both part and apart from the various gods, are generally older than the gods. Because of this, most of the Gods are creatures of things either apart from nature or 'metanatural' concepts: smithing, war, healing, etc. There are 'Gods' of the forest, animals, etc, but they are actually a type of entitiy apart from them. To many humans it makes little difference.

Druids serve the force of nature in three ways; NG, NE, and TN/LN/CN. The NG druids are kind of like the 'forest witch' archetype: patient, kind, healers that use various natural herbs and such. The NE druid uses those same means to bring as much harm and hurt into the world as he can. The Neutral ones are the scary ones, the ones that have far more equitable connections to the world of plants and animals and elementals as well as to the human world. They're the ones making the huge overarching decisions on how much forest to allow humans to cut, how much deer to allow them to take, etc.

Normally none of them are going to go into 'ecoterrorist mode' unless something is not done about a particular inbalance. They don't have problems with dwarves createing mines as long as the poisonous byproducts of that are not dumped into the local river, which would wash all that downstream and start killing trees, making frogs with five heads and stuff like that. They don't have problems with humans going into the woods or even cutting roads through it as long as it's done in a respectful manner, doesn't harm rare stands of plants (ask them first, and they'll simply move the plants, or ask the plants to do it themselves), etc. They don't have a problem with agriculture as long as certain practices are followed (and they have no problem telling people what those practices are); land that yeilds good bounty makes it less likely that the farmers will want to cut more forest to get more farmland.

They have no real problem with civilization as long as they can make people understand that their actions have consequences. No, the lake does not have an infinite amount of fish in it; you can only take so much before affecting that balance. If you screw it up, then there's no fish for anyone at all. Ever again. You can only plant crop X so many times before the land you're planting it in needs rest, or needs to be planted with crop Y. Follow these precepts and this set of instructions and there will be enough for everyone.

Don't follow them at your peril. Sometimes a forest needs to be burned back before it can grow again.

If a wild boar starts making a nuisance of itself in the area, the druid will try to talk it into going elsewhere or find out why it is here. A bear coming down to raid human garbage will get the same talking to.
 

cignus_pfaccari said:
I suddenly got this cool picture of an NE druid serial killer, who's extending nature's rules to the city, and hunting humans in their own nest.

Brad


Thats sweet. Consider that idea stolen! :P
 

Kamikaze Midget said:
Druids. Rangers. Perhaps clerics of nature deities. To a lesser extent, Barbarians All of them gain at least a fraction of their power from "Nature."

But what does that mean? And how do they serve the source of their powers?

Mechanically nature is just another source of divine power that can be tapped by druids and rangers.

Nature couldn't care less about anything, it is not sentient. There is no true code of nature.

However the various organizations of the druids and ranger orders can view things differently coming up with diverse and contradictory codes and religious views that are strictly enforced or guide their whole life directions. Renegades still have power even if they eat meat, start forest fires, mine metals and try to destroy nature, their tools are simply nature based.

So there are druids who believe in true neutrality ala 1e, some who can't stand cities, some who live in cities, some who are court sorcerer types, some who bless crops, etc.
 

I tend to avoid environmentalism in D&D. I prefer druids to be either more along the lines of real druids or Merlinesque. I prefer rangers to be more like Strider or Robin Hood.
 

True. The "ecoterrorist" approach is alien to med-fan mindset, and thus anachronic (using that term loosely).
 

Gez, your theory of Telluric, Theurgic and Arcane Magic rocks. Consider it stolen.

As I see it, Druids can be many things. They can be the rural priest (as they tend to be in my Living Greyhawk region of Perrenland), they can be the weird guy in the woods, the forest witch or the barbaric mage.

My own druid is a blend, he aids the local communities with advice and protection, but goes into predator mode when they do the wrong thing. He's also a bit too wild for his own good, utterly in love with the hunt and the kill.

As I see it, most druids couldn't care about good or evil, so long as the world keeps functioning. However, undead, fiends and most abberations are going to incur their wrath, considering the deliberately destructive bent of most of these things.

Eberron, for the record, takes an interesting tact with Druids. The Gatekeeper order are dedicated to keeping the inhabitants of Xendrik (Plane of Madness) and Dal Quor (Plane of Dreams) out of the material, since thier presence damages the world. To say nothing of the fact that the Daelkyr are insane, utterly evil Cthuluesque (in mindset) horrors. They can turn abberations (most of them are creations of Xendrik's overlords, the Daelkyr) and have quite a martial bent. There's other orders as well, that I don't know as well.
 

Remove ads

Top