Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7839748" data-attributes="member: 996">It terms of the threat they pose to his tribe/people/culture.&nbsp; The issue I have with the tree-hugger stereotype of the Druid is that it's wildly anachronistic, even for D&amp;D, and doesn't accord the forces the Druid mediates with the proper respect.&nbsp; I mean, it's one thing to have a rapier in a supposedly medieval setting, but conservationism didn't even get rolling until mid/late 19th century, when industrialization was in full swing.&nbsp; Outside of a setting like Eberron, completely out of place.The Druid or other nature-oriented class wouldn't see rampaging orcs or an expansionist city-state as a threat to Nature, because Nature is this vast, spiritual/divine/animistic power far beyond mortal ken that could crush them.&nbsp; He propitiates, seeks to understand, and in times of need calls upon that power - in a more granular emulation of the sources of inspiration, probably not without risk.&nbsp; It's the idea that &quot;Nature&quot; is the delicate thing that all-powerful/all-knowing mankind must restrain itself to avoid damaging, or take a custodial role in.&nbsp; That's completely at odds with the view point of a tribal or animistic or polytheistic iron-age society, let alone a nature-Priest with those same roots.&nbsp; As usual in D&amp;D, the exception is those darn wizards.&nbsp; If some mad wizard is bringing down another rain of colorless fire or invents defilement and starts rendering every living thing in range to dust for mana, yeah, nature's gonna need some protecting - but, really, so is everyone/thing else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7839748, member: 996"] It terms of the threat they pose to his tribe/people/culture. The issue I have with the tree-hugger stereotype of the Druid is that it's wildly anachronistic, even for D&D, and doesn't accord the forces the Druid mediates with the proper respect. I mean, it's one thing to have a rapier in a supposedly medieval setting, but conservationism didn't even get rolling until mid/late 19th century, when industrialization was in full swing. Outside of a setting like Eberron, completely out of place. The Druid or other nature-oriented class wouldn't see rampaging orcs or an expansionist city-state as a threat to Nature, because Nature is this vast, spiritual/divine/animistic power far beyond mortal ken that could crush them. He propitiates, seeks to understand, and in times of need calls upon that power - in a more granular emulation of the sources of inspiration, probably not without risk. It's the idea that "Nature" is the delicate thing that all-powerful/all-knowing mankind must restrain itself to avoid damaging, or take a custodial role in. That's completely at odds with the view point of a tribal or animistic or polytheistic iron-age society, let alone a nature-Priest with those same roots. As usual in D&D, the exception is those darn wizards. If some mad wizard is bringing down another rain of colorless fire or invents defilement and starts rendering every living thing in range to dust for mana, yeah, nature's gonna need some protecting - but, really, so is everyone/thing else. [/QUOTE]

Verification