Silly question: Is ice cave an important part of nature?

[Jon_Dahl]

I was thinking about making a druid that holds a certain ice cave as his sacred grove and is a sword protector of that site.

But are ice caves natural places?

Ex-Druids

A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).

So is protecting an (astonishingly beautiful) ice cave void of life a violation of ethos?

 

[Ahnehnois]

But are ice caves natural places?

Yes.

It seems like a valid choice to me, as long as the cave in question is relatively permanent. Druids protect "nature", which seems generally but not exclusively tto refer to living things. A druid living underground could revere natural stone formations. A druid living in the desert could revere sand dunes. So I don't see a problem with a druid treating a cave as his "grove".

 

[kitcik]

I went to an ice cave in the Adirondacks as a child and it was amazing. Definitely a feature of nature well worth preserving.

 

[Empirate]

Ever since seeing the "Eisriesenwelt" (literal translation something like "giant ice world"), which is a huge ice cave in Austria, I can't but think that ice is an element to itself (not a stupid para-element or whatever D&D makes it). Ice caves are beautiful, and need not be totally devoid of life, either. One cave I saw on TV used to have mountain goats and whatnot coming in to lick at the salty ice formations - just put in context with the ecosystem surrounding it.

 

[frankthedm]

Why would it need to be devoid of natural life? Natural for a D&D world does not mean only animal subtype and non animate plants.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Big problem: They're normally not anything like permanent.

 

[PureGoldx58]

Big problem: They're normally not anything like permanent.

Neither is anything in context of nature.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Neither is anything in context of nature.

But most things a druid would regard as sacred will be basically permanent on the timescale of his lifespan. An ice cave won't.

 

[Umbran]

But most things a druid would regard as sacred will be basically permanent on the timescale of his lifespan.

Why? Nature isn't static. Nature is in constant change - tides ebb and flow, seasons come and go, living things are born, mature, age, and die. Why should a sacred place need to be permanent?

 

[Ahnehnois]

But most things a druid would regard as sacred will be basically permanent on the timescale of his lifespan. An ice cave won't.

I don't think that's true. Druids have animal companions, but what are the lifespans of those animals, even with excellent care? A lifelong druid will probably go through several companions the same way a regular person goes through cats or dogs. Humans are some of the longest-living animals.

Beyond that, there's plenty of change in nonanimal natural features. Plants grow and die. Fungi often grow on decomposing things and then die. And imagine what the philosophy of a druid who lives on the coast is, where tides completely change the landscape twice a day (or however often it is in the campaign setting).