# Druids are not Hippies!



## Reynard (Oct 12, 2005)

A druid isn't a tree loving bunny hugger whose sole purpose is to protect the forest from dastardly loggers and trappers.  A druid is someone who channels the divine power of nature, thorns, preadotrs and earthquakes inclusive.  A druid doesn't care if the local village cuts down trees to build homes.  He doesn't care if they hunt deer or try and elimate predators attacking the local flocks.  in fact, he is as likely to aid in either nedeavor as not.  he is an enigmatic, powerful figure who *knows* that Nature is the only unstoppable force in all Creation, and he wields it.  He may do so to protect his clan or to offer his wisdom to a boy king, or he may do so to rule a savage land and command armies of maruading plant-people.  He is a keeper of both power and knowledge, and a force unto a hurricane.

No modern attitude injected into D&D irks me more that the eco-friendly, tree hugging hippie Druid.

/rant


----------



## Rackhir (Oct 12, 2005)

That's all well and good and a valid take on things, but there no reason a Druid can't be a hippy Tree hugger. Do you just simply dislike hippy tree hugger types?


----------



## Odhanan (Oct 12, 2005)

It looks like Rackhir said, indeed.

And I agree: I prefer the enigmatic Druid to the tree hugger myself, but that's just a question of tastes. You can play both and more with the 3.X druid.


----------



## Greatwyrm (Oct 12, 2005)

You're welcome to play any kind of Druid you like.  If someone else wants to play a hippie or an avenger of nature, what's the big deal?


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (Oct 12, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> No modern attitude injected into D&D irks me more that the eco-friendly, tree hugging hippie Druid.
> 
> /rant




To quote Cartman:  "Hippie"

Hippie, Hippie, Hippie.

D&D Druids are only loosely based on the old Druidic legends of Europe.  A more modern spin is fine.

While I don't do druids as Tree Hugging Hippies.

I have most of my trees as Steel-Pine Evergreens, thus lessening any hugging that might go on. (Dryad infected trees aside).

Isn't Greenpeace Hippie a Druid Prestige Class anyhow?  One that requires a lot of ranks in Knowledge ('herbalism').

Hippie!


----------



## Reynard (Oct 12, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> That's all well and good and a valid take on things, but there no reason a Druid can't be a hippy Tree hugger. Do you just simply dislike hippy tree hugger types?




Well, that's neither here nor there.  My big problem with it is that the idea of conservation and preservation is about 6 minutes old in the real world and while I don't suually have a problem with modern viewpoints invading my fantasy games (I mean -- watch HBO's Rome and tell me you'd want your PCs acting that way with LG alignments), this one is just *so* obviously modern that it gets under my skin.  Especially since a Druid is essentially a Nature Wizard who is as likely to bend it to his will as he is to serve it.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 12, 2005)

Another thing to consider is which treatment of the druid (enigmatic nature wizard or tree hugger) is more cliche among gamers these days. I've tended to see the latter far more often and even though I consider myself greener than most Americans, I'm pretty tired of it. 

The enigmatic-type druid is far more refreshing and fun for my gaming tastes.


----------



## Aaron L (Oct 12, 2005)

I see so many dope smoking hemp wearing eco hippy druids that it makes me want to puke everytime it happens, which it inevitably does over and over.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 12, 2005)

I thought it was well-established that Druids are from Druidia, even though they may not look Druish....


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 12, 2005)

Hippie Druid: Neutral good.
Circle of Elders Druid: Lawful Neutral.
Runs with the Wolves Druid: Chaotic Neutral.
Red-in-tooth-and-claw Druid: Neutral evil.


----------



## Psion (Oct 12, 2005)

Nice rant. I agree.

I think it may be going a little far (especially for PC druids in a party regularly engaged in protecting human settlements) to have druids react to every tree cut as if they were defending the forest from a massive modern scale deforestation.

It would be appropriate, IMO, to have a druid be particularly sensitive to impinging upon sacred locations, etc.


----------



## demonpunk (Oct 12, 2005)

*re*

I also hate the environmentalist tree-hugger type druid stereotype.  I myself am an environmentalist tree hugger, but it bugs me when I see druids played this way.  Characters who will kill a dozen goblins, then lament the killing of one wolf.  Its just a little silly.


----------



## William Ronald (Oct 12, 2005)

I tend to see druids more in their Celtic archetype.  As such, they can channel the forces of nature, but are connected to various deities.  It is possible for a druid to care about preservation of the land, if that is a concern of his or her deity.  However, he is also concerned with the welfare of his people.  Thus hunting is allowed, as is farming. 

Mind you, I think most druids of Celtic deities would oppose destroying a forest just for the sake of destroying a forest.  (Indeed, the gods might not like that and the varous forest spirits might not like it as well.  A wise druid would respect their counsel and might advise not chopping down an entire forest.  Perhaps interaction with nature spirits might explain why a druid would preserve a forest -- out of respect for his allies.) So, I believe that respect for nature can be a part of a druid's approach to life.  However, it need not be a druid's sole concern.  Druids can be leaders in their society, and possibly quite political.  Historically, druids were often teachers -- in Ireland and elsewhere.  Indeed, even after the Roman conquest of Gaul, a few Roman families hired Gaulish teachers in rhetoric.

There can and should be different ways to portray a druid.  So, perhaps different approaches for druids can add some spice to this character class.  (I don't have a problem with wanting to preserve the environment.  However, I think that we can try to think of different ways to portray classes, races, and creatures.)


----------



## Rackhir (Oct 12, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Well, that's neither here nor there.  My big problem with it is that the idea of conservation and preservation is about 6 minutes old in the real world and while I don't suually have a problem with modern viewpoints invading my fantasy games (I mean -- watch HBO's Rome and tell me you'd want your PCs acting that way with LG alignments), this one is just *so* obviously modern that it gets under my skin.  Especially since a Druid is essentially a Nature Wizard who is as likely to bend it to his will as he is to serve it.




Nature conservation has come about because we have the power now to damage and destroy the natural enviroment, to the point at which we can't survive in it. I have no problem envisioning a similar situation and attitude arising in a magically powered society. The old D&D setting Dark Sun, had magic basically being powered by drawing life from the natural enviroment. So you had casters separated into two groups Wasters (?) who drew on the life force reducing places to deserts and Preservers who tried to minimize or avoid damage to the enviroment from casting spells. 

The tree hugging druid is only "6 Minutes Old" if you play them that way. Bad roleplaying and characterization are that however you go about justifying them.


----------



## Grover Cleaveland (Oct 12, 2005)

Of _course_ druids aren't hippies. Hippies are far too modern a concept.

Druids are beatniks!

(Some are flappers).


----------



## Crothian (Oct 12, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Well, that's neither here nor there.  My big problem with it is that the idea of conservation and preservation is about 6 minutes old in the real world and while I don't suually have a problem with modern viewpoints invading my fantasy games .




You have a point if you are playing a game set in 1210, but if it is in a fantasy realm there is no reason that conservation could not have come up especially by gods of the wilderness.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 12, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> ...Especially since a Druid is essentially a Nature Wizard...




Is Druidic magic Arcane now rather than Divine?


----------



## William Ronald (Oct 12, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Nature conservation has come about because we have the power now to damage and destroy the natural enviroment, to the point at which we can't survive in it. I have no problem envisioning a similar situation and attitude arising in a magically powered society. The old D&D setting Dark Sun, had magic basically being powered by drawing life from the natural enviroment. So you had casters separated into two groups Wasters (?) who drew on the life force reducing places to deserts and Preservers who tried to minimize or avoid damage to the enviroment from casting spells.
> 
> The tree hugging druid is only "6 Minutes Old" if you play them that way. Bad roleplaying and characterization are that however you go about justifying them.




The Defilers on Athas did cause great devastation to the natural environment.  So, I think that there can be a legitimate focus on preserving the environment by a druid character -- but that character may well have multiple motivations.  I agree that bad roleplaying and characterization can be a problem, as sometimes people play stereotypes.  Archtypes are one thing, but stereotypes are quite another.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Oct 12, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> You have a point if you are playing a game set in 1210, but if it is in a fantasy realm there is no reason that conservation could not have come up especially by gods of the wilderness.




Or a more likely interpretation: that mankind is a disease upon nature's purity.  A nature-god probably isn't thinking in terms of carbon emissions and waste disposal.  He's probably just pissed that the humans are just there in general and not living like he demands.


----------



## antman120 (Oct 12, 2005)

Ax long as the player handles thier charecter well, this type of druid can be fun. Maybe you could have a druid that has scitsophrenia (i probably misspelled that) that changes from tree-hugger to bad dude that uses nature only as a weapon.


----------



## Funeris (Oct 12, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Nature conservation has come about because we have the power now to damage and destroy the natural enviroment, to the point at which we can't survive in it. I have no problem envisioning a similar situation and attitude arising in a magically powered society. The old D&D setting Dark Sun, had magic basically being powered by drawing life from the natural enviroment. So you had casters separated into two groups Wasters (?) who drew on the life force reducing places to deserts and Preservers who tried to minimize or avoid damage to the enviroment from casting spells.
> 
> The tree hugging druid is only "6 Minutes Old" if you play them that way. Bad roleplaying and characterization are that however you go about justifying them.




Damn skippy.

If a druid is concerned with every life, every plant, every animal...than she should show concern over the welfare of any goblin as well.  To not do so, qualifies as bad roleplaying and characterization. 

Hippie druids are fine.  Enigmatic druids are also fine.  Megalomaniacal druids are also quite acceptable.  Druids can wear any shade of personality, just as can a modern individual.

As long as the character is portrayed properly, all options are valid *and* desired.  Variety is the spice of life, after all.  If however the character falls into the trap of hypocricy, that may be more a fault of the player than the class or the stereotypical hippie druid.

Perhaps your problem doesn't lie with the idea of the hippie druid but the people you've seen or encountered playing said archetype?

~Fune


----------



## Crothian (Oct 12, 2005)

Funeris said:
			
		

> If a druid is concerned with every life, every plant, every animal...than she should show concern over the welfare of any goblin as well.  To not do so, qualifies as bad roleplaying and characterization.




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.


----------



## Henry (Oct 12, 2005)

I don't see a problem with a druid portrayed either way, because both are valid with fun to be had by all. In addition, I prefer some of the druidic sects in the Eberron Campaign; it's the first time I've seen a sourcebook devote attention to different druidic philosophies (though there's probably a d20 product out there I've missed):

The Ashbound: These are a more fantasy-ized "Hippy" druid than the stereotype. They consider any settlements larger than small communes to be an affront to the world, and their methods range from gently trying to educate civilized groups, to full-scale eco-terrorism.

The Children of Winter: These guys and gals see the current world as a "corrupt veil", with a glorious rebirth of nature just around the corner once this current world dies out. Their goal is to help it along a bit, and make it come early by exposing this world to rot and ruination as quickly as possible.

The Greenwardens:They are typical D&D druids, who try to help civilization and nature strike a balance. They're out there teaching people the proper way to gather firewood, how to rotate crops, relocating or killing large predators, etc. etc.

The Gatekeepers: These guys are concerned with aberrations and demons that plague the natural world. If it's an aberration, it's gotta go. Humans are natural, too, but a beholder is definitely not one of the gods' creatrues. 

These give a whole new light to the eternal struggle of "how Green is my Druid?"


----------



## Funeris (Oct 12, 2005)

Well, I suppose we have to now break the hippie druid up into different archetypal camps.

"The Anti-violence hippie druid" - Would not confront the Goblins physically at first.  Would confront the Goblins diplomatically first...and barring suitable negotiations would ask for outside help....direct a party of lawful humanoids toward the rapists/murderers/maimers of humans/animals etc.  After all, Goblins are living creatures, a part of nature...and even they have a right to life.

"The Protector of the Green hippie druid" - Sees humanity (and humanoid) life as a plague.  Strike first, ask questions never.  For the greater good (nature's protection), all threats must be dealt with quickly.  This would be your extremist.

"Middle-of-the-Road hippie druid" - Seeks a diplomatic solution if possible, if not lays down the smack.

If you're going to run goblins as always aligned evilly (and I do not) then I would agree with your assessment that the goblins need to be smacked down.

But if you're playing the stereotypical "dope smoking, bunny loving, tree hugging hippie" that respects all life...well Goblins are a form of life and more importantly an aspect of nature.  They may represent the "evil" (at least in western philosophy's view) aspect of existence...such as death and destruction, but these are necessary evils...destruction and death opens the way for new creation and new life.  Hippie druids would know this.

But then I'm an ambiguous-alignment type of guy.

~Fune


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (Oct 12, 2005)

Just to watch the DM turn an new shade of purple....

I've been tempted to build a druid and use his wildshape to turn into a hippopotamus.

That way when I get the munchies from my 'Herbal Relaxatives'.

I'm a "Hungry Hungry Hippie Hippo".

I'll even use dye to paint myself red & eat little white rice balls all day.

Figure the character will die from lightning bolt from the sky.


----------



## heirodule (Oct 12, 2005)

Vraille Darkfang said:
			
		

> (Dryad infected trees aside).




While this was an aside, the idea of dryads as an infection that trees can aquire is very intriguing.

Yoink!


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 12, 2005)

Getting pretty sick and tired of hearing the same old 'modern idea' chestnut being trotted out once again. Who cares if it's a somewhat mix of modern ideas? In our world, we didn't have magic, and we didn't have things like Divine personifications of the Green coming to people and _telling _ them 'It hurts when you do this, and here's how you can make it better for the both of us'. The reason we in this world didn't do it earlier was that we were _ignorant _ of such things; we didn't have nature priests that could cast a spell and _find out _ what the local ecosystem/spirits wanted to do. 

The general take on Druids I use is this:

*NG:* They serve Nature. Man is a part of nature, as are his crops and fields. They actually work _with _ farmers and orchard growers to make sure they use proper techniques that don't erode the soil unduly and show them how to safely deal with large amounts of concentrated animal waste. They bless the crops and animals, making sure they are healthy and strong. (This also puts them in good graces with the farmers; the farmers are more likely to listen to someone who ups the weight on his cattle, and do the extra work that the druid wants to see done). 

They don't much like cities. Cities produce too much waste for the local ecosystem to absorb. They try to deal with it, by encouraging the city elders to spring for some means of dealing with the waste. 

They try to curb roads being built where none are needed, and try to restrict building where it isn't needed. They try to make sure wildfires don't go out of control (since some fire is good for a forest), that too many of one type of animal doesn't dominate, etc; they are like a hand on the brakes, making sure everything rolls along at a smooth pace. 

*TN:* _These _ are the guys you have to watch out for. These druids don't much like intelligent creatures at all, at least the tool-using ones that shape nature to their desires rather than being shaped by it, and even the humans among them don't have a very human mindset. They are much more likely not to be human or humanoid themselves. They view any creature that tries to 'tame' nature with a distant disdain; they dislike humans and goblins alike. Elves they can deal with, since elves always take great care to built unobtrusive structures that blend in with nature, and show great reverence for it. Elves limiit their own numbers and don't multiply all out of control like the younger races. Halflings, too, they can usually get along with, as halflings move around a lot and take care not to leave a permanent mark on the area. But the elves and halflings still respect and fear them, because these druids aren't _anyone's _ friend in much the same way that a thunderstorm or pit viper isn't anyones friend but can be dealt with if you are knowledgeable and lucky and willing to respect it.

They liked human better when they were cave dwelling hunter-gatherers and most TN druids want to see people not go past that stage. Farmers and folk near a druidic wood half-appreciate and half-fear the druids. They gather only fallen wood for fires, or do without; they farm in patches, rather than in furrows; they keep only a few animals, and those roam as they wish. Any meat they get, they have to hunt rather than raise. If they become too numerous, they send people away because they know if they do not, that a druid elder will come and cull the village down to a manageable size, like you do with any herd. These are your bloody-megalith-by-moonlight types. Hippies with huge scythes and savage wolverine companions.

I haven't worked out a great deal on evil druids. I usually see them as cut off from the divine power of nature itself and having turned to an evil forest-aspected spirit or minor god, or a spirit of disease and blight that is nature denied, or nature corrupted. There are not a lot of these at all, and they are hunted like dogs by both other druidic factions.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Oct 12, 2005)

Vraille Darkfang said:
			
		

> Figure the character will die from lightning bolt from the sky.



Worth it.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Oct 12, 2005)

Grover Cleaveland said:
			
		

> Of _course_ druids aren't hippies. Hippies are far too modern a concept.
> 
> Druids are beatniks!
> 
> (Some are flappers).




_"Babyface Nelson, perforate him!"_

_*Babyface opens up with the BAR*_


Personally, I'm sick of it too. Good to see I'm not alone.

Personally:
NG: Humanocentric druid--don't chop all the trees down, idiot, it takes decades for them to grow back. 
TN: Don't chop so many trees down, or else...
LN: It is not my place to question the judgement of nature.
CN: So what? The moon is pretty.
NE: Die evil loggers!




> They try to curb roads being built where none are needed, and try to restrict building where it isn't needed.




How is this even going to happen very often without the labor-saving technologies of today? 
If it takes lots of sweat and toil and such to move rock and timber and such to build roads and buildings, wouldn't everything built be needed (or at least planned for it to be used)?


----------



## Kesh (Oct 12, 2005)

I've met at least one GM who says that anyone who plays a druid as anything but a violent eco-terrorist isn't playing the class right. o.o


----------



## Grover Cleaveland (Oct 12, 2005)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> _"Babyface Nelson, perforate him!"_
> 
> _*Babyface opens up with the BAR*_




Heh. Yeah! 

Druids are _gangstas_.


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (Oct 12, 2005)

heirodule said:
			
		

> While this was an aside, the idea of dryads as an infection that trees can aquire is very intriguing.
> 
> Yoink!




Treant STD.


----------



## Slobber Monster (Oct 12, 2005)

I haven't really gotten around to addressing the role of Druids in my own campaign world yet, but it is something that's been bugging me. The problem I have is the "tree hugging hippy conservationist" archetype doesn't really make sense to me in a world where civilization is just a tiny blip in the midst of savagery and untamed wilderness. Conservation makes sense to modern sensibilites because there is so little nature left. In a world with a more medieval or ancient ratio of man to nature the effort to conserve would hardly seem worthwhile with so much left unexplored and untamed. In fact, more effort must be spent the other way - to protect civilization from nature.

I guess writing the above helped me think through the issue - in my campaign world the typical Druid will use their mastery of nature to _hold it back_ and keep it from destroying civilization.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 12, 2005)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> How is this even going to happen very often without the labor-saving technologies of today?
> If it takes lots of sweat and toil and such to move rock and timber and such to build roads and buildings, wouldn't everything built be needed (or at least planned for it to be used)?




For things like some rich baron deciding he needs a hunting lodge with a 100-foot clearance in the middle of the The Dark Wood just because he wants a convenient place to hunt from. Hacking a road from the side of a mountain because silver has been discovered in those hills and someone wants to get rich. Draining a swamp because it's inconveniently in the way. 

Things like that.


----------



## Rackhir (Oct 12, 2005)

Slobber Monster said:
			
		

> I haven't really gotten around to addressing the role of Druids in my own campaign world yet, but it is something that's been bugging me. The problem I have is the "tree hugging hippy conservationist" archetype doesn't really make sense to me in a world where civilization is just a tiny blip in the midst of savagery and untamed wilderness. Conservation makes sense to modern sensibilites because there is so little nature left. In a world with a more medieval or ancient ratio of man to nature the effort to conserve would hardly seem worthwhile with so much left unexplored and untamed. In fact, more effort must be spent the other way - to protect civilization from nature.
> 
> I guess writing the above helped me think through the issue - in my campaign world the typical Druid will use their mastery of nature to _hold it back_ and keep it from destroying civilization.




Don't underestimate the ability of even primative civilizations to damage or destroy the enviroment. There is strong evidence that the Sahara has been created by milenia of grazing by goats. On Easter Island it's believed that they killed themselves off by cutting down all the trees to help build the menhir? (the Giant Stone Faces).

That said, Cure Disease, produce water, control weather and plant growth could fix a host of problems that plagued medieval societies.


----------



## DM_Matt (Oct 12, 2005)

I prefer the channeler/enigmatic or the human0friendly-nature-magiscientist for PCs, and th eformer for the morally ambiguous, but the hippie druids make the best villains.  Extreme environmentalist thought includes the proposition that humans are a plague upon the world whose dominence over other species must be rolled back.  Now if someone is so committed to that that they can will earthquakes to happen, shoot fire from their hands, and turn into a bear, they probably really, really hate humanityIn fact, I allow such folk to be CE, and they may even take a modified version of the Vow of Poverty to eschew human inventions.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 12, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Is Druidic magic Arcane now rather than Divine?




I've actually been considering switching this in my campaign.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 12, 2005)

Kesh said:
			
		

> I've met at least one GM who says that anyone who plays a druid as anything but a violent eco-terrorist isn't playing the class right. o.o




This is my real rant.  I don't mind if someone wants to play a hippie.  I hate it when people seem indignant or incredulous that the class can be more than that.  The sentiment that even an evil druid is just a mean, but still bunny-humping, hippy is just plain silly.


----------



## Numion (Oct 12, 2005)

Druids drive HUMMERs in my campaign, I agree completely


----------



## Slobber Monster (Oct 12, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Don't underestimate the ability of even primative civilizations to damage or destroy the enviroment. There is strong evidence that the Sahara has been created by milenia of grazing by goats. On Easter Island it's believed that they killed themselves off by cutting down all the trees to help build the menhir? (the Giant Stone Faces).




I don't doubt the possibility for this to occur, but I think the perception would be different. People would be much more likely to think something like "the gods are punishing us for our hubris" than to think "nature is fragile and precious, we must work to protect it from humanity". Not that I don't see any conservationists in such a world, but I think they're more likely to be crazy hermits than representatives of the guiding ideology of a powerful political or religious organization.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 12, 2005)

Slobber Monster said:
			
		

> I don't doubt the possibility for this to occur, but I think the perception would be different. People would be much more likely to think something like "the gods are punishing us for our hubris" than to think "nature is fragile and precious, we must work to protect it from humanity". Not that I don't see any conservationists in such a world, but I think they're more likely to be crazy hermits than representatives of the guiding ideology of a powerful political or religious organization.




In _our _ world, they would think that probably because they can't see the damage they are causing because it occurs in tiny bits over a very long period of time. But if they have magic and talk to nature spirits, it's likely that they will know what's happening and, more importantly, why.


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 12, 2005)

"You spend the night in an inn? A building?!?!? You lose all your druid powers."



			
				Kesh said:
			
		

> I've met at least one GM who says that anyone who plays a druid as anything but a violent eco-terrorist isn't playing the class right. o.o


----------



## ssampier (Oct 12, 2005)

That's _*wicked* cool_, Henry. I've played in one Eberron game, it was fun, but not my cup 'o tea. If the rest of the sourcebook is set up like this, it's a must-buy.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> I don't see a problem with a druid portrayed either way, because both are valid with fun to be had by all. In addition, I prefer some of the druidic sects in the Eberron Campaign; it's the first time I've seen a sourcebook devote attention to different druidic philosophies (though there's probably a d20 product out there I've missed):
> 
> The Ashbound: ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Slobber Monster (Oct 12, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> In _our _ world, they would think that probably because they can't see the damage they are causing because it occurs in tiny bits over a very long period of time. But if they have magic and talk to nature spirits, it's likely that they will know what's happening and, more importantly, why.




Just to be clear, we're getting into very setting specific territory here, so I'm talking more about why conservationist druids don't work in my world more than any general issue with the archetype.

Anyways, let's look at one of the the examples given before - creating the Sahara desert with over-grazing. A conservationist Druid might say "Your grazing is upsetting the balance of nature here. You must stop or face dire consequences". Whereas the pro-civilization Druid in my campaign would say "Our herders are going to destroy valuable grazing land if we keep doing it this way. We need to engineer a solution or our people will suffer". So the analysis and maybe even the solution are the same in both cases, but the attitude is completely different. As a matter of flavor in my campaign, I much prefer the latter.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Oct 12, 2005)

One of my friends basically played a druid to be an idiot and emulate this very concept.  Went out of his way to stay out of inns, buildings, and even cities.  It got old; my PC would've executed the poor bastard if the campaign had continued.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 12, 2005)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> One of my friends basically played a druid to be an idiot and emulate this very concept.  Went out of his way to stay out of inns, buildings, and even cities.  It got old; my PC would've executed the poor bastard if the campaign had continued.




See, now I would say he'd be playing a perfectly good druid unless he was intentionally shafting the party. He could still go into cities but would make comments all the time about what a bad idea it was to crowd so many people together. I'd think the 'not sleeping in buildings' thing would be great RPing. Sleeping on the roof, or sleeping in his wildshape out on the back porch, or just out in the stable with a bunch of dogs and a couple cats to keep him warm.


----------



## sniffles (Oct 12, 2005)

Slobber Monster said:
			
		

> I don't doubt the possibility for this to occur, but I think the perception would be different. People would be much more likely to think something like "the gods are punishing us for our hubris" than to think "nature is fragile and precious, we must work to protect it from humanity". Not that I don't see any conservationists in such a world, but I think they're more likely to be crazy hermits than representatives of the guiding ideology of a powerful political or religious organization.




While I don't agree with the "hippy tree-hugger" variety of druid and don't run them that way myself, I also don't agree that historically conservationism didn't exist, or that ancient peoples always attributed everything to the gods or supernatural forces. I think we tend to assume that ancient peoples were a lot more gullible and less intelligent than we are, and that's a fallacy of our modern attitudes. I suspect ancient peoples recognized that deforestation and erosion were bad things, but they didn't worry too much about it because there were relatively few of them and lots of land for them to expand into if they overused their current territory. 

I could go on about how the druid class as designed ought to be called something else, since historically druids were apparently a priestly caste or organization, and most of the information we have about them is probably inaccurate since it was mostly written by Romans who'd never seen a druid. But I won't.


----------



## Andor (Oct 12, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> Or a more likely interpretation: that mankind is a disease upon nature's purity.  A nature-god probably isn't thinking in terms of carbon emissions and waste disposal.  He's probably just pissed that the humans are just there in general and not living like he demands.




Actually the big problem here is not that conservation is new, it's that the entire concept of man (And in DnD, by extension, all language using things) being somehow seperate from nature is, in it's entirety, a Monotheistic one. (Please don't turn this into a flame war.)

In world that is demonsterably polytheistic and contains multiple intelligent races, some of which have no manipulative didgets, in a class that can turn lichen into a class-leveled sophont, I have some trouble seeing this attitude as a valid construction.


----------



## DMH (Oct 12, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> On Easter Island it's believed that they killed themselves off by cutting down all the trees to help build the menhir? (the Giant Stone Faces).




Huh? There are still natives living there. There were no trees when the Europeans arrived and the population was small due to the loss of food resources (no boats=no fishings or trading), but there were and are people there.



> That said, Cure Disease, produce water, control weather and plant growth could fix a host of problems that plagued medieval societies.




That is why I see them as _the_ political power in many societies. What king is going to argue with a group of people that can wither crops and summon tornados?

What I don't like is the new alignments allowed. It was better when they had to be TN; all others provide a bias that doesn't exist in nature.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Oct 12, 2005)

The "Pacifistic Vegan Tree-Hugger hippie" is right up there with the "Lawful Stupid Paladin" and "Dark, Brooding Antihero" on my list of most annoying D&D character archaetypes.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 12, 2005)

Really, this comes down to what a druid is (aside from a wildhsaping, animal summoning combat god), which then reaches into setting as much as it does mechanics and D&D-isms.  I like to use the druid to represent the priests of the barbarian/savage/uncivilized peoples (regardless of race), not necessarily as specifically nature priests.  For nature priests, you have clerics that have access to the Animal and Plant domains, that do the bidding of their dieties -- which might ver well, depending on the deity, include admonishing villagers for overusing resources, or burning said villages to the ground.  Even then it isn't so much an issue of conservationism as it is committing to the will of your deity.  Since druids need gods even less than clerics, though, I tend to see them as priestly on in the sense that they might impart wisdom and structure on their community.  It is a blurry distinction in the real owrld, but in a world where gods walk, it is a very definite one.


----------



## Rackhir (Oct 12, 2005)

DMH said:
			
		

> Huh? There are still natives living there. There were no trees when the Europeans arrived and the population was small due to the loss of food resources (no boats=no fishings or trading), but there were and are people there.




My error. They just had a population crash.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 12, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Well, that's neither here nor there.  My big problem with it is that the idea of conservation and preservation is about 6 minutes old in the real world and while I don't suually have a problem with modern viewpoints invading my fantasy games (I mean -- watch HBO's Rome and tell me you'd want your PCs acting that way with LG alignments), this one is just *so* obviously modern that it gets under my skin.  Especially since a Druid is essentially a Nature Wizard who is as likely to bend it to his will as he is to serve it.




There were conservation inititives in the Middle Ages once they realized that they really needed wood and they were cutting down a aweful lot of it. And when you consider their transportation networks, getting wood from other places was a lot more hassle/expense than simply making sure wood was more available locally.

Here's a good read: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jouhs/hilary2004/wilsond01.pdf

Multi-Use Management of the Medieval Anglo-Norman Forest.

joe b.


----------



## antman120 (Oct 12, 2005)

Hummers pollute the air. A druid should drive a hybrid.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 12, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> The "Pacifistic Vegan  Tree-Hugger hippie"




Not to bag on the vegans that might be here, but I would think vegan makes no sense in most magical worlds; the whole reason vegans exist is that we here on Earth assume that plants have no mind or spirit to offend and that there is no form of cruelty involved in harvesting a plant. In a fantasy world where _Speak with Plants _ is a valid spell, I think such an idea would only come up in a society that had a large, ignorant urban population that didn't use magic or interact much with spellcasters.

I think, personally, a druid would be offended by either concept. The pacifist because nature is anything but passive; passive = food. The vegan, because it's an attempt to deny the basic nature of the creature (assuming that we're talking about an omnivore). They'd feel the same about an Atkins dieter as well. There wouldn't be a shunning or anything, but they'd clearly be put off by it.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Oct 12, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> I suspect ancient peoples recognized that deforestation and erosion were bad things, but they didn't worry too much about it because there were relatively few of them and lots of land for them to expand into if they overused their current territory.



Beyond Mesopotamia, there wasn't a lot of fertile land in which to expand (unless you wanted to invade Egypt), and the people between the rivers were quite aware of the effects of soil salination.  So, there were policies to deal with it in most kingdoms -- mandating crop rotation and leaving fields fallow one year out of three IIRC.  

However, when the authorities needed more tax revenue (war, new palace, really hot princess to impress, etc.), they'd waive that one-year-in-three rule.  Over time, the rule was waived more and more, and eventually there weren't enough fallow periods to preserve the soil.  Population crash ensued, so the late kingdoms (1st Milennium BC) had populations less than half that of the middle kingdoms.


----------



## jdrakeh (Oct 13, 2005)

You're right - they're unstoppable killing machines! Ahh... I have fond memories of Ginsu, The 3.0 Druid (an actual character played by a friend of mine). 

[Addendum: Incidentally, does complaining about modern sensibilities being imposed upon on a non-historical game strike anybody esle as odd?]


----------



## Mercule (Oct 13, 2005)

ssampier said:
			
		

> That's _*wicked* cool_, Henry. I've played in one Eberron game, it was fun, but not my cup 'o tea. If the rest of the sourcebook is set up like this, it's a must-buy.




The ECS is definitely worth buying, even if you aren't planning on running an Eberron game.


----------



## Drowbane (Oct 13, 2005)

bump


----------



## ecliptic (Oct 13, 2005)

Don't forget the druids that see humans and their mental and technological evolution as part of the natural world.

I think handing out philosophies of druids based soley on their alignment is kind of goofy.
For example a Lawful Neutral druid may think exactly like my example above. Hey may think that nature can protect itself and who is to say that nature does not deem fit the evolution of the intelligent creatures. They are of the natural world and their intelligence is not unnatural. Not every druid will think the same based on his alignment.



			
				WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Not to bag on the vegans that might be here, but I would think vegan makes no sense in most magical worlds; the whole reason vegans exist is that we here on Earth assume that plants have no mind or spirit to offend and that there is no form of cruelty involved in harvesting a plant. In a fantasy world where _Speak with Plants _ is a valid spell, I think such an idea would only come up in a society that had a large, ignorant urban population that didn't use magic or interact much with spellcasters.
> 
> I think, personally, a druid would be offended by either concept. The pacifist because nature is anything but passive; passive = food. The vegan, because it's an attempt to deny the basic nature of the creature (assuming that we're talking about an omnivore). They'd feel the same about an Atkins dieter as well. There wouldn't be a shunning or anything, but they'd clearly be put off by it.




Atkins diet isn't a carnivore diet. As a low carb dieter I guarantee I eat more vegetables than your average person.


----------



## CronoDekar (Oct 13, 2005)

To add one other druidic sect to Henry's Eberron list (which only gets a few blurbs in the ECS so is easy to miss or forget)

Greensingers: A small chaotic sect that engages in revelry and has strong ties with the fey.


----------



## Kuld (Oct 13, 2005)

Let’s not forget that many scholars believe that druids performed human as well as animal sacrifices to appease the gods. Doesn’t sound like hippies to me.

However, most of our information about druids, other then from archaeological finds, came from biased Roman literature, just as sniffles pointed out. 

A good book to read “The Druids” by Stuart Piggott ISBN 0-500-27363-4.  It covers many aspects of the ancient druids, even having a chapter titled “The Problems and the Sources” and “The Roman Image”.


----------



## Andor (Oct 13, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> There were conservation inititives in the Middle Ages once they realized that they really needed wood and they were cutting down a aweful lot of it. And when you consider their transportation networks, getting wood from other places was a lot more hassle/expense than simply making sure wood was more available locally.
> 
> Here's a good read: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jouhs/hilary2004/wilsond01.pdf
> 
> ...




Thanks for that link. That was one of the cooler things I've read on the web.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 13, 2005)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Beyond Mesopotamia, there wasn't a lot of fertile land in which to expand (unless you wanted to invade Egypt), and the people between the rivers were quite aware of the effects of soil salination.  So, there were policies to deal with it in most kingdoms -- mandating crop rotation and leaving fields fallow one year out of three IIRC.
> 
> However, when the authorities needed more tax revenue (war, new palace, really hot princess to impress, etc.), they'd waive that one-year-in-three rule.  Over time, the rule was waived more and more, and eventually there weren't enough fallow periods to preserve the soil.  Population crash ensued, so the late kingdoms (1st Milennium BC) had populations less than half that of the middle kingdoms.




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.


----------



## Felix (Oct 13, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> take out anything else that doesn't play nice with nature.



Nature doesn't play nice with nature, though...

Take Him Out!
_You gotta keep 'em seperated._


----------



## Reynard (Oct 13, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> [Addendum: Incidentally, does complaining about modern sensibilities being imposed upon on a non-historical game strike anybody esle as odd?]




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'...)


----------



## Mercule (Oct 13, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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'...)




Aside from the Ferengi, who were a (unintensional) joke?


----------



## theRogueRooster (Oct 13, 2005)

Felix said:
			
		

> Nature doesn't play nice with nature, though...




My thoughts exactly.  Nature left to its own devices does not exist in a state of harmony.  The fox doesn't live in harmony with the rabbit -- they live in balance.  When rabbits do as rabbits do and there's a population upsurge, it means that the fox is better fed and their numbers increase as well.  A lack of rabbits leads to fewer foxes.  Balance, not harmony.

What I find extremely funny is the vegan tree-hugging hippie druid sporting a wolf companion.  What's it eat?   

-tRR


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 13, 2005)

*smiles* This is why I like SL druids. Cause most of them (except Denevites) will pretty much kill/maim and hurt clerics AND druids, just because they believe it's the right thing to do. Even the good ones!


----------



## Crothian (Oct 13, 2005)

Felix said:
			
		

> Nature doesn't play nice with nature, though...




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


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 13, 2005)

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


----------



## Felix (Oct 13, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 13, 2005)

Felix said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 13, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 13, 2005)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 13, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 13, 2005)

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 (Oct 13, 2005)

Andor said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 13, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 13, 2005)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Oct 13, 2005)

Slobber Monster said:
			
		

> People would be much more likely to think something like "the gods are punishing us for our hubris" than to think "nature is fragile and precious, we must work to protect it from humanity".




Who do you think does the punishing?  THE DRUIDS.  With the green fire!


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Oct 13, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Well, that's neither here nor there.  My big problem with it is that the idea of conservation and preservation is about 6 minutes old in the real world and while I don't suually have a problem with modern viewpoints invading my fantasy games (I mean -- watch HBO's Rome and tell me you'd want your PCs acting that way with LG alignments), this one is just *so* obviously modern that it gets under my skin.  Especially since a Druid is essentially a Nature Wizard who is as likely to bend it to his will as he is to serve it.




Look up New Forest, planted in the late 1000s for hunting and the foresting laws put into place by William the Conquerer. While he was conserving hunting as opposed to nature the result is still conservation.

*EDIT* While I am pretty much against the Tree Hugging Druid concept myself there was indeed a Hippie Druid (magically imported from San Fransisco California in the 1960s) in one of my earliest AD&D games called Gloria Goldblat (AKA Shiney Moonbeams) not a serious game at all mind you...

The Auld Grump


----------



## joeandsteve (Oct 13, 2005)

Druids arent treehuggers, ELF druids are.


----------



## Cutty Sark (Oct 13, 2005)

I don't know - my very favorite druid, and the best-played druid I've encountered, is Nwm from Sepulchrave's story hour. Here, from the very beginnings of _Lady Despina's Virtue_:



> Nwm (NOOM). A 14th level human Druid whose prized item is his self- made "staff of the woodlands" capped with an "orb of storms" rescued from a blue dragon's possession. Nwm is apparently sardonic and skeptical, but secretly idealistic in a "peace, man" kind of way. A guy called Dave plays him as a cross between Timothy Leary and Oscar Wilde.




Nwm eventually does some things that are both very hippie and very druid - lots of meditation and a vow of poverty, for example.


----------



## Shemeska (Oct 13, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> I suspect ancient peoples recognized that deforestation and erosion were bad things, but they didn't worry too much about it because there were relatively few of them and lots of land for them to expand into if they overused their current territory.




Easter Island. 

They either didn't recognize it as a problem or didn't care in that particular case.


----------



## Shemeska (Oct 13, 2005)

Kuld said:
			
		

> Let’s not forget that many scholars believe that druids performed human as well as animal sacrifices to appease the gods. Doesn’t sound like hippies to me.




I'd pay money to see a 'tree hugger hippie' archetype character put into the wild with a group of historical Roman-era Druids. I'd give them a day before sacrifice time. 

I personally wouldn't use either the 'tree hugger hippie' or 'eco terrorist' archetypes in my own games. The first because it's silly and wouldn't make sense in the context of the game, and the second because it's bloody offensive to me IRL working in biotech.

I also haven't run into druids much in my own games because they're largely restricted to the Prime Material, while most of my campaigns have taken place on the planes. On infinite planes you don't have much need for druids outside of finding them as servants of specific nature gods. I'd probably have those vary greatly from one another by specific deity, or region of a specific prime material sphere they came from.


----------



## jdrakeh (Oct 13, 2005)

<deleted>


----------



## Reynard (Oct 13, 2005)

joeandsteve said:
			
		

> Druids arent treehuggers, ELF druids are.




On a kind of serious note regarding this, while I don't like the idea of the elf druid per se (unless they are 'wild elves') I do think elves make good candidates for D&D eco-naut types.  Not so much because they have gods tat tell them to like the plants and flowers, or even because they have kinship with fey and other magical forest creatures.  Rather, elves are so long lived, and individual elf can actually see the impact his village (as well as simple climate) has on the wilderness and would be acutely aware of the balance between civilization (you can't make magical elven bread without fields) and nature.  Besdies, the elf recognition of natural beauty would occur on a wholly different level than that of humans' (which might be better described as awe) -- I mean, when you can actually watch a river change course and carve into the earth, you would see it very differently.


----------



## Agback (Oct 13, 2005)

Slobber Monster said:
			
		

> Conservation makes sense to modern sensibilites because there is so little nature left. In a world with a more medieval or ancient ratio of man to nature the effort to conserve would hardly seem worthwhile with so much left unexplored and untamed.




To a great extent human use fo the landscape in (say) Europe has become much more productive since Mediaeval times because it became more intensive, not more extensive. True, the Cistercians are famous for having (grown extremely wealthy by having) brought unexploited land into use on a considerable scale. But on the other hand there is a landscape historian in Britain who makes a case (I'm not entirely convinced, but I'm not an agricultural economist, so I'm not really qualified to judge) that all or nearly all the land in use in England in 1930 was in use at teh time of Domesday Book (1078, IIRC).

Sure, there were forests in mediaeval England, but they were planted to grow timber, regularly logged, and fenced to keep the deer in, and pigs were masted in them. There were woods, but they were coppiced to grow wood for fuel and charcoal….

Things were no doubt different in other parts of Europe, for example in Prussia and Poland where the Deutschritters and other nobles brought in immigrant peasants to clear the forests in vast migrations that lasted two centuries. And there is nothing to say that a fantasy setting need be like England, France, or Italy rather than like, say, Lithuania. Just don't leap the the conclusion that mediaeval settings were covered in wilderness. It ain't necessarily so.


----------



## Agback (Oct 13, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Don't underestimate the ability of even primative civilizations to damage or destroy the enviroment.




There is a good recent book about this sort of thing: Collapse, by Jared Diamond (professor of Geography at UCLA, IIRC). It's not as masterly as his _Guns, Germs, and Steel_, but more relevant to this issue.

In the more specialised area of the effect of ['pre' civilised] hunter-gatherers on the environment in Australila, there is Tim Flannery's The Future Eaters.

Brief summary: even stone-age populations, hunter-gatherers and primitive horticulturalists, can destroy a landscape in surprisingly short time.


----------



## Kuld (Oct 13, 2005)

joeandsteve said:
			
		

> Druids arent treehuggers, ELF druids are.




Dern Elves.



			
				Agback said:
			
		

> There is a good recent book about this sort of thing: Collapse, by Jared Diamond (professor of Geography at UCLA, IIRC). It's not as masterly as his Guns, Germs, and Steel, but more relevant to this issue.
> 
> In the more specialised area of the effect of ['pre' civilised] hunter-gatherers on the environment in Australila, there is Tim Flannery's The Future Eaters.
> 
> Brief summary: even stone-age populations, hunter-gatherers and primitive horticulturalists, can destroy a landscape in surprisingly short time.




I read a book about ancient Celtic civilizations a while ago and I remember the author saying that Britain was once a lush forest, however not much, if at all, has changed to the landscape in thousands of years.
 The civilization (possibly pre-Celtic (Indo-European)) that was there made it look almost exactly as it does today, which means deforestation took place a long time ago. I will try to find the books title again (It was a library check-out)


----------



## Pielorinho (Oct 13, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> There were conservation inititives in the Middle Ages once they realized that they really needed wood and they were cutting down a aweful lot of it.



Thanks, *Joe*--very cool post!

On the one hand, I agree that the "humans suck!" approach to druids does not have any societal precedent in the real world.  Every culture out there has had a way to interact with nature, has altered nature.  

You know those New England Native American tribes who lived lightly off the land as wandering hunter-gatherers?  Those big forests they lived in were of their own creation, through judicious use of fire and other tools (I was looking for my copy of _Changes in the Land_, an ecological historian's account of how Native Americans and early European settlers altered the New England landscape, but I'm unable to find it).  Everyone changes their environment.

On the other hand, in a world with factual and highly communicative Gods, it's not out of the question that nature gods want to protect and expand their own territory.  Yes, the sentient races are a part of nature; however, the sentient races in D&D and the real world tend to alter their habitats more profoundly and more rapidly than the nonsentient critters do.  A nature god who wants to protect her domain isn't going to like that rapid alteration, and may develop an antipathy toward humanoids.

My own druid is patterned off the doctor in _Deadwood_:  a profane, frustrated, low-charisma, highly-ethical guy who doesn't much like people and thinks they're horrible but tries to do the right thing anyway.  He's no hippie:  he kills prisoners, he issues deadly threats, and he's not above eating a deceased animal companion because hey, why waste food?  But he's also working on developing mining techniques that don't offend his deity, and refuses to help a party-member mine an incredibly valuable vein of mithral that we ran across.  He hates cities (except for the food), prefers to sleep outside away from the smells of civilization whenever possible.  He carries a Quench scroll around in case he ends up having to cast a Firestorm in the middle of a forest.

I think that with druids as with any other class, it's important to have a good strong background for the roleplaying.

Daniel


----------



## just__al (Oct 13, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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'...)




There was that episode of TNG where the 80s wallstreet shark was found criogenically frozen in space and they revived him.  He was quite interesting as a strong willed hard as nails (mentally) person who was thrown into a situation where his entire outlook and worldview doesn't apply.


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 13, 2005)

Ah, yes, a vehicle with the half-electric template applied to it.



			
				antman120 said:
			
		

> Hummers pollute the air. A druid should drive a hybrid.


----------



## Agback (Oct 13, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Here's a good read: Multi-Use Management of the Medieval Anglo-Norman Forest.



That is a good read. Thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## Pielorinho (Oct 13, 2005)

A question:  while culturally integrated druids aren't likely to be anti-human, is there historical precedent for misanthropic natureloving hermits?  Could a druid fit this mold comfortably?

Daniel


----------



## Rackhir (Oct 13, 2005)

just__al said:
			
		

> There was that episode of TNG where the 80s wallstreet shark was found criogenically frozen in space and they revived him.  He was quite interesting as a strong willed hard as nails (mentally) person who was thrown into a situation where his entire outlook and worldview doesn't apply.




I think he was actually from the 21's century or something like that, but the episode did air in the '80s. I remember that episode because at one point Picard was chewing him out and telling him that even the youngest child on the ship was more responsible than he was. In the very next episode, a kid got upset over something stole a shuttle and nearly crashed it. So much for everyone in the 24th century being perfect.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Oct 13, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> See, now I would say he'd be playing a perfectly good druid unless he was intentionally shafting the party. He could still go into cities but would make comments all the time about what a bad idea it was to crowd so many people together. I'd think the 'not sleeping in buildings' thing would be great RPing. Sleeping on the roof, or sleeping in his wildshape out on the back porch, or just out in the stable with a bunch of dogs and a couple cats to keep him warm.




I suppose.  The player is my friend, funny guy, but this is the same fellow who played a kender for the soul purpose of stealing from the party and being a nuisance.  I can't speak for our GM, but I think he likes to run games with a more serious bent, and his concepts generally don't fit that mold.

I could argue that it doesn't make sense to isolate yourself when your party is being stalked by slavers. You could argue that beliefs don't necessarily make sense.  It's moot either way because I think the primary reason for the "roleplaying" was to muck things up.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 13, 2005)

Even if D&D were a historical simulation, which it clearly isn't, our games would abound with modern concepts. It's simply impossible for us to step outside our worldview. This is true of historians too. I feel the recent view of the population collapse in Easter Island as eco-parable rather than race war is a good example of our inability to see the past through anything other than our modern perspective.

That being the case I have no problem with fantasy worlds full of environmentalism, religious fundamentalists and girl power. These ideas are far more important to us than feudalism and crop rotation.


PS When you consider the period in which D&D was created, it's pretty clear druids *are* hippies.


----------



## Rackhir (Oct 13, 2005)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I feel the recent view of the population collapse in Easter Island as eco-parable rather than race war is a good example of our inability to see the past through anything other than our modern perspective.




Er Race War? Who were they fighting? They were all one ethnic group on the island.


----------



## iwatt (Oct 13, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Er Race War? Who were they fighting? They were all one ethnic group on the island.




Not accurate. If my 6 the grade history was accurate (I'm chilean so Easter Island is *Our* Island    ), there were two distinct* groups. Now I haven't made a study of this, and there really isn't a lot of accurate historical data from the Island.


* I think the difference was in the ear lobes. Talk about taking physical differences to an extreme.  :\


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 13, 2005)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> It's moot either way because I think the primary reason for the "roleplaying" was to muck things up.




Yeah, now that's just wrong.


----------



## DMH (Oct 13, 2005)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I feel the recent view of the population collapse in Easter Island as eco-parable rather than race war is a good example of our inability to see the past through anything other than our modern perspective.




There was a race war, but the fact that they destroyed their means of collecting and trading for food (trees for boats) means their population would have crashed anyways. And the stress of having less food most likely added to the racial fighting. Starving people do unpleasant things to each other.


----------



## Odhanan (Oct 13, 2005)

> I think we tend to assume that ancient peoples were a lot more gullible and less intelligent than we are, and that's a fallacy of our modern attitudes.




So true.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 13, 2005)

I'm so cool, I'll say it twice!

*Double Post*

joy b


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 13, 2005)

Andor said:
			
		

> Thanks for that link. That was one of the cooler things I've read on the web.






			
				Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Thanks, *Joe*--very cool post!]






			
				Agback said:
			
		

> That is a good read. Thanks for pointing it out.




Between all the pr0n and spam, there are some scolarly things of interest on the net.   Glad you enjoyed the link.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 13, 2005)

Agback said:
			
		

> To a great extent human use fo the landscape in (say) Europe has become much more productive since Mediaeval times because it became more intensive, not more extensive. True, the Cistercians are famous for having (grown extremely wealthy by having) brought unexploited land into use on a considerable scale. But on the other hand there is a landscape historian in Britain who makes a case (I'm not entirely convinced, but I'm not an agricultural economist, so I'm not really qualified to judge) that all or nearly all the land in use in England in 1930 was in use at teh time of Domesday Book (1078, IIRC).
> 
> Sure, there were forests in mediaeval England, but they were planted to grow timber, regularly logged, and fenced to keep the deer in, and pigs were masted in them. There were woods, but they were coppiced to grow wood for fuel and charcoal….
> 
> Things were no doubt different in other parts of Europe, for example in Prussia and Poland where the Deutschritters and other nobles brought in immigrant peasants to clear the forests in vast migrations that lasted two centuries. And there is nothing to say that a fantasy setting need be like England, France, or Italy rather than like, say, Lithuania. Just don't leap the the conclusion that mediaeval settings were covered in wilderness. It ain't necessarily so.




You must be a medievalist?  I'm currently reading New Towns of the Middle Ages by Maurice Beresford which deals with some of the same subjects.

joe b.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Oct 13, 2005)

iwatt said:
			
		

> Not accurate. If my 6 the grade history was accurate (I'm chilean so Easter Island is *Our* Island    ), there were two distinct* groups. Now I haven't made a study of this, and there really isn't a lot of accurate historical data from the Island.
> 
> * I think the difference was in the ear lobes. Talk about taking physical differences to an extreme.  :\




Lilliputian bigendians and littlendians? Johnathan Swift is rolling in his grave!


----------



## davidschwartznz (Oct 13, 2005)

If the vocal ENWorld community is anything to go by, want people really want is a druid who isn't nature-loving, doesn't have an animal compnaion, doesn't summon animals, and doesn't turn into animals. What does that leave?


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 13, 2005)

Scimitars.



			
				davidschwartznz said:
			
		

> If the vocal ENWorld community is anything to go by, want people really want is a druid who isn't nature-loving, doesn't have an animal compnaion, doesn't summon animals, and doesn't turn into animals. What does that leave?


----------



## Slobber Monster (Oct 13, 2005)

Agback said:
			
		

> To a great extent human use fo the landscape in (say) Europe has become much more productive since Mediaeval times because it became more intensive, not more extensive. True, the Cistercians are famous for having (grown extremely wealthy by having) brought unexploited land into use on a considerable scale. But on the other hand there is a landscape historian in Britain who makes a case (I'm not entirely convinced, but I'm not an agricultural economist, so I'm not really qualified to judge) that all or nearly all the land in use in England in 1930 was in use at teh time of Domesday Book (1078, IIRC).
> 
> Sure, there were forests in mediaeval England, but they were planted to grow timber, regularly logged, and fenced to keep the deer in, and pigs were masted in them. There were woods, but they were coppiced to grow wood for fuel and charcoal….
> 
> Things were no doubt different in other parts of Europe, for example in Prussia and Poland where the Deutschritters and other nobles brought in immigrant peasants to clear the forests in vast migrations that lasted two centuries. And there is nothing to say that a fantasy setting need be like England, France, or Italy rather than like, say, Lithuania. Just don't leap the the conclusion that mediaeval settings were covered in wilderness. It ain't necessarily so.




I appreciate all the information, very interesting. Don't most of the Arthurian legends depict something closer to 2nd to 6th century Britain though? That's more what I had in mind. I'm curious if that makes much of a difference - I've always had the impression that the world of those legends was much more untamed than mid-medieval Britain. Also, even by then if you look at the world as a whole there were still plenty of scary wild places left in the world known to Europeans, even if England and most of Europe were filled up.

I know plenty of people were aware of the effects of civilization on nature, and appreciate that much effort has gone into intelligent land management since the invention of agriculture and husbandry. I just expect that the attitudes have been different until recently. There's an important difference between "let's not cut down all the trees at once or we won't have any timber or deer" and "nature is precious, beautiful and spiritual, we must protect its treasures". The latter ideal has likely only had wide following since about the 18th century and the Romantics. The pragmatic view is much, much older.

In the end, it's really a matter of what fits my game world better and not an issue of historical accuracy. In a world where human civilization is perpetually teetering on the edge of destruction, and every now and then a Purple Worm pops out of the ground and eats a whole town, I expect the pragmatic view to be prevalent and the Romantic one an oddity.


----------



## davidschwartznz (Oct 13, 2005)

Slobber Monster said:
			
		

> There's an important difference between "let's not cut down all the trees at once or we won't have any timber or deer" and "nature is precious, beautiful and spiritual, we must protect its treasures". The latter ideal has likely only had wide following since about the 18th century and the Romantics. The pragmatic view is much, much older.



That's true. But the Druid class in D&D is based on the neo-druids of the Romantic period (an organization that, BTW, still exists), not any historical philosophy (er, more historical).



			
				Slobber Monster said:
			
		

> In the end, it's really a matter of what fits my game world better and not an issue of historical accuracy.



Exactly.


----------



## Felix (Oct 14, 2005)

davidschwartznz said:
			
		

> what people really want is a druid who isn't nature-loving,



More accurately, a druid who doesn't kill humans or other sentient creatures because they cut down a tree. The druid can love nature, but should recognize that other creatures need to use nature for their own survival.



> doesn't have an animal compnaion,



Rather, someone was commenting that the hippy non-violent druid had a wolf animal companion... and that it was ironic because the player should know that the wolf had to eat somehow: the wolf had to kill to live. So much for non-violence.



> doesn't summon animals, and doesn't turn into animals.



Eh? I didn't get this from the thread... must have missed that post.



> What does that leave?



The celtic druidic tradition upon which the DnD druid is largely based. Druids should be close to nature, but in a mideval way, without our 21st century notion about what it means to be "close to nature".

And it also leaves scimitars.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 14, 2005)

Felix said:
			
		

> The celtic druidic tradition upon which the DnD druid is largely based. Druids should be close to nature, but in a mideval way, without our 21st century notion about what it means to be "close to nature".




Might as well just play a Cleric with the Animal and Plant Domains.


----------



## KRT (Oct 14, 2005)

Cutty Sark said:
			
		

> I don't know - my very favorite druid, and the best-played druid I've encountered, is Nwm from Sepulchrave's story hour. Here, from the very beginnings of _Lady Despina's Virtue_:
> 
> Nwm (NOOM). A 14th level human Druid whose prized item is his self- made "staff of the woodlands" capped with an "orb of storms" rescued from a blue dragon's possession. Nwm is apparently sardonic and skeptical, but secretly idealistic in a "peace, man" kind of way. A guy called Dave plays him as a cross between Timothy Leary and Oscar Wilde.
> 
> Nwm eventually does some things that are both very hippie and very druid - lots of meditation and a vow of poverty, for example.




I like the Druid that's played like a cross between Dennis Leary and Oscar Dela Hoya


----------



## Agback (Oct 14, 2005)

Slobber Monster said:
			
		

> I appreciate all the information, very interesting. Don't most of the Arthurian legends depict something closer to 2nd to 6th century Britain though?



Well, they depict 5th-century Britain as imagined by a 13th-century Frenchman.

I'm not sure about landscape history before the 11th Century. Somebody upthread suggested that it didn't change much from Celtic or even pre-Celtic times, and that isn't inconsistent with the work I tried to report. The reason that fellow states 'llittle change of landscape after 1086' is not that there was a lot of change up to 1086, but because he reached his conclusion by comparing the Domesday Book land records with land use at about the time the railways wre being built. Domesday Book is the earliest comprehensive source of land-use data. To get information about land use earlier than is recorded in Domesday  Book you would have to intensely study individual sites (analyse the pollen in soil cores etc.), so it would be expensive to get truly conclusive information.

One datum I can point out that illuminates land-use change in the centuries before Domesday Book is the spatial pattern of Danish place-names in that part of Britain that was occupied and settled by the Danes in the 9th century. Most of the Danish names are concentrated in marginal and reclaimed farmland, This suggests that rather than seize farms and give them Danish names (in which case you would expect the Danish names to be concentrated in the richest farmlands) the Danes kept the English names of any farms they siezed, and gave Danish names only to new farms they established by developing unused land. That suggests an expansion of cultivation in northern England about the ninth century. This may, of course, have been a re-development of land cultivated in Celtic times and abandoned under the Romans or the Angles--I don't know of any information that casts light on this question.


----------



## Agback (Oct 14, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> You must be a medievalist?



I was a D&D player first. And a technocrat by training.

Don't ever let anyone tell you that these games interfere with education!


----------



## Macrovore (Oct 14, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> A druid isn't a tree loving bunny hugger whose sole purpose is to protect the forest from dastardly loggers and trappers.  A druid is someone who channels the divine power of nature, thorns, preadotrs and earthquakes inclusive.  A druid doesn't care if the local village cuts down trees to build homes.  He doesn't care if they hunt deer or try and elimate predators attacking the local flocks.  in fact, he is as likely to aid in either nedeavor as not.  he is an enigmatic, powerful figure who *knows* that Nature is the only unstoppable force in all Creation, and he wields it.  He may do so to protect his clan or to offer his wisdom to a boy king, or he may do so to rule a savage land and command armies of maruading plant-people.  He is a keeper of both power and knowledge, and a force unto a hurricane.
> 
> No modern attitude injected into D&D irks me more that the eco-friendly, tree hugging hippie Druid.
> 
> /rant




Read the comic Dndorks (www.dndorks.com).  It offers great insight upon the problem you wish to solve (it's freakin' funny, too)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 14, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> A druid isn't a tree loving bunny hugger whose sole purpose is to protect the forest from dastardly loggers and trappers.  A druid is someone who channels the divine power of nature, thorns, preadotrs and earthquakes inclusive.  A druid doesn't care if the local village cuts down trees to build homes.  He doesn't care if they hunt deer or try and elimate predators attacking the local flocks.  in fact, he is as likely to aid in either nedeavor as not.  he is an enigmatic, powerful figure who *knows* that Nature is the only unstoppable force in all Creation, and he wields it.  He may do so to protect his clan or to offer his wisdom to a boy king, or he may do so to rule a savage land and command armies of maruading plant-people.  He is a keeper of both power and knowledge, and a force unto a hurricane.
> 
> No modern attitude injected into D&D irks me more that the eco-friendly, tree hugging hippie Druid.
> 
> /rant



Get a haircut, hippie!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 14, 2005)

One of my first characters was a druid.  She was Cyndelle, a half-elven female druid.
  Cyndelle drew her power directly from Nature, and Nature was her Lord, Master, Ally, and Friend.

  When you messed with Nature, you messed with Cyndelle.  This meant you were dead.  No compromise, no argument, and no philosophizing about the matter.
  Cyndelle could use poison, as a druid, and did.  And you'd be amazed at what you could do with that simple sling, and that scimitar.
  Come with an army?  Entangle.  Trees reach down and grab the army.  Target practice time.
  Come with high powered magic?  Creeping Doom, at your feet, no save.  Say goodbye!

  Cyndelle believed in forests, natural beauty, animals, sunlight, moonlight, and starlight.  She considered what people call Balance nowadays only rarely.
  Cyndelle never had any use for cities, towns, ships, industry, or crowds of people.

  Being able to turn into three forms of her choice was useful.  Foes could not outrun her.  Enemies could not fly away and escape.  Antagonists could not burrow under the ground and hide.
  Swamps, water, and mountains were no obstacle to Cyndelle.  She could travel where she pleased, when she pleased.
  When one could turn into critters with poison attacks, all the better. 

  All fine and well, until Cyndelle blundered into Ravenloft ...


----------



## leporidae (Oct 14, 2005)

It seems to me that the complaint about globally-conscious environmental Druids is internally inconsistent. One the one hand these Druids are criticized for taking a 'too-modern' overall view of the environment, but they are also supposed to not be upset because overall, in a traditional campaign, civilization is small in relation to nature.

It seems to me that an actual druid would be more concerned about their own patch of forest, even if there was a continent of available wilderness, why would they necessarily be happy about civilized folk clearing and shaping the patch of forest that he considers it a sacred duty to defend? As to the concern for a wolf and not a goblin - would it be odd for a town's guard to be concerned for a resident of that town and not a goblin? The Druid is concerned about this proverbial wolf because that is his duty.

To my way of thinking Real-Life historical druids are a poor model for in-game Druids. Iron Age druids were priests of a settled, agriculturally based civilization. Better examples would be to look at the religious leaders of hunter-gatherer cultures (Pygmies, New Guinea Headhunters, Yanamoni), which are getting pretty scarce these days, and disappeared from Western Europe about a thousand years before the druids arrived.

The conflict between 'civilized' and 'wild' cultural groups is the opposite of unhistorical (and you can guess which side one by looking at those value-laden words). Just look at the story of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, or Jacob and Esau, or Cain and Abel - conflict between agricultural and traditional ways of life was familiar fodder for drama 3000 years ago.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 14, 2005)

leporidae said:
			
		

> It seems to me that an actual druid would be more concerned about their own patch of forest, even if there was a continent of available wilderness, why would they necessarily be happy about civilized folk clearing and shaping the patch of forest that he considers it a sacred duty to defend? As to the concern for a wolf and not a goblin - would it be odd for a town's guard to be concerned for a resident of that town and not a goblin? The Druid is concerned about this proverbial wolf because that is his duty.




The Druid as defender of a place  -- sacred site, village, unicorn's forest, whatever -- is a fine thing indeed (though it makes life a little tough if the party's adventures cover great distances).  I am just saying that concern for the environment as a whole doesn't really wash with me.  Conservationism isn't the same thing as defending territory or maintaining reasonable ecological practices to not destroy your own food supply.  The druid that serves a community is likely concerned with the latter, which fits pretty well into the 'balance  of nature' meme.  But at the same time, the druid that is tasked with guarding the First Oak isn't going to get upset if someone overhunts the local deep population, except insofar as it affects his job.  He might harry/kill the hunters that enter his wood, but likely because he doesn't want anyone discovering the location of the First Oak.


----------



## sniffles (Oct 14, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Thanks, *Joe*--very cool post!
> 
> On the one hand, I agree that the "humans suck!" approach to druids does not have any societal precedent in the real world.  Every culture out there has had a way to interact with nature, has altered nature.
> 
> ...



Excellent point! A druid's response may depend on which deity is his patron. If he serves a deity who's dedicated to preserving nature at the expense of civilization, then it would be reasonable for him to be antagonistic toward any beings who cut trees, kill game, etc. But if his deity is focused on finding a balance between preservation and wise usage, he'll try to show people how to replant trees, use every part of their kills, avoid erosion, and find a comfortable way to keep livestock without competing with wild game. 

I also don't think a druid would automatically look on humanoids as "the enemy". It's the same attitude I see in the real world, exemplified by some militant environmental groups. Humans are part of nature too. We're animals, and we need food and shelter just like any other animal. 
I often want to ask those really anti-human activists, if you're so opposed to everything humans do, why don't you just advocate mass suicide?


----------



## leporidae (Oct 14, 2005)

> Conservationism isn't...  maintaining reasonable ecological practices to not destroy your own food supply.




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.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Oct 14, 2005)

Just a note, didn't have time to see if it was mentioned upthread.

The Wildscape sourcebook has a couple Druid variants that step farther down the path from the stereotype... even one that embraces Death as the eventual and desirous goal of all living beings!


----------



## Reynard (Oct 14, 2005)

leporidae said:
			
		

> 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.




Actually, there is no disagreement or issue with the player.  he can play however he wishes.  I don't mind. I just detest the concept in general, and needed to rant.

That is all.


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 14, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Actually, there is no disagreement or issue with the player.  he can play however he wishes.  I don't mind. I just detest the concept in general, and needed to rant.
> 
> That is all.



I agree that anyone should play any type of character anywya they wish.  However, you assertion that conservation is a "new idea" is historically inaccurate.  As far back as bc areas rich in vegitation and soil were decreed wholy grounds in some european and african villages.  There were even holy orders by churches and priests appointed to tending to the land.  

So if youre using D and D as fantasy medievil, you're well within the realm of history to have people whom live among the forest tending to it.  As a matter of fact, the modern day take on druids that you suggest is more modern an assumption of druids than historical references.


----------



## Ed Cha (Oct 15, 2005)

Druids can actually be quite cruel. I don't know if anyone has already mentioned how they used to burn people in giant burning wicker men, but they did (though some debate this).

http://gate.cia.edu/cbergengren/arthistory/celtic/small/image49sm.jpg

I can't imagine how they stuffed all those people in there, however.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 15, 2005)

Sorry to join the thread so late but I am 100% on board with Reynard here. Because I go for campaigns that are, in not historically believable, at least anthropologically believable, I have a real problem with the way the core rules suggest that people play druids in a number of ways. 

"Nature" comes from the Latin word _natura_ which means everything or the rules by which everything operates; it is a synonym of the ancient Greek word _physis_ from which he get "physics." Until sometime between the 13th and 16th century, nature was a concept inclusive of everything including God. But, partly due to Aquinas's decision to lock God outside the crystalline sphere containing the earth, partly due to Aquinas's idea that the world in the sublunar sphere operated by precise, predictable, quantifyable rules largely independent of influences from without and partly due to the re-emergence of Platonic thought in the Renaissance, people began to exclude God from nature. 

From about the 15th century forward, the universe was split into two categories: God and his angels (fallen and otherwise) and the physical universe. Because human beings were ensouled and in some ways like God, we, and some things we did that invoked God, like transsubstantiation were, in part, super-natural. We began to function as the point of intersection between the natural world and the supernatural world.

Then, in the 18th century, with the rise of Enlightenment thought, we began to exclude God from our scheme, leading us to see ourselves as both natural and not. We live with the heritage of this completely incoherent, paradoxical and unstable vision of the universe to this day that allows us to somehow believe that things we do and make are not part of nature. 

In my view, D&D druids, at their best, should hearken back to the world before the 13th century. In those times, gods, humans, buildings, trees, everything were part of nature because nature meant everything and the principles by which everything operated. So, first of all, I have a lot of trouble with the idea of druids not worshipping gods but somehow, instead, worshipping an impersonal force. This is bad history, bad anthropology, bad theology and bad mythology. Of course, many people like playing campy or modernist versions of RPGs where it is not important or, in fact, not even desirable to do those things well. I'm not saying that people doing that are having the wrong kind of fun; they are just having a different kind of fun than I like to have. 

A good druid, for me, is going to be someone who won't distinguish between the altar in the middle of the sacred grove and the trees surrounding it in terms of value; not only will he not see one or the other as inferior; he won't make a category distinction between these things. 

Similarly, like early forms of polytheism, as shown in Shinto folktales and North American indigenous cultures north of the Rio Grande, he won't make or perceive any clear conceptual distinction between different tribes of people and different species of animals. He will be just as inhibited about killing animals as people and will likely have a lot of trouble grasping why human sacrifice is a categorically bad thing. This, you may recall, is why the historical druids were suppressed by the Roman Empire -- they practiced human sacrifice. 

In my view, the Wild Shape ability fits really well into this; he will not see a clear distinction between his Thousand Faces ability and his Wild Shape ability. Indeed, the way level progression works, it might lead him to conclude that he has greater affinity and similarity with a leopard than an elf. 

I currently play a druid and I love doing it. But many people in my group seem surprised that I appear to be doing so little "role playing;" I never talk about my character's theology and seem indifferent to killing "natural" creatures. But, in fact, my character thinking such issues through would, in my view, make him less believable. 

Finally, just to reinforce what Reynard says, druids should recognize individual places as specially favoured by the gods and treat them as such. Trees that appear to have faces, stones shaped like genitals -- it's those kinds of things that the druid should espcially care about. But this "balance of nature" thing is just modernist nonsense.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 15, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I agree that anyone should play any type of character anywya they wish.  However, you assertion that conservation is a "new idea" is historically inaccurate.  As far back as bc areas rich in vegitation and soil were decreed wholy grounds in some european and african villages.  There were even holy orders by churches and priests appointed to tending to the land.



Concepts like the "balance of nature," conservation and the like are modern ideas insofar they deploy the idea of nature as separate as a concept. But you are quite correct that conservation legislation goes back as far as the written record; people have always been conscious that they can damage their surroundings to the detriment of forage, hunting, air and water quality and agricultural production. 

The point is that medieval and antique churches and states trying to prevent the befouling of a river, the salination of soil or the cutting of trees in sacred groves would not have placed these acts in a conceptually different category than cleaning out one's chamber pot or sweeping one's floor.

EDIT: What I'm trying to get at in my posts here is that what makes a druid work for me is the absence of the concept of "nature" from his belief system. Conservation is a fine concept for a druid to adopt, once it is divorced from post-Renaissance ideas of nature.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 15, 2005)

Cyndelle wasn't philosophical about it.
  Nature was sacred, and that was that.

  Cyndelle did have a specific forest to protect, and a specific druidical order to answer to.
  But even outside her homeland and outside the directives of her order, her reaction was:  respect nature, or go away.  Constantly hack and burn and kill animals, and I want nothing to do with you (sorta like a paladin dealing with a neutral character acting greedily and selfishly.)
  Cyndelle looked upon farming, towns, and cities with loathing.  A necessary thing, perhaps, but not something to be admired.  A painful necessity of life, rather.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 15, 2005)

Slobber Monster said:
			
		

> I appreciate all the information, very interesting. Don't most of the Arthurian legends depict something closer to 2nd to 6th century Britain though?



The Arthurian legends depict England in the 5th and 6th centuries _as people in the 12th through 14th centuries imagined it._ This is why I find them so cool.







			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> There were conservation inititives in the Middle Ages once they realized that they really needed wood and they were cutting down a aweful lot of it. And when you consider their transportation networks, getting wood from other places was a lot more hassle/expense than simply making sure wood was more available locally.



This is a good point. For once, I find the fuzzy terminological divide in popular politics helpful. Druid as conservationist makes sense; druid as environmentalist does not.


----------



## Kuld (Oct 15, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> I often want to ask those really anti-human activists, if you're so opposed to everything humans do, why don't you just advocate mass suicide?




Unfortunately, they probably do. There are certain extremists who believe that the total human population should be less than a few million and they are currently trying to figure out a way to make it so.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 15, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> For once, I find the fuzzy terminological divide in popular politics helpful. Druid as conservationist makes sense; druid as environmentalist does not.




That sums it up for me, as well, I just failed to identify the word I meant when I wrote 'hippe'.  Environmentalist is it.

Thanks, fusangite.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 15, 2005)

Kuld said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, they probably do. There are certain extremists who believe that the total human population should be less than a few million and they are currently trying to figure out a way to make it so.




Which has to be in the Top Five Cool Campaign Seeds Ever.  It would especially neat in a setting like Eberron or Iron Kingdoms -- which are less rural and rustic than, say, the FR -- and instead of a Dark lord or Evil Necromancer, the Big Bad is the Druid Heirophant who finally gets fed up with civilization to the point of wanting to cast the world back into a pristine state.  And edeavor for which ancient rituals of Flood, Earthquake and Valcano would be pretty useful.

(Damn -- too bad I already have 2 campaigns...)


----------



## Shadowdweller (Oct 18, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> In my view, D&D druids, at their best, should hearken back to the world before the 13th century. In those times, gods, humans, buildings, trees, everything were part of nature because nature meant everything and the principles by which everything operated. So, first of all, I have a lot of trouble with the idea of druids not worshipping gods but somehow, instead, worshipping an impersonal force. This is bad history, bad anthropology, bad theology and bad mythology. Of course, many people like playing campy or modernist versions of RPGs where it is not important or, in fact, not even desirable to do those things well. I'm not saying that people doing that are having the wrong kind of fun; they are just having a different kind of fun than I like to have.



 Heh.  Agreed for the most part.  I think amongst players the concept of some unified force called Nature is overdone and overrated.  It seems like a lot of people really don't put much thought into developing a philosophy and theology for druids or druid characters.  It also seems like this is left deliberately vague in the RAW so as to facillitate different viewpoints.

I think the druid class fits a whole variety of potential animist and shamanistic roles very well.  A druid might, for instance, commune with hidden spirits that live in every large rock, river, and grove of trees.  A druid's spell might be no more than communing with a firespirit and asking it to serve as a Flame Blade.

One has to understand that before large nations made expansive religions possible in the real world, there was a whole variety of local gods or "spirits".  Cultures like the Greeks had their pantheon, but they also had a wide variety of little local powers and household gods.  Evidence and remnants of these are everywhere, even in the Saints of medieval Catholicism.  Worship of such beings fits the druid class very well imho.


----------



## KRT (Oct 18, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Concepts like the "balance of nature," conservation and the like are modern ideas insofar they deploy the idea of nature as separate as a concept...




I think balance of nature to a Druid is very different but also very important. In fact its the ability to leverage that balance that gives the Druid his power. A human sacrifice is a powerful lever from which the Druid could glimpse or effect the future. I think Druids were very opportunistic, they studied the nature system and used it for gain. This included using their knowledge to secure high positions in society. Forbidding any of their knowledge to be written was a method to keep the gravy to themselves. Helping their tribe/clan/people was only to help themselves, as would be any responsibility they felt to the environment at large.


----------



## eyebeams (Oct 18, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> No modern attitude injected into D&D irks me more that the eco-friendly, tree hugging hippie Druid.
> 
> /rant




Actually, if you look at what hippies did during the period the subculture was truly in vogue, then you'd get examples of characters who are considerably more dynamic, dangerous and threatening than the typical D&D druid. Most druids don't organize caravan heists to fund attempts to subvert the governments of city-dwellers, for instance.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 18, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Most druids don't organize caravan heists to fund attempts to subvert the governments of city-dwellers, for instance.




Yet, they should.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Oct 18, 2005)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Which has to be in the Top Five Cool Campaign Seeds Ever.  It would especially neat in a setting like Eberron or Iron Kingdoms -- which are less rural and rustic than, say, the FR -- and instead of a Dark lord or Evil Necromancer, the Big Bad is the Druid Heirophant who finally gets fed up with civilization to the point of wanting to cast the world back into a pristine state.  And edeavor for which ancient rituals of Flood, Earthquake and Valcano would be pretty useful.
> 
> (Damn -- too bad I already have 2 campaigns...)




That's nifty. This has been...is...will be...a great thread.


[chitzk0i: You know I'm gonna use that, right?   ]


----------



## Theo van Rossum (Sep 10, 2017)

> No modern attitude injected into D&D irks me more that the eco-friendly, tree hugging hippie Druid




Why? What's wrong with tree hugging now? I've been doing this with the now retired Englishman Dusty Miller who communicates with trees. Let's just take the word "hippy" out shall we but I don't want to have anything to do with these role playing pot smokers either. But eco-friendly however is still a good thing. Don't expect this from hippies though who will actually litter the place. The Ancient Druids wrote poems about the destruction of their sacred forests by the Romans. We modern humans may not be entirely connected to the original old traditions but we can still get close to it.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 10, 2017)

While there can be some debate among druids as to how to balance the needs of people with the needs of nature, I imagine they would commonly denounce necromancy as an aberration against nature. That would include the thread version, methinks.


----------

