PDA

View Full Version : If druids ruled the world?



Ramza00
2007-01-15, 02:54 PM
If druids were like demi-gods and were more powerful than any other class and thus were the uncontested masters of the world, what would the gaming world look like? Druids are like the kings/warlords/nobility. What would it be institutions? What would its power structure/hierarchy be like?

NullAshton
2007-01-15, 03:06 PM
...free for all do anything you want as long as it doesn't harm nature nudist colony?

Scorpina
2007-01-15, 03:08 PM
I think it'd depend on the alignments of the most powerful Druids. Needless to say, a world run by NG Druids would be different to one run by NE Druids, same with CN and LN druids...

vanyell
2007-01-15, 03:10 PM
with cod-zilla running around, it almost already is, but, I would expect a lot more natural housing. trees are not to be cut down for simple shelter, find a communal cave or something. do not mine for ores, use starmetal or use a piece of wood or a bow.

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 03:11 PM
First Druids would hate arcane magic just because it can be powerful and has the potential of overthrowing them, and they can't allow that for they are the protectors of nature. Thus wizards and spellbooks are hunted down and killed/destroyed. Some sorcerers may exist as with other arcane spellcasters that are spontaneous. These spellcasters would focus on spells that can be discrete and illusion/enchantment heavy.

Additionally metal weapons would be a rare resource, but wood weapons would not be. This is because druids hate mines, foundries for they are such a blight upon nature, and despoil the land. Wooden weapons though can be made from dead trees and such, and actually help the land.

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 03:13 PM
I think it'd depend on the alignments of the most powerful Druids. Needless to say, a world run by NG Druids would be different to one run by NE Druids, same with CN and LN druids...
Lets assume Druids are split between there 5 alingment choices evenly, each one gets 20%.

Green Bean
2007-01-15, 03:14 PM
If Druids ruled the world...

Natural Spell would be a free feat :smallbiggrin:

headwarpage
2007-01-15, 03:19 PM
Fun question. The answer depends on the alignments and personalities of the druids in question. I'd imagine the level of technology would be low in most cases, however. An area ruled by a NG druid would probably be idyllic, with people living in harmony with nature (I imagine it as similar to the way the eleven lifestyle is described in RotW). An area ruled by a TN or CN druid would probably be mostly tribes of hunter-gatherers. A kingdom of a LN druid might be more institutionalized, but not too bad, and a NE druid could be a dictator who forbids his subjects to even think about cutting down a tree. That's just a very, very, broad idea, though, and personality is going to play more of a role than alignment.

Probably the best way to approach this is to create a few well-rounded druidic NPCs to act as these kings/warlords, then assume that they proceed to enforce their will on the territory they control. Figure out exactly what they think and feel about nature, and how they think civilization and sapient races should relate to it. There are several different possible underlying paradigms that fall under the "druid" label, so different druids are going to answer this in different ways, and there will be some variety among the kingdoms. I've given far more thought than is healthy to things like this, so let me know if you need some druid paradigms.

Another possibility is that it would look exactly like a standard gaming world. The druidic demigods would declare that each creature should live according to its nature. The nature of dwarves is to dig holes, the nature of men is to build cities, the nature of elves is to play in treehouses, the nature of gnomes is to be pointless, etc. Every race acts according to its nature, and in doing so, create a 'typical' gaming world. Throw in a few 'druidic' touches to normal society and hint at the presence of some hidden overlords, and you're done.

This is a fantastically fun question, though.

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 03:19 PM
Another question? How would the druids view the wildshape ranger, the wildshape monk, the spirt shaman, animal/plant cleric, and other classes that are similar to druids?

headwarpage
2007-01-15, 03:27 PM
Another question? How would the druids view the wildshape ranger, the wildshape monk, the spirt shaman, animal/plant cleric, and other classes that are similar to druids?

I'd say anybody who showed some respect and reverence towards nature would get some amount of respect from most druids, regardless of character class. Of course, some might also feel that they were encroaching on forbidden druidic lore. Druids are a fairly varied bunch.

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 03:33 PM
I'd say anybody who showed some respect and reverence towards nature would get some amount of respect from most druids, regardless of character class. Of course, some might also feel that they were encroaching on forbidden druidic lore. Druids are a fairly varied bunch.

So would these people be viewed as half breeds? Upstarts? Or something to encourage? Or both, until these classes get too close to being powerful and don't know there "proper place?"

Come on, are we just a group of powergamers, world build with me people :smallwink:

The_Snark
2007-01-15, 03:40 PM
So would these people be viewed as half breeds? Upstarts? Or something to encourage? Or both, until these classes get too close to being powerful and don't know there "proper place?"

Come on, are we just a group of powergamers, world build with me people :smallwink:

It all depends, again, on the druid. If the druid (or druidic order) in question viewed other druids or druidic orders as threats, druid-like classes would get the same treatment. I don't think that the in-game people know so much about what everyone can do that they can immediately differentiate a wildshaping ranger or cleric of a nature god from a druid. Unless you choose to tie each class into an in-game organization, I don't think they should really be treated very differently.

In normal settings, not many people know there's a difference between wizards and sorcerers, and if told, they probably wouldn't see much of a difference. Similarly, it seems like only some of the educated (druids and such) would really know the difference here, and presumably each druid or druidic order has its own stance on the matter, with some of them being contemptuous, some indifferent, and some welcoming the other classes as allies.

headwarpage
2007-01-15, 03:43 PM
So would these people be viewed as half breeds? Upstarts? Or something to encourage? Or both, until these classes get too close to being powerful and don't know there "proper place?"

Come on, are we just a group of powergamers, world build with me people :smallwink:

Honestly, it could go either way, and there's a good chance that individual druids would feel differently.

Are these druids essentially normal D&D druids, with the druidic hierarchy in a position of worldly power, or are they actual demigods, a small group of individuals imposing their wills on the world at large? If it's the former, the default attitudes toward these sorts of things would probably have been determined by a council of the most powerful druids. In that case, the answer probably depends on the feel you want the world to have.

Closely related to this is how the druids are going to recruit new druids, or how they'll feel about people who take up the druidic path on their own (if that's possible in your world). If they're willing to share their connection to nature, then they'll probably be welcoming towards those who draw power from a similar connection. If druidic power and lore is jealously guarded, then they'll probably forbid anything that looks like somebody is trying to achieve this power through something other than the proper channels.

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 03:43 PM
It all depends, again, on the druid. If the druid (or druidic order) in question viewed other druids or druidic orders as threats, druid-like classes would get the same treatment. I don't think that the in-game people know so much about what everyone can do that they can immediately differentiate a wildshaping ranger or cleric of a nature god from a druid. Unless you choose to tie each class into an in-game organization, I don't think they should really be treated very differently.

In normal settings, not many people know there's a difference between wizards and sorcerers, and if told, they probably wouldn't see much of a difference. Similarly, it seems like only some of the educated (druids and such) would really know the difference here, and presumably each druid or druidic order has its own stance on the matter, with some of them being contemptuous, some indifferent, and some welcoming the other classes as allies.

A druid would instantly know the difference but he would probably make the knowledge check, but a commoner would probably be fooled by such a "half-breed."

And yes each druid would do it differently, but I am talking about institutionalized druid culture. Each druid may do it differently, but as the sum of hundreds of druids over hundreds of years what would the world's culture look like?

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 03:47 PM
Honestly, it could go either way, and there's a good chance that individual druids would feel differently.

Are these druids essentially normal D&D druids, with the druidic hierarchy in a position of worldly power, or are they actual demigods, a small group of individuals imposing their wills on the world at large? If it's the former, the default attitudes toward these sorts of things would probably have been determined by a council of the most powerful druids. In that case, the answer probably depends on the feel you want the world to have.

Closely related to this is how the druids are going to recruit new druids, or how they'll feel about people who take up the druidic path on their own (if that's possible in your world). If they're willing to share their connection to nature, then they'll probably be welcoming towards those who draw power from a similar connection. If druidic power and lore is jealously guarded, then they'll probably forbid anything that looks like somebody is trying to achieve this power through something other than the proper channels.

I want to just make a fun thread with people brainstorming ideas and having fun. You think about the matter and then do what you would do if you were DM. These druids aren't literally Demi-gods with divine rank 0 but are instead the leaders of nations/nobility, they are the alexander the great, william the conquerer, peter the great etc. People who are "mortals" but who are like immortals in the eyes of the people.

Yakk
2007-01-15, 03:53 PM
It depends.

I rather like the idea of having a world broken down geographically.

Say, 10 Grand Groves.

Each Grand Grove has a Heirophant (L 20 druid) in charge. In addition, they have 10 Grand Druids (L 18 to 19).

The Grand Druids each oversee a Great Grove. Each Great Grove has 10 Great Druids (L 15 to 17).

Each Great Druid oversee an ArchGrove. Each ArchGrove has 10 ArchDruids (L 11 to 14).

Each ArchDruid oversees a Grove. Each Grove has 10 Druids (L 6 to 10).

Each Druid oversees a Minor Grove, which has a number of Initiates (L 1 to 5 Druids).

10 L 20 Druids
100 L 18-19 Druids
1000 L 15-17 Druids
10000 L 11-14 Druids
100000 L 6-10 Druids

With 5 alignment choices, there are two Heirophants per alignment choice. These Heirophants would run the world. When one died, the other Heirophants would elevate a Grand Druid from that Heirophant's circle.

Each Druid would be in charge of replacing losses to their undercircle, and have the right to remove someone from their undercircle.

The Heirophants would set policy within their own realms, but the running of this policy would be left to the druids under them. The policy differences could be quite severe.

A meeting of all Heirophants would occur when one of the Heirophants is about to die (almost always of old age), or when one of the Heirophants has gone off the rails. All-but-two of the Heirophants can render judgement on any Heirophant. This judgement can be anything from stripping that Heirophant of his position, to death, to a geas or an order.

New Heirophants must be appointed unanimously. Usually this happens before the old Heirophant dies, but sometimes it happens afterwards.

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 04:04 PM
Sounds good Yakk, anybody else's ideas?

Golthur
2007-01-15, 04:11 PM
See, I'm always a fan of a dark, dystopian world. A few off the top of the head ideas (so take 'em for what they're worth):
Fire is illegal, due to the danger to the forest. Druidic and ranger wardens (with low-light vision and "augmented" dire wolves/whatever) patrol to detect and punish the use of fire.
The same for crafted metal items, any wood items not created out of deadwood, and any stone items or houses carved from "living" rock.
Magic knowledge is seen as a threat, and is suppressed by the druids in charge.
The dwarves are the natural enemies of the druids due to their inherent use of metal, forges, mining, and for carving their homes out of the living rock. The entire druidic nation is geared up to destroy the "defilers of nature".


On the bright side, food is plentiful. :smile:

Scorpina
2007-01-15, 04:15 PM
Fire is illegal, due to the danger to the forest. Druidic and ranger wardens (with low-light vision and "augmented" dire wolves/whatever) patrol to detect and punish the use of fire.

Multiple druid spells create fire, and fire is a naturally occouring phenomenon. Certain species of tree (uh, the mountain ash, I believe) would be extinct were it not for regular forest fires.

headwarpage
2007-01-15, 04:16 PM
Ok, now that I've picked up a little bit more of how you're thinking, I'm going to take a shot at the original question. This is just one interpretation, there are other, equally valid worlds that could be built from the same premise.

The druids would rule their territory in all ways - religious and secular power would be inseperable. The druids demand absolute obedience in all things, and lead the populace in complex rituals and devotions, designed to please and/or placate nameless powers. These should be barbaric and primitive in nature, definitely including animal sacrifices, and possibly human sacrifice. The mysticism is focused on the primal forces of life, spiritual energy, and elemental forces, not gods. Worship of the gods is either unknown or discouraged, sometimes strongly, and the use of non-druidic divine magic is strictly forbidden, though the general public is unaware of its existence.

As for the actual world, it is sparsely populated, with few settlements that could even be considered large towns, let alone cities. Trade is virtually nonexistent, and communication between towns is minimal. Domesticated animals and metal tools are generally forbidden and virtually unknown, so the agricultural revolution never happened.

The populace lives primarily as hunter-gatherers, with a small amount of herding and very minimal agriculture, and the druids use their powers to enhance the productivity of the landscape. This allows the land to support more people than a hunter-gatherer society could normally have, but far fewer than a more advanced society could. On the whole, there is little of the division that marks more technologically advanced societies, except in the very largest towns.

Despite all this, the people view the druids as their protectors and benefactors. They are mystical and powerful, and use this power on the people's behalf, producing enough food for the populace and defending them from the threats of the vast wilderness between settlements. Any other way of life is inconceivable.

Ok, tear it apart. Maybe I'll do another one, and take it in a completely different direction.

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 04:16 PM
Multiple druid spells create fire, and fire is a naturally occouring phenomenon. Certain species of tree (uh, the mountain ash, I believe) would be extinct were it not for regular forest fires.

How about man made fire then? Nature fire and fire created by nature guardians (aka the druids) are okay, but not fire made by commoners or sorcerers?

Scorpina
2007-01-15, 04:19 PM
How about man made fire then? Nature fire and fire created by nature guardians (aka the druids) are okay, but not fire made by commoners or sorcerers?

Well, the way I see it, your common or garden druid sees humans (and the like) as part of nature, not distinct from it...

headwarpage
2007-01-15, 04:26 PM
Well, the way I see it, your common or garden druid sees humans (and the like) as part of nature, not distinct from it...

That's the crux of this whole thing, really. I, personally, feel that humans are a part of nature, but I think that the contemporary view swings the other way, in general. I think the idea of druids comes from the idea there is some entity out there that is 'Nature', and some other aspects of the world that are somehow distinct from nature. Otherwise, what's the point? And once you sit down and start saying "ok, this is natural, but that isn't," you're on the mother of all slippery slopes.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-15, 04:30 PM
How about man made fire then? Nature fire and fire created by nature guardians (aka the druids) are okay, but not fire made by commoners or sorcerers?

That makes a bit more sense. "An occasional purging by fire is necessary, but it must follow certain cycles. Those who attempt to disrupt this cycle must be punished."

...I wonder what the stance on Awakened animals would be. The Awaken spell somewhat disrupts the natural order by usurping the place of naturally sapient species, but I could see, say, any druid above the rank of Great Druid (in Yakk's system) being allowed to create Awakened animal overseers to enforce nature. I wonder if they'd be allowed to become druids themselves...

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 04:35 PM
That's the crux of this whole thing, really. I, personally, feel that humans are a part of nature, but I think that the contemporary view swings the other way, in general. I think the idea of druids comes from the idea there is some entity out there that is 'Nature', and some other aspects of the world that are somehow distinct from nature. Otherwise, what's the point? And once you sit down and start saying "ok, this is natural, but that isn't," you're on the mother of all slippery slopes.

It depends on your world for you can make alot of different arguments. Perhaps humans are part of nature normally, but they can go against it in a princess mononoke vs iron town type of thing?

Or humans are separated from nature either as its guardians, or its despoilers. It really depends on your philosphy type thing.

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 04:37 PM
That makes a bit more sense. "An occasional purging by fire is necessary, but it must follow certain cycles. Those who attempt to disrupt this cycle must be punished."

...I wonder what the stance on Awakened animals would be. The Awaken spell somewhat disrupts the natural order by usurping the place of naturally sapient species, but I could see, say, any druid above the rank of Great Druid (in Yakk's system) being allowed to create Awakened animal overseers to enforce nature. I wonder if they'd be allowed to become druids themselves...

Once again it depends on your world, but that is what I am asking how would you rule it/make it? Perhaps only druids of significant rank should do it for these people know the nature purpose and be less like to offset balance? Then again alingment would be a big issue here, TN, vs LN vs CN, vs NG vs NE.

Yakk
2007-01-15, 04:43 PM
Making the world one piece seems boring.

LN1: No Fire, Metal, Carved rock or Wood from living trees. Breeding is strictly controlled. Druids form houses out of living wood, which is assigned to your family. Initiates regularly inspect everything. Lots of traditions and laws and rights.

LN2: A state at war with the Dwarves. Allied to one of the NE druid states. Every intelligent being is a part of the war machine. Minimal mining, havesting of darkwood, and the like is allowed as part of the war effort.

CN1: An island wilderness with strange and powerful life all over it. Only hunter-gatherers can survive, because the plants overwealm any attempt to settle down.

CN2: An open plain. Nomadic humans, centaurs and elves herd cattle. No rules, but the druids bend fate if things get too far out of balance. A few settlements of "civilized" humanoids exist on the coast, trading and paying protection to the nomads.

NE1: A dark montainous rainforest, full of huge animals and preditors. Intelligent races are little more than the slaves of the druids, extra hands and tools, and have been magically bonded to their enslavement.

NE2: Allied with LN2 in a war against the dwarves. This druidic empire has no beings that would be called humanoid within it. The druids here seek to improve nature, make it stronger and more able to resist the danger of human civilization. This is ... contrivercial.

NG1: An elven forested kingdom. The elves live in harmony with the trees, grow and nurture them. Quite uneasy about what some of the other realms are doing.

NG2: A human civilization. Strict rules about staying out of the other druid's realms, but for the most part it is very medevil. Large wooden groves exist, and the secular kings all have druidic advisors.

NN1: The cold north. The heirophant of the north has been sitting for centuries, if not longer. Not even the other druids know how old he is. It is unknown what race he came from is, because he is always wildshaped. He rarely shows up at gatherings, except to select a new druid.

It is known that there are tribes of barbarians in the cold north, but not much else is known about the area. The weather itself is usually fatal to any who explore here.

NN2: The equitorial continent. This heirophant controls land larger than any other 4 heirophants put together. This was the original continent controlled by the druids.

It contains an ancient kingdom on a flood plain, a few civilizations on a savanah, a number of hunter-gatherer areas (jungle, mountains), a large desert with a nomadic people, and a deep dark jungle that only the druids know what is within it.

...

Non-druidic civilization:
The Dwarves, and some allied humans, have managed to hold off the Druids. The Dwarves are a high-magic civilzation -- less steam punk, and more golem-based automation. Teleportation shunts, rock golems, animated forges, etc. The Dwarven armies are heavy on the use of golems. The capital is defended by a mountain-class golem.

The Dwarves have Forges capable of the automated building of magical weapons. A typical Dwarven soldier has highly enchanted gear, all of it enchanted to be useless to a non-Dwarf. Their human allies include almost all of the surviving magical knowledge of humankind -- in a hidden valley, human wizards who witnessed the destruction of civilization under the hands of the druids still exist, and continue to refine their magical knowledge in hopes they can stop the tide.

Dispite this, the Dwarves are losing.

Some of the Kingdoms exist without strict Druidic supervision. The NG Human lands are mostly secular. The druids in charge hire adventures to delve into ancient ruins where dark magic still sleeps, and destroy the remaining artifacts.

The NN lands are also mostly left alone. They have long been melded to adhere to Druidic interests.

...

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 04:50 PM
Making the world one piece seems boring.
...
The world is never one piece, for example with my example sorcerers and beguilers are hunted and they focus on secrecy. A secret society of such people, probally incorporate the shadowcraft mage and give it to all races if they are member of such group. Then you have the other classes, what roles would they play in such a society? These insitutions the other classes make would also shape the world. It is never one dimensional unless you think in such a fashion.

Golthur
2007-01-15, 04:54 PM
How about man made fire then? Nature fire and fire created by nature guardians (aka the druids) are okay, but not fire made by commoners or sorcerers?
That's more or less what I meant - I should have clarified, sorry :smile:

Well, the way I see it, your common or garden druid sees humans (and the like) as part of nature, not distinct from it...
Except that most other "animals" or other parts of nature exist within some sort of balance - natural predators, and the like, so that none gets too large in number that it ravages the ecosystem. People and technology break that particular limit, so I could see "dystopian" druids making sure that sapient races are forced to exist in a "natural" way. I could also see them making sure that there are appropriate predators for sapient populations.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-15, 04:54 PM
See, I'm always a fan of a dark, dystopian world. A few off the top of the head ideas (so take 'em for what they're worth):
Fire is illegal, due to the danger to the forest. Druidic and ranger wardens (with low-light vision and "augmented" dire wolves/whatever) patrol to detect and punish the use of fire.
The same for crafted metal items, any wood items not created out of deadwood, and any stone items or houses carved from "living" rock.
Magic knowledge is seen as a threat, and is suppressed by the druids in charge.
The dwarves are the natural enemies of the druids due to their inherent use of metal, forges, mining, and for carving their homes out of the living rock. The entire druidic nation is geared up to destroy the "defilers of nature".


On the bright side, food is plentiful. :smile:

Makes me want to play a Blighter.

Mike_Lemmer
2007-01-15, 04:55 PM
I would say the druids wouldn't even bother governing. Why would they deal with laws and regulations and whiny petitioners when they could just relax in their own private forest, maybe go fishing, and fry anyone that bothers them?

So they let civilization govern itself on a few small reservations and reserve the rest of the land for themselves. They're demigod cranky old men constantly shouting to "Get off mah continent!" Adventurers are the mischievous kids always sneaking on to their continent just because all the good stuff's there.

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 04:58 PM
I would say the druids wouldn't even bother governing. Why would they deal with laws and regulations and whiny petitioners when they could just relax in their own private forest, maybe go fishing, and fry anyone that bothers them?

So they let civilization govern itself on a few small reservations and reserve the rest of the land for themselves. They're demigod cranky old men constantly shouting to "Get off mah continent!" Adventurers are the mischievous kids always sneaking on to their continent just because all the good stuff's there.

So in your world nobody would govern, or the druids wouldn't govern and other people would, and druids are just the powerful guys in town. The druids due to them being the big guns on the block may establish some "rules" but they aren't really rules, they are more taboos which you don't do unless you want to upset the powerful guys/nobles who would squash you like a bug?

Note obeying these taboos are what npcs and commoners may due, but as pc you may be more likely to break them if you can survive the encounter, or you are sneaky enough?

John_D
2007-01-15, 05:34 PM
They'd have metal police! Gnomes on rust monsters! No-one would be safe!

Golthur
2007-01-15, 05:42 PM
They'd have metal police! Gnomes on rust monsters! No-one would be safe!
I like this, for some demented reason. Is there any variant of druids that lets their mojo affect aberrations?

headwarpage
2007-01-15, 06:15 PM
Hmm... what about a not-too-original spin on this? ~2000 years ago, an advanced society existed (Eberron level, or maybe slightly more advanced). Through hubris and greed, this civilization collapsed on itself, a spectacular magical cataclysm that rendered the planet virtually uninhabitable and reduced the civilized races to scattered bands struggling for survival. A few druids stepped into this mess, helping the survivors to carve out lives in the blasted wilderness. The druidic council determined that mankind's knowledge could not be allowed to once again rise to a level that threatened the integrity of the entire planet, and set about preventing that from happening.

Over the years, wilderness reclaimed the ruined cities and desolate wastelands that were left behind after the cataclysm. The descendants of the survivors forgot all about the civilization of their ancestors, but the druids remembered, and kept the laws in place that would prevent such a disaster from happening again. (Or maybe even the druids forgot, keeping the laws with only empty rhetoric as justification.)

And a band of 4-6 unlikely heroes are born into this world, unaware of how their actions will shape the future of an entire planet.

Yeah, I know it's not overwhelmingly original, but it might make for a fun game.

Bouldering Jove
2007-01-15, 06:36 PM
I imagine you would have constant druidic civil war over what "nature" really consisted of, how far its protection needed to be taken, and whether druids were actually unnatural themselves and should ultimately not use their powers when there isn't a threat to defend against.

Frosty Flake
2007-01-15, 07:16 PM
Maybe the Druids would have covert but no less powerful control of the world? They could be a grand secret society (they've already got a secret language) that controls the sapient populace through guile, subtle manipulations and proxy-warlords. I'm going to assume this world never developed far enough for even written word and that the Druids immediately put down any tribe that develops any technological innovation exceeding copper tools (copper used to just lie around where bedrock was pushing through soil, so copper tool working is nearly harmless to the environment as it originally uses clay casts, also an easily-accessed resource). Many people wouldn't even know of the existence of druids, just that occasionally, maybe once in a generation for the average hunter-gatherer tribe, a strange wise man will wander through the village looking for the most mentally astute youths in the area and whisking one away to replenish the ranks of some strange cross-tribal order of oral scholars. I'd think that, going along with the tribal society theme, the only other spell casters may be the divine bard variant, who act as shamans, storytellers, lore keepers and wise men of some of the larger tribes and that they might be the only ones with an inkling of who is really running the show. Druids would prevent the over hunting or the overpopulation of any one species or sub-species, including the sentient ones. Druid agents would incite and then monitor wars between the most numerous and powerful tribes to ensure no one group gains significant enough power to challenge the hidden authority of the Order.

With Pass Without Trace and Tree Shape to go with the Wild Shape ability, druids are actually pretty sneaky for a primitive setting, especially with no wizards around to figure the druids out... and druids being adept at combat, magic and survival makes them excellent solitary agents, although they may have a specially trained elite sub-order that comprises the worlds rangers. Man... when Tears of Blood is done, these ideas should go into the next world created on the site, or at least a region in it!

Hyrael
2007-01-15, 08:58 PM
There is a key assumption that is being made here with regards to druids; that nature needs saving from civilization. It doesnt. Life on our own world has taken everything that the big cold uncaring universe has thrown at it, from big fricking rocks to ice ages, and bounced back every time. What is really in peril on our world are humans. we allow our population to grow unchecked, always producing more and more food at the expense of other species. Eventually, we will run out of food, and massive numbers of people will die of starvation. Huge wars will break out, and probably nukes will get used (for some reason, some people think that nukes are the answer to everything). Humans will go excinct, joining almost every other species that has ever existed. we will have taken quite a few other species with us and...so what? Give it 50,000 years, a million, tops, and life will be in full swing again. 5 million, and biodiversity will be back to where it was right before humans showed up. and then...some other random creature will learn to bash one rock against another rock to make a slightly less blunt rock, and the whole stupid cycle will happen again.

Thats how our world works. I wouldnt expect a fantasy would to be very different. apply that to druids however you like.

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 09:09 PM
So at most we will have druid prophets who predict the return of power over nature? Damn I wanted druidic avengers who transform into gigantic beasts, while leading an army of vermin, and casting massive battle control spells that the druid gets.

Druid
2007-01-15, 09:17 PM
In DnD? We already do. My brethren and I will go dire bear murder machine on anyone who says different :smalltongue:

Frosty Flake
2007-01-15, 09:45 PM
Hyrael: I think, though, that someone as intimately connected with nature as a druid wouldn't necessarily ponder the big, long-run picture and say "Oh well, the world will be back to normal in a million years anyway." More likely, I'd imagine, many would want to take an active role in preserving the natural beauty of the wilderness that they adore, whether this be anything from hippy Neutral-Good Druids trying to convince people to be respectful to the wild world to badass Neutral-Evil Druids who go all Ginger Snaps on the local lumberjacks.

Also, Druids may not KNOW that the world is that tough... did classical-era scholars know that the planet recovered from an asteroid strike that wiped out most of the dominant species? They would only have the evidence of the world around them, which is that it takes very little time to cut down a forest in comparison to the time it takes a forest (a proper forest with towering trees and all the fun stuff) to grow back.


Damn I wanted druidic avengers who transform into gigantic beasts, while leading an army of vermin, and casting massive battle control spells that the druid gets.

Screw waiting for the natural balance to occur on it's own, let's have a culling!

Yakk
2007-01-15, 09:47 PM
Second, in D&D, evolution might not happen, life might not bounce back, and the destruction of entire species of creation might do real lasting harm.

Golthur
2007-01-15, 10:04 PM
Screw waiting for the natural balance to occur on it's own, let's have a culling!
And thus was born the Great Hunt, to roam the land and thin the human herd... :wink:

Ramza00
2007-01-15, 10:07 PM
And thus was born the Great Hunt, to roam the land and thin the human herd... :wink:

Druid 1: (In Druidic): Do you speak druidic (addressing a lowly commoner)
Commoner: What a mighy big bear you have there sir.
Druid 2: Not it appears he doesn't, off with his head!!!
Dire Bear, attempts a strength check to knock the poor commoner's head off with one blow.

Scalenex
2007-01-15, 10:32 PM
Here's a thought. Druids could be more powerful and more influential without civilization being kept low (either by Druidic manipulation or cataclysms in the past). What if they were not the end-all be-all of the world's PC classes, they just were institutionalized like clerics were. Look at the Shinto in Japan. Shinto is (or at least was) an institutionalized religion that placed a high reverence for nature above all else that still managed to co-exist with civilization. Something more akin to Shinto in D&D would be a good route to take for someone who wanted greater druidic involvement in their world without completely remaking their world into one where no one mines, farms, or builds cities. This would leave in plenty of story telling potential as temporal and spiritual concerns frequently come into conflict without it necessarily being earth-shattering conflict.

krossbow
2007-01-15, 10:46 PM
I'd start a fruitless rebellion just to do what I can to destroy the hippies.


Come on, favored soul of teh demon god of technology! It could work! Mech armor and chaositech FTW! (Ptoleus setting).
________
Buy Silversurfer Vaporizer (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/silver-surfer)

headwarpage
2007-01-16, 05:55 PM
I wanted druidic avengers who transform into gigantic beasts, while leading an army of vermin, and casting massive battle control spells that the druid gets.

Ask and ye shall receive. Druidworld, Mark II:

Druids in this world have not secluded themselves in groves as they have in other worlds, but have always involved themselves in the affairs of men. Using a combination of divine power and political cunning, they long ago installed themselves in positions of worldly power - the better to ensure that Man's activities did not threaten Nature. Over hundreds of years of druidic rule, a society-wide envirnomental ethic has been created, and the prevailing public attitude is one of respect and reverence towards nature. The gods are known and worshipped, but are viewed as having influence only in their own spheres, while Nature is all-encompassing.

Under druidic rule, men have built cities, but they tend to be sprawling affairs incorporating large groves and parks, rather than the tightly-packed warrens that might otherwise be expected. Druids serve as kings and nobles in these cities, protecting the interests of both Nature and their subjects.

There is no central druidic heirarchy in this world - each city or region has its own circle, which rules the area much as a king or council might. Lower-ranking druids keep order in smaller towns, or serve as magistrates and other functionaries in the cities.

Though all the areas of the world are ruled by druids, they suffer many of the same conflicts as nations in other worlds. The druidic cirlces often disagree on the proper relationship between Man and Nature, and druids, like many animals, can be territorial.

AtomicKitKat
2007-01-17, 12:12 AM
...free for all do anything you want as long as it doesn't harm nature nudist colony?

Sounds a lot like the kind of world I would be running.:smallamused:

Tor the Fallen
2007-01-17, 03:29 AM
I've always thought of druids as non-governors. The followers of that one druidic god don't even have a heirarchy.

They'd probably rule subtly, and be used to cycles. Sometimes lots of people die, sometimes the forces of good lose a war, sometimes devils blight acres of forest. Nature is resilient. She grows back. Civilizations will crumble, and wild animals will roam once crowded streets.

Their methods of control would be all weather driven. Imagine the power of those who can control crops, the behavior of animals (in a world where much power comes from animals), the weather. How many battles were lost in ancient times due to the weather? Entire empires halted, civilizations saved from advancing hordes.

I imagine druids, when bothered, would control through very apocolyptic means– famine, drought, catastrophic storms, pestilence.

I doubt druids would micromanage their realm, only turning to act when something was in dire threat. The powerful, world ruling druids would be ancient. Much time would pass, and they may not notice it. I could imagine an entire civilization emerging before druids acted, or even realized, the tribesmen of yesteryear were now agrarian, literate, and metalworkers.

Like nature, a druid's exercise of his power would be haphazard, indiscriminate, and brutal.

Ladoran
2007-01-17, 06:34 AM
The Shepherds.

Actually a whole damn lot like what headwarpage suggested with his Druidworld Mark II, except that the perspective is somewhat different. The druids know of the resilience of nature and are therefore not concerned that man will destroy it. Instead they worry that man will destroy themselves, and this worries the druids. They have taken it upon themselves to control the world and ensure that humans does not run rampant into a situation that will lead to the demise of sentience on the planet.

Ramza00
2007-01-21, 06:47 PM
any more thoughts?

Frosty Flake
2007-01-21, 10:34 PM
Er... Blighters would replace Lich as the standard icky BBEG spellcaster? There would be four different nature gods to choose from, one chaotic, one Lawful, one Good one Evil? Clubs, daggers, darts, quarterstaffs, scimitars, sickles, shortspears, slings, and spears would make up the majority of magical weapons... Maybe Dwarven druidic cultures would have Stoneshapers who grow stone weapons, armour, houses, walls, toilets, etc out of the living rock of mother (insert world name here). Halfling caravans (styled after the Pavee) would leave absolutely NO trace and only camp in natural clearings like the open glades around a lake... Elves were subjected to genocide centuries ago, 'cus I hate them, and so Elven artefacts (as in, antiques, not necessarily powerful magical devices) are the only lasting remnant and source of Arcane knowledge? Orc and human cultures are less strained, since the elves being dead makes the orcs a little less angry and everyone is just trying to survive anywhoo... the Thug variant of Fighter would be a lot more common, what with no full-plate lying around?

Edit: And dwarven druids would have the mighty power to resurrect dead threads :P

Woot Spitum
2007-01-21, 10:44 PM
If druids were like demi-gods and were more powerful than any other class and thus were the uncontested masters of the world, what would the gaming world look like?

A Terry Brooks Shannara novel.:smallbiggrin:

Of course then druids would be more like a powered up version of the Warlock (Druid Fire = WAY more power than Eldritch Blast).

krossbow
2007-01-21, 10:48 PM
The gnomes, being the harbingers of technology and progress, would be hunted down in a genocidal fashion; in addition, Elves would be subject the same problem, as their control of magic would pose a threat to druidic supremacy. Because of this, the drow and other elves would form a truce, in order to fight against their common foe; old hatreds would be buried, and the hope of peace amongst them would grow.

Meanwhile, the barbaric races of the world, such as orcs and half orcs would comprise the mainstay of the druidic army, their chaotic bent and savage lifestyle within nature being allowed to flourish in the new world. They would finally be free to practice hunting and gathering, and the orcs would always leap at good work and good pay hunting down elves; it would be like their dream come true.


Meanwhile, the humans would be split both ways. Those that loved nature would find this to be a utopian situation, even if the means were somewhat extreme; after all, this solved so many of man's problems, as war between groups was abolished as all hate was directed at the gnomes and elves. Meanwhile, the power-hungry other half, seeing the power inherent in both technology and magic would ally themselves alongside those opposing druidic rule.

The Dwarves, clandestine and canny as always, would hole themselves up inside of their mountains, their clerics pondering the outcome. Though they never had liked the elves, they also had a great need to chop down trees and mine, all hated practices. However, they did not care enough to involve themselves in the affairs of others without great need. So, as always, they would wait, divining which side to throw their lot in with...

Frosty Flake
2007-01-21, 10:57 PM
lves would be subject the same problem, as their control of magic would pose a threat to druidic supremacy. Because of this, the drow and other elves would form a truce

Dude... No... Ever read all the fluff on Drow? They were chased underground and cursed becouse of a great sin... what if they weren't chased by the other elves, but instead by the collective might of the druid lords and ALL elves are Drow now? Cursed for their sins against the laws of nature (ie. Arcane Magic) and forced to meek out an existance of dark, lusterless sorrow in the deepest caverns of the world, swearing revenge on the Druids above and paying homage to the fiery feindish lords they found when they delved too low into the bowels of the earth! AWESOME!

(Drow would listen to Emo, Pop-punk and Nu Metal... lol)

Woot Spitum
2007-01-21, 11:01 PM
Except for the fact that elvish society is the closest to the druid's ideal of the natural order of things.

krossbow
2007-01-21, 11:02 PM
Eh, I guess I am just a fan of "the two enemies who are forced to join forces against a common enemy!" cliche.


But your idea makes more sense; Not to mention Drow chicks are way hotter; might as well have all of them be taht way :smalltongue:

Frosty Flake
2007-01-21, 11:09 PM
Except for the fact that elvish society is the closest to the druid's ideal of the natural order of things.

Yeah... but I really like the idea of them being dead... you know... them being elves and all. Besides, what if the Druids, having attained this power, are more concerned with maintaining druidic world domination that nature itself? preserving nature, of course, phelps preserve their power, but they could definitely see the highly magical elven society as a threat to power.


Drow chicks are way hotter; might as well have all of them be taht way

...Word

Woot Spitum
2007-01-21, 11:17 PM
I do, however, agree that there are not enough evil elves. But I don't just want all of the elves turned into drow. I want the Surface elves to be evil.:smallamused:

A Pointy Object
2007-01-21, 11:25 PM
It depends.

I rather like the idea of having a world broken down geographically.

Say, 10 Grand Groves.

Or, say, a beast with seven heads and ten crowns?

Eschatoloists, if you get that, two points for you.

Like we need any more CoDzillas with nobility. Oh well. It IS a scary thought...

In fact, why aren't they in charge already?

Frosty Flake
2007-01-21, 11:26 PM
...would they still be hot matriarchal and coal-skinned? You know... to blend into the shadows cast by the towering trees? They'd either have to have a stable and defendable centre of power or be disparate and nomadic, constantly covering their tracks, moving one step ahead of the druidic avengers and killing any halfling nomads they come across to stop them from reporting (willingly or under interrogation) to the druids. OOH! Transdimensional elves who's secret fortress is in a demiplane seeded by a great elven wizard, only foraying out to take on the druids and try to reclaim their homeland! think of it... little portals portals popping open and bands of elven skirmishers jumping out and ambushing druid groves... An arcane city in it's own plane, but still very much a part of the world? Great Scott!

Edit:

Or, say, a beast with seven heads and ten crowns?

I get it.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-21, 11:39 PM
It's not that I don't like drow as villains (love them as villains, both in-game and in novels), I'm just sick of noble, morally perfect, so superior to humans in every possible way surface elves. I want more surface elves like the sons of Feanor from Tolkien's Silmarillian (hope I spelled that right), who are willing to do anything to achieve their goals. I want there to be just as many, if not more, evil surface elf societies than human ones. The drow can stay unaltered (well, maybe they could be less dependant/focused on Lolth, more so on personal gain and taking over the world). It's the surface elves I want being evil, without their appearance changing so that the party can't tell if an elf is a CG nature lover just by looking at them.

krossbow
2007-01-21, 11:41 PM
Hell, every elve subgroup in my sessions is kind of evil; I guess it's tolkien styled impressions, in that we all remember the elves from the hobbit who locked up the dwarves and were just as greedy as them.

Frosty Flake
2007-01-21, 11:47 PM
Just part of the reason I don't like elves and suggested the whole genocide thing in the first place... and whatever happened to Orcs being evil and twisted elves? they were like the original drow... just not as sexy... that should come back too.

NO! WAIT! The druids tortured and mutilated and changed a group of elves to use as twisted and hatefull supersoldiers in their war against the Archmagi of the Demiplane city, thus creating Orcs! Nah... not very druidic to change the nature of something... well... they do have a lot of change-oriented powers... and it would be for the cause. Huh...

Ramza00
2007-01-21, 11:53 PM
NO! WAIT! The druids tortured and mutilated and changed a group of elves to use as twisted and hatefull supersoldiers in their war against the Archmagi of the Demiplane city, thus creating Orcs! Nah... not very druidic to change the nature of something... well... they do have a lot of change-oriented powers... and it would be for the cause. Huh...

Dumb but strong warriors that will obey the orders of there masters and put down those elves who twist the vary nature of nature with there arcane magic.

I mean those elves had it comming, destroy nature, and we druids will change your race and make you our slave army.

Frosty Flake
2007-01-21, 11:58 PM
Ramza... That's going in my sig... wait... this isn't just going to become the "I hate those damn dirty elves" thread is it?

Woot Spitum
2007-01-22, 12:00 AM
Orcs: The dirty little secret of the elven world. One of the few things Tolkien wrote that, unfortunately, did not influence D&D.:smallfrown:

Mewtarthio
2007-01-22, 12:02 AM
Or, say, a beast with seven heads and ten crowns?

Book of Revelations, right?


...would they still be hot matriarchal and coal-skinned? You know... to blend into the shadows cast by the towering trees? They'd either have to have a stable and defendable centre of power or be disparate and nomadic, constantly covering their tracks, moving one step ahead of the druidic avengers and killing any halfling nomads they come across to stop them from reporting (willingly or under interrogation) to the druids. OOH! Transdimensional elves who's secret fortress is in a demiplane seeded by a great elven wizard, only foraying out to take on the druids and try to reclaim their homeland! think of it... little portals portals popping open and bands of elven skirmishers jumping out and ambushing druid groves... An arcane city in it's own plane, but still very much a part of the world? Great Scott!

Neat! So you'd have the drow who are a (quite literally) underground resistance movement and the surface elves as plane-shifting terrorists? This would be even cooler if alignment were somehow obscured...

Frosty Flake
2007-01-22, 12:16 AM
Neat! So you'd have the drow who are a (quite literally) underground resistance movement and the surface elves as plane-shifting terrorists? This would be even cooler if alignment were somehow obscured...

NEW ALIGNMENT SYSTEM!

Z-axis: Naturalist-Progressivist

So Drow would be Chaotic-Evil-Progressive and the planar terrorist elves would be chaotic-good-Neutral, giving them more in common with the evil Drow than some Druids, making them perfect candidats for the whole 'unlikely allies' and 'the enemy of my enemy' thingy.

Hell, how many Half-Elf-Half-Drow Ranger-Assasins would there be?

Nocturne
2007-01-22, 07:28 AM
Book of Revelations, right?

Loving this thread. Just wanted to point out (tangent alert!) that there was only one Revelation. :smalltongue:

dead_but_dreaming
2007-01-22, 07:55 AM
Just a thought:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that many, many "standard" fantasy worlds have a long history of Mighty Civilizations (TM) rising and falling over and over again (leaving behind Ancient Magic and Powerful Artifacts, of course). Because of this, all such worlds seem to be stuck in the medieval times for all eternity, but what if the druids, wishing to hinder magical and technological developement, are the subtle force behind all these cataclysms? This means that most fantasy world are controlled by druids, in a fashion.

headwarpage
2007-01-22, 09:52 AM
That's an interesting idea. Stopping the next cataclysm would make for a great high-level campaign. As would bringing about the next cataclysm, continuing the cycle of destruction and renewal that keeps the world in balance.

Frosty Flake
2007-01-22, 11:07 AM
An all-Druid (not necessarily the class) party who's epic uest it is to cause a cataclysm for the good of all that is natural? Huh. That would certainly be a very grand campaign.

Gamebird
2007-01-22, 12:01 PM
If druids were like demi-gods and were more powerful than any other class and thus were the uncontested masters of the world...

The latter does not necessarily follow from the former. Look at dragons. Or [insert high CR creature of your choice here].

headwarpage
2007-01-22, 12:03 PM
Or an ordinary party, unknowingly aiding the druids in their ritual (or just stumbling across the druids as they work on their preparations). The party learns, almost too late, what they are planning, but the druids have very good reasons for wanting a cataclysm. Namely, there's some even worse disaster that will (almost certainly) occur if they don't succeed in destroying civilization. Will the party help the druids finish their ritual, destroying everything they hold dear for the sake of the greater good, or try to stop them, and then take their chances on stopping the alternate disaster as well (which is practically impossible and by no means guaranteed)?

This seems like a good way to wrap up a long-running campaign - one last apocalyptic struggle, then everybody rolls up new characters, win or lose.

krossbow
2007-01-22, 02:55 PM
Those who've lost faith in civilization and humanity have forgotten the basic tenants of what people must constantly cling to in order to rise above barbarity: Hope. :smallcool:



That's how I'd answer them as I cheerfully lopped their heads off. Just as Batman in batman begins would not allow Raz al ghul to pass judgement on gotham, so would I not let druids, infinitely inferior to Raz, pass judgement on the world.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-22, 03:02 PM
Say, are there any PrCs out there that are to Druids what Blackguards are to Paladins? Some sort of "Anti-Druid," perhaps? Or maybe a Corrupt Avenger-style Ex-Druid?

krossbow
2007-01-22, 03:03 PM
Say, are there any PrCs out there that are to Druids what Blackguards are to Paladins? Some sort of "Anti-Druid," perhaps? Or maybe a Corrupt Avenger-style Ex-Druid?



You mean like, say the blighter? :smalltongue:
________
FORD SUPER DUTY ENGINE HISTORY (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Super_Duty_engine)

Roderick_BR
2007-01-22, 03:06 PM
I only know that the computers would be as big as a house... </Disc World ref.>

headwarpage
2007-01-22, 03:20 PM
Always an option. Remember, though, that in D&D, there are things much, much worse than the collapse of civilization. Like overuse of magic wearing the fabric of reality too thin, causing the complete destruction of the material plane (works especially well in an Eberron-type setting, where magic has taken the place of technology). Or any of a hundred other things that can go wrong. In that context, periodically nuking (metaphorically) mankind back to the stone age and giving reality a chance to recover is a pretty fair trade. Not necessarily the best choice, but better than doing nothing.

Your example (I think, I'm not familar with the source material) involves a largely intangible corruption and decline of civilization, which must be purged (standard villain logic). I'm talking about a situation in which something absolutely catastrophic and entirely real will happen (and it's vital that the DM make the players believe the threat before forcing the choice), except that somebody is trying to do something almost as bad to prevent it. But once it's done, the world can recover.

It's not necessarily a scenario that appeals to everybody, but I think it has potential, for the right group. I'd expect a fair number of people to feel like you do anyway - it's supposed to be a tough choice between bad alternatives, not a clear shot at saving the world.

Yakk
2007-01-22, 03:22 PM
So:
Druids don't try to most of the world overtly. Running the world, in a world of adventurers, results in the people overthrowing you.

Instead, they scry the results of continued progress, and keep on seeing either a world in which nature is raped nearly to death (high tech), or warped into insanity (magic tech), or both.

The Druids realize that this must be stopped. So they regularly engeneer cataclisms that destroy civilization, then help it get started up again. Maybe next time they'll scry that civilization will figure it out, and not likely end up in a hell hole.

The problem is, the Druids are not the only group that has such a long view. The Dwarves suspect something, but they are also long-term conservative conservationists. They know what happens when you rape nature (and have the records of wiped out Dwarven colonies to prove it). So the Druids don't try to wipe out Dwarven civilization.

The Elves, on the other hand, are an equally ancient people. About 1000 years ago, the elves figured out that something was up -- these cataclysms where not natural -- and conviened a great council.

Then everything went to ****. See, they didn't suspect themselves. The elven druids, invited to the council, let the rest of the arch druid conspiracy know.

Massive unknown forces attacked the elves, destroying their ancient magical artifacts, and causing strain between the elven clans. Entire elven people where nearly wiped out.

The elves broke and ran. They know what to do when under attack. The problem is, they took the druids with them, and where tracked down and killed.

Left on the surface are small, paranoid clans of elves -- if only because only the insanely paranoid and lucky survived the wrath of the druids. They hide wherever they can, avoid any contact with outsiders, and teach their children their survival skills.

Whenever a clan of elves on the surface gathers too much power or gets too large, the druids smash them utterly and completely, leaving no survivors.

So elven families stay small, branch out, and continue to survive. But the ancient knowledge of the elders is lost to them.

...

Two large surviving groups of elves exist. A wizard conclave headed by someone suspicious of the druids fled underground, taking with it not a single divine caster. A mixture of inaccessability, magical defences, and lack druids let them grow in power and defence.

The second are the drow. They suffered in the destruction of the elves, but they survived. Far fewer drow where druids than the surface bretheren. They still suffered massive casualties (upwards of 90%), but some of their elders still exist.

Arlanthe
2007-01-23, 04:28 AM
I think that second to Barbarians, Druids would be the least likely to hold some sort of mass government together. In fact, that seems to be the antithesis of Druidism, which in the end is a largely net neutral body of people concerned mostly with "keeping balance", as they say, between differing philosophical ideals and civilization/the wilds.

Inactivity in "ruling" would be the Druid norm, since if all things were balanced they would not act. I imagine if they established balanced "zones"- defined city limits, zoned farming areas, connected by a network of roads, and say, zoned areas for timber cutting and mining that were replenished or used in moderation- they would do little else. Perhaps play whack-a-mole when things come out of alignment.

I don't see that as a terribly big risk, since even though the Druid government and zoning would be mild, even handed, and probably pretty wise, other power hungry groups with more disparate alignments and ideals seem more motivated to try and take over the world. I see mages, priests, paladins- all more likely to take over the world.

Leon
2007-01-23, 06:27 AM
I like this, for some demented reason. Is there any variant of druids that lets their mojo affect aberrations?

Yes, Ebberon has a number of things along those lines - the gatekeeper Sect is the Anti Aberation sect and there is a PRC for them and some spells



Well, the way I see it, your common or garden druid sees humans (and the like) as part of nature, not distinct from it...

As opposed to the Eco-Terrorist that is a Blackclad of Circle Orboros who would tear down Civilization on a whim if they could

krossbow
2007-01-23, 12:15 PM
Bah; I would choose hope in civilization over the whims of nature a million times. You see, people have this view of nature that its something really nice and friendly; its not. Nature is nasty, brutish and cruel. To presume moral superiority for somethign in constant chaos, with the only law being survival of the fittest is a view I find abhorrent.




I would take my chances with those opposed to druids a million times-- especially since its quite simple to recolonize another dimension, or even MAKE another one in D&D.

Ramza00
2007-01-23, 02:21 PM
What is wrong with the survival of the fittest krossbow? What is wrong with a society that focuses more on the universal aspect instead of individuality and rewarding pleasure/avoiding pain?

Anyway I think you aren't NG but more of a LN/CN/N druid :smallsmile:

Gamebird
2007-01-23, 02:34 PM
What is wrong with the survival of the fittest krossbow? What is wrong with a society that focuses more on the universal aspect instead of individuality and rewarding pleasure/avoiding pain?

To some extent, every society is based on survival of the fittest - those most able to garner the support of others survive and reproduce, those with the most ability to gain money can crush others, those with the most friends have the most resources available to them.

But ethically, a society that attempts to artificially impose a "survival of the fittest" is usually very wrong, very immoral. At some point, someone sets standards of what they imagine to be "fit" and then mobilizes the machinery of society to eliminate all people who do not meet those qualifications. Historically, such standards have usually eliminated the most vulnerable members - the old, the frail, the diseased, the disabled, the ignorant, the addicted. It has also eliminated some who were quite fit in other ways: intellectuals, lawyers, entire families (often anyone related to the old rulers), entire races or ethnic categories, homosexuals, those of certain religions, people who wore glasses, people not born locally, people having a particular accent, etc. Eliminating these people is immoral and unethical.

One could argue that "survival of the fittest" means that anyone able to kill anyone else, or convince the machinery of government to kill someone else, should be able to get away with it. They are fit in that they were able to kill others, who were proven unfit by being victimized. It's a bully's rationalization.

Ramza00
2007-01-23, 02:58 PM
But ethically, a society that attempts to artificially impose a "survival of the fittest" is usually very wrong, very immoral. At some point, someone sets standards of what they imagine to be "fit" and then mobilizes the machinery of society to eliminate all people who do not meet those qualifications.
You are making a value judgement with this statement. What one sees as moral can be seen by another as immoral. What makes your morality superior to his morality? How and why are you judging different frames of morality?

Resists the urge to turn this into a psychology discussion about the merits of Moral relativism vs Moral Absolutism/Universalism and the inbetween isms.

(Note just because you are a moral relativist and accept there is no absolute and universal moral truths, doesn't mean you don't view certain things as good and certain things as better than others. If you are a moral relativist you realize that reality is subjective, and you are okay with this.)

headwarpage
2007-01-23, 03:11 PM
Bah; I would choose hope in civilization over the whims of nature a million times. You see, people have this view of nature that its something really nice and friendly; its not. Nature is nasty, brutish and cruel. To presume moral superiority for somethign in constant chaos, with the only law being survival of the fittest is a view I find abhorrent.

I agree, nature is nasty and brutish (not cruel, that requires intent, and nature is fundamentally uncaring). It's also beautiful and awe-inspiring. Mostly, though, it is. Nature requires and offers no reasons or justifications. It exists, as it is, for no reason other than because it can, and without regard for you, me, the eagle outside my window, or anything else. Personally, I love this about nature. I, however, am very strange.

None of this has any bearing on D&D, however. I was proposing a very specific scenario that might be fun to play out, in the context of a game. It's not the only scenario that might exist, just one that interests me. What I'm trying to set up is a choice. Option 1 is destroying civilization, with great destruction and loss of life. Option 2 is risking (in a very real and immediate way) an apocalypse that dwarfs option 1. There is no third option, and it may be possible to stop the apocalypse, but it's at least equally likely that you will fail, and I won't pull any punches. If that's not your cup of tea, so be it - nobody's forcing you to play the game.

Outside of D&D, there's an absolutely fascinating philosophical debate to be had on Man, Nature, and the relationship between the two. Trying to have it on these boards will probably get us in trouble, however.

Gamebird
2007-01-23, 04:40 PM
You are making a value judgement with this statement.

Yeah.... sort of.


What one sees as moral can be seen by another as immoral.

Yeah, that's true.


What makes your morality superior to his morality? How and why are you judging different frames of morality?

Did I say I was superior? By the standards of ethics as I know them, one person imposing their values on others is wrong. In the way that 2+3=4 is a wrong equation. I don't have to make a value judgement of math to say that's wrong. I know that "morality" as a term is so broad as to be virtually meaningless, especially in an internet forum where we don't necessarily share cultural mores, religion, situation or upbringing. I was under the impression that "ethics" had a fairly standard definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Eh, the above isn't much help. Perhaps I should say instead:

"According to the majority of moral constructs and value systems in the world today, a society that attempts to artificially impose a "survival of the fittest" is usually very wrong, very immoral."

I wasn't trying to say my view on it, just say that there are a lot of reasons why a lot of people consider the implementation of "survival of the fittest" to be wrong. The "survival of the fittest"-is-cool mentality is also one I see being more prevalent among the young, healthy and childless, for obvious reasons: they are fit. Thus, any policy that puts them on top and kills everyone else is to their benefit. A rather selfish way to do it, but humans have ever been selfish creatures.

Ramza00
2007-01-23, 10:26 PM
Yeah.... sort of.

Yeah, that's true.

Did I say I was superior? By the standards of ethics as I know them, one person imposing their values on others is wrong. In the way that 2+3=4 is a wrong equation. I don't have to make a value judgement of math to say that's wrong. I know that "morality" as a term is so broad as to be virtually meaningless, especially in an internet forum where we don't necessarily share cultural mores, religion, situation or upbringing. I was under the impression that "ethics" had a fairly standard definition.

First it isn't "one person imposing their values on others is wrong." its "one person imposing their morality on others is wrong"
Second ones morality doesn't have to value free will or independent thought. If one's person's morality says God's will is the number one thing on the planet, and bugger everything else, then that person is going to believe that performing God's will is the most important thing regardless what it does to someones free will and independent thought.

If one's religion says it is god's will to convert everybody to religion X, regardless of if they like it, and if they need to be put to the sword to convert, then that person is going to believe that this is morally right.

You saying

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Eh, the above isn't much help. Perhaps I should say instead:

"According to the majority of moral constructs and value systems in the world today, a society that attempts to artificially impose a "survival of the fittest" is usually very wrong, very immoral."First where is that quote coming from, you?

Second, Majority within the last century. Our morals and ethics have evolved a lot recently. Thanks to the age of enlightenment we value freedom and liberty. Before hand other things were more important. People forcing there beliefs on others was the norm. You had to be a Christian or you were killed in the middle of ages. This changed somewhat after the thirty year war in Germany (protestants vs catholics), the threat of Treaty of Westphalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Westphalia) in 1648 redefined the nature of religion and politics. There was no religious freedom after this treaty, the phrase "Cuius regio, eius religio " was in effect which means "Whose rule, his religion." Now instead of being forced into your king's religion it was your dukes.

It is only in the last century has this changed. The majority view of respecting others autonomy has occurred for the previous wars were so destructive that people in power gave people freedom for by doing so it secured the (temporary) peace. Now after decades of seeing how freedom is good we now value it.


I wasn't trying to say my view on it, just say that there are a lot of reasons why a lot of people consider the implementation of "survival of the fittest" to be wrong. The "survival of the fittest"-is-cool mentality is also one I see being more prevalent among the young, healthy and childless, for obvious reasons: they are fit. Thus, any policy that puts them on top and kills everyone else is to their benefit. A rather selfish way to do it, but humans have ever been selfish creatures.In sum you see such morality as unethical, but that doesn't mean others see that morality as unethical. You see the morality of "survival of the fittest" as unethical for you value personal goodness which you believe is inherent in all people and thus must not be harmed.

But a Druid may see the morality of "survival of the fittest" as the best for other reasons. A Druid may hold in value other ideas and philosophies, he doesn't have to see the world with the same perspective you do.

Just because you see him as unethical doesn't make you or your morality in anyway better than his morality. The only way your morality is superior to his, or vice versa, is if it helps you/him obtain the things that you value, the things that you treasure.

I take pleasure in being happy, receiving pleasure/avoiding pain, living, and helping/bringing happiness to others. These 4 things, plus other ideas help construct my personal morality and ethics. These things are my morality not because they are some universal/absolute truths of the universe (some people believe they are, but belief doesn't necessary make it so), no these things are good because I value them my choice makes them good.

MeklorIlavator
2007-01-23, 11:33 PM
In would say that differnt elvish races would be treated differntly.
Grey elves-dead

High elves-50/50 split between death or life, probaly more like pesecuting arcanes, arcane"reeducation"camps

Wild/wood elves-welcomed, they are the most nature centric elves, after all

Arlanthe
2007-01-24, 09:14 AM
morality and ethics

All morals and ethics are relative. Sure we have "emerging norms", and changing norms, but they are always compared to something else. All you can do is make the best case possible with your best reasoning, and hope the other person in the discussion can reason as well.

And if they have ethics that are prescribed, fideistic, and originate in dogma, just walk away, because you won't find reason.

I guess that's why I see Druid ethics as more interesting, in a way they are really devoid of ethics, and instead (in general) rely on a single fideistic principle of balance.

Ramza00
2007-01-24, 10:17 AM
All morals and ethics are relative. Sure we have "emerging norms", and changing norms, but they are always compared to something else. All you can do is make the best case possible with your best reasoning, and hope the other person in the discussion can reason as well.

And if they have ethics that are prescribed, fideistic, and originate in dogma, just walk away, because you won't find reason.

I guess that's why I see Druid ethics as more interesting, in a way they are really devoid of ethics, and instead (in general) rely on a single fideistic principle of balance.

I agree especially about the last bit about druids.

headwarpage
2007-01-24, 11:07 AM
See, I agree, except for the part about druids. The most common druidic viewpoint, in my mind, is to give animals, trees, or some other aspect of nature high value within any existing ethical system. It's not the lack of an ethical system, or even a totally exotic system, as much as a different set of values.

That's not to say that the overriding commitment to balance isn't a valid worldview for druids, but to me, druids are just like everybody else - except that they really, really like trees. Within any relative system of ethics, you end up making value judgments. Is the life of a friend more valuable than the life of a stranger? Does my well-being justify me causing harm to somebody else? How much harm? Is killing in self-defense justified? And so on. And different people are going to have different (and perfectly valid) answers to those questions based on their individual values. Druids simply place a high value on Nature (however they interpret it, and there are many interpretations) within their system of ethics.

Or I have no idea what I'm talking about - a possibility which should never be discounted.

Ramza00
2007-01-24, 11:13 AM
For individualizes druids I can see that as a possibility headwarpage, but when Druids are the dominant power for so long I believe eventually the idea of inflexible doctrine enters into the process. Power corrupts, and systems seek to stabilize themselves and preserve the status quo.

headwarpage
2007-01-24, 11:40 AM
I agree that the group in power tends to enforce its values on everybody else. I imagine that, over time, the idea of nature as a valued entity in ethical considerations would become something shared by everybody, not just druids. There might be some attempts to codify this, as well. "Thou shalt not kill" becomes "Thou shalt cut down no living tree," or "Thou shalt be a vegan." Those are extreme, though, and actually against nature. It is the nature of the vast majority of living things to kill other things in order to continue their own existence. To prevent people from doing that is to deny that people have any place within nature. As people, druids aren't about to take things that far (though a few zealots might). The commandments, then, become things designed to keep people from shaping the world to suit them. But many animals do that, too - beavers come immediately to mind. But not on anything near the scale that people can.

So yes, it's all about balance, in the long run. But it comes out of a legitimate ethical consideration of the right of all things to continue to exist, not a commitment to balance as an abstract ideal. But yes, balance, over time, could become the new dogma. But in the absence of new and different ideas, any belief system, regardless of how philosophically valid it was to begin with, can easily devolve into dogma.

Gamebird
2007-01-24, 11:44 AM
(Snip)

This isn't about me or my beliefs. Someone asked what was "wrong" (his word) about a druid advocating survival of the fittest. Oh wait... that was you! Hahah. Now I see why you're ... well.

You said: "What is wrong with a society that focuses more on the universal aspect instead of individuality and rewarding pleasure/avoiding pain?"

The only thing "wrong" with it is that it doesn't fit with the majority of ethical constructs of today (by which I mean TODAY, not the last century - ethical constructs have changed radically over that 100 years). My pointing out it is considered wrong by a lot of people today has nothing to do with me or my views. Nor does it have anything to do with any sense of objective right or wrong (assuming one believes such a thing exists). I'm not condoning the tyranny of the majority or implying that since a lot of people believe it, it's right or true.

I'm just saying that since a lot of people believe "survival of the fittest" to be morally wrong, then one can consider that "what's wrong" with the philosophy is that a lot of people think it's wrong. A lot of people thinking it's wrong poses certain problems to it. To make it work in a game world, you'll have to make sure that enough of your game world population doesn't think like modern people in the Western world. Certainly not impossible, but considering the language and technology we're using to have this discussion, it's something to bear in mind - the mindset we all bring to the table.

If you know what my avatar is, then I think you'll understand that I'm quite a bit out of step with current ethical constructs myself.

Frosty Flake
2007-01-24, 12:00 PM
I think that the fact that the moral constructs of the imagined druid society clash with today's morality is exactly the reason it would make such a GREAT game! All the discussion it's sparked here in a short amount of time, think about playing in the setting for a year... ethics debates within the party and major decisions to be made galore.

I've been playing D&D for a little while now and I have to say... the normal BBEG intrests me less and less. This idea of moral debate being a mojor part of the campaign (with PCs having real-world-today moral ideas... more or less) seems fun... with the right group of people.


If you know what my avatar is, then I think you'll understand that I'm quite a bit out of step with current ethical constructs myself.
There is one tree, the phoenix' throne; one phoenix?
Or... a red and orange chicken?

Gamebird
2007-01-24, 12:12 PM
I think that the fact that the moral constructs of the imagined druid society clash with today's morality is exactly the reason it would make such a GREAT game! All the discussion it's sparked here in a short amount of time, think about playing in the setting for a year... ethics debates within the party and major decisions to be made galore.

I've been playing D&D for a little while now and I have to say... the normal BBEG intrests me less and less. This idea of moral debate being a mojor part of the campaign (with PCs having real-world-today moral ideas... more or less) seems fun... with the right group of people.

Heh, maybe you'd like my game. The players are from a human kingdom with fairly typical Western medieval human values. To their north though, and in a few pockets within their own borders, are the fey. The fey have some following among the humans too. They have a very different morality - one that values life above all and seeks to live off the land without killing anything (at least, that's what they say... it's more of a pro-fey, pro-plant stance because they don't mind out-competing certain species). They eat meat because that way they are killing fewer creatures and they are getting rid of a murderer, a creature that has to murder to live (like a deer, pig or human - who kill every day to survive). They don't cook their food because that involves burning wood (which means either killing a tree, or "wasting" the wood rather than letting it decompose and be food for more things). Most of the fey don't need to eat often, because they get their sustenance magically from their tree, their stream, the sun, a spell-like ability, etc. So it's an easy philosophy for them, but very hard for humans to adapt (though difficulty has rarely been a barrier to human faith - quite the contrary).

The PCs have realized that the fey aren't exactly on their side. They've had a number of debates about what to do about it. Generally though, they're fighting the worse evil, which is the humanoids influenced and led by infernal forces.



Or... a red and orange chicken?

It's a gamecock (not sure that will get past the filters: game rooster, then). Note the gaffs and trimmed comb.

headwarpage
2007-01-24, 12:27 PM
I think that the fact that the moral constructs of the imagined druid society clash with today's morality is exactly the reason it would make such a GREAT game! All the discussion it's sparked here in a short amount of time, think about playing in the setting for a year... ethics debates within the party and major decisions to be made galore.

I've been playing D&D for a little while now and I have to say... the normal BBEG intrests me less and less. This idea of moral debate being a mojor part of the campaign (with PCs having real-world-today moral ideas... more or less) seems fun... with the right group of people.


It would definitely require a very specific group of people. The thing about ethical/philosophical debates is that people tend to get extremely invested in their position. To have a group that could argue about these things for a few hours, then stop, set it all aside, and order pizza would be rare, in my opinion. It might work for a little while, but pretty soon any pretense of being in character would drop, and then you'd be having legitimate arguments between players.

But with the right group of people, very good roleplayers who could argue their character's position rather than their own and keep it at the table, and who knew going in that that's what the game was going to be, it might be fun.

I may, when I have time, run a game based on some of these ideas on the PbP boards, though. If I do, you're welcome to play. Or you can steal all our ideas and run the game yourself.

Frosty Flake
2007-01-24, 12:46 PM
if you know what my avatar is, then I think you'll understand that I'm quite a bit out of step with current ethical constructs myself.
It's a gamecock... so... you support cockfighting? I'm confuzzled. But your game does sound fun and I'm sure those sort of weirdo-fey ideas would spring up in the Druid dominated/controlled/secretely shepherded world too...

It may even be that all of the Druids are from the same race of mystical creatures... I mean, who would make a better Big Bad Global Conspiracy than Pixie Druids, eh? Come on... Pixies! "We must destroy civilization for the future of reality as we know it!" says the minute old naked man with a beard and gossamar wings.


It would definitely require a very specific group of people.
Yes, this is true.


Or you can steal all our ideas and run the game yourself.
ExSQUEEEZE me? I beleive I have put a number of ideas into this thread! Harrumph! Stealing! :P

headwarpage
2007-01-24, 01:02 PM
Sorry, I was only remembering the people who have been arguing participating in the ethical discussion for the past page or so. That's what you get for not lowering yourself to our level - everybody forgets you exist.

krossbow
2007-01-24, 03:19 PM
Eh; I guess maybe I'm just filled with a psychotic hatred of nature, but my character would be attempting to find the most effective way to nuke the druids no matter what. :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

Indon
2007-01-25, 12:40 AM
So I'm thinking for a more combat-oriented campaign, a world in which druids rule with an Ironwood fist would be appropriate, while a more intrigue-oriented campaign might have the druids secretly manipulating things from behind the scenes.

Perhaps with, as one person earlier suggested, extensive passive magic such as weather control, a good middle ground can be struck between the two. Rather than wage all-out war, druids would use natural attrition.

Edit: One other thought. How much abuse in the name of Nature does Nature take before nature perhaps strikes back?

Dervag
2007-01-25, 02:02 AM
Should we perhaps look at Celtic society, where the druid concept is originally drawn from?

Ramza00
2007-01-25, 09:31 AM
Should we perhaps look at Celtic society, where the druid concept is originally drawn from?
That would be a smart thing to do :smallsmile:

So replace priests with druids, what else?

headwarpage
2007-01-25, 10:36 AM
I said I was going to avoid this topic, but here I go...

At some point, we're going to need to define what we actually mean when we say "nature". It's a powerful term in that it evokes a response, but it means different things to different people. My impression is that the prevailing modern attitude is that "nature" is generally thought of as "not people". If a family of beavers were to dam a stream, most people would agree that this is a part of nature. They might not like it, they might even go out and kill the beavers, but they would agree that it was a "natural" occurence. But if the local water district was to dam the same stream for use as a reservoir, very few people would say that this is "nature", and many would say that it was 'against' nature. Why is that? Both examples involve creatures engaging in the same activity for the same reasons - to benefit themselves and provide the things they need to live.

I feel that in the modern mindset, nature is defined as something that people have no part in. We may be affected by it, and we may affect it in turn, but we're not part of it. If the aforementioned beaver dam floods a rabbit burrow, or a windstorm blows down a few trees, that's one thing in nature affecting other things. If the dam built by the Department of Public Works floods that rabbit burrow, or if somebody cuts down those same trees to clear land for farming, that's viewed as us coming in from somewhere outside nature and affecting it. If that beaver dam floods my basement, or if that windstorm tears my roof off, that's nature coming in from wherever nature hides and affecting us.

I'm not saying that this viewpoint isn't valid, but I feel like it defines nature by the presence or absence of human intervention. Now, for the sake of argument, let me lay out another viewpoint - we are a part of nature. Nature encompasses everything, including people. If we dam a stream, it is no more or less natural than if the beavers do. It's simply an example of a creature, part of nature, trying to enhance its own chances of survival by affecting other things in nature. Because there are so many of us, and we survive (ever since the agricultural revolution) by adapting our environment to us rather than adapting to our environment, we can have a greater impact on other things in nature than most creatures can. Again, I'm not trying to argue the superiority of this viewpoint over any other, just giving it as an alternative.

What bearing does this have on the actual discussion we're having? Maybe none, but it's a fun discussion on its own. But if we assume that druids hold nature in the highest regard, it does make a difference. If you take the modern idea that people are not part of nature, then it follows that the best thing for nature is for there to be no people. Then there would be nothing but nature, and nothing to bring harm to nature. That may be too far for druids to go - they're people too - but they will draw a line somewhere, as the maximum extent to which people can be allowed to affect nature. But, if you eliminate the distinction between Man and Nature, you have two major options. Option 1 is survival of the fittest. We have no greater moral obligation to anything in nature than a bear has to the salmon it eats. We'll build cities, clear forests, and do whatever else we want to do to enhance our own survival, and everything else will either adapt or perish. The end result is something that doesn't really make you think of druids ruling the world, but looks a lot like both reality and your standard fantasy world. Option 2 occurs when people acknowledge the effect they can have on the world around them and make an ethical consideration to accord other things in nature the same right to existence they (hopefully) give other people. If people are considered to be a part of nature, this is what the druids would want to bring about. With this society-wide ethic in place, the idea of balance becomes paramount. How can people live as well as possible without having too great an impact on the world around them? How much of an impact is too great? Personally, I think a good place to draw the line would be at the agricultural revolution. Assume that nobody ever said, "Hey, let's cut down those trees over there and plant wheat." That's not the only place you could draw the line, though - just one that works for me.

Mike_Lemmer
2007-01-25, 10:41 AM
I'd set up some conflict among the druids about the exact role of civilization in the world. Most of the arguments I've read so far have painted civilization as a nuisance to nature at best, a threat to reality at worst. I can see how that would be the standard belief of many druids. I'd argue that civilization itself, while it could destroy an environment, is the greatest accomplishment of any ecosystem.

Civilization and the resulting improvement of tools provides the entire planet's ecosystem with a line of defense against major threats and a means of spreading to other planets. Only a space-age civilization could prevent the destruction of most of the ecosystem by a rogue asteroid, spread the species of their planet to other systems, or even terraform other worlds into copies of their home planet.

Some ideas to run with this:


The druids' occasional pruning of civilization, because they're fearful of some predicted apocalypse that has never actually happened, leaves the planet vulnerable to a larger, distant threat that an advanced civilization could handle. The PCs discover the threat and learn that one of the destroyed civilizations almost had a working defense against it; however, they were wiped out before they could complete it. The PCs must convince others (including some druids) of this threat, retrieve the defense technology, and use it to jump-start the existing civilizations so they can complete it before the threat strikes.
The druids, for all their power, have one ability beyond their grasp: opening portals to other worlds. They were fine with this until other worlds began opening portals to them, for invasion and terraforming by advanced civilizations. The druids have held them off so far, but some wonder if they'll be able to keep this up forever without their own advanced civilization for defense. The PCs are manipulated into discovering the secrets of portals so the civilizations can begin taking the fight to the invaders' homeworld.
Instead of adhering to the prominent "civilization must be purged" and the "civilization must be pruned" opinions, a radical group of druids wonders if a sufficiently-advanced civilization might help the environment more than hinder it. Their attempts to nurture civilizations are constantly clashing with the wishes of the other druids.

Gamebird
2007-01-25, 12:00 PM
If you take the modern idea that people are not part of nature, then it follows that the best thing for nature is for there to be no people. Then there would be nothing but nature, and nothing to bring harm to nature.

The druids in my campaign line up in one of two camps (at least, those local to the playing area do - there's other schools of thought elsewhere). Those two camps are basically agrarian and wilderness. An agrarian druid takes the point of view that humans (and humanoids, dragons, fey, etc. - any non-outsider, non-aberration) are part of nature. While balance is important, wilderness is not an ideal state. Carefully managed fields, herds and lands are paramount. Minimize erosion and pollution, seek a sustainable form of agriculture. This includes minimizing industry and industrial-related technological growth, both of which cause changes to the environment that make large areas poisonous or uninhabitable for people and other life. Given the technological level in my game, few agrarian druids bother to interfere with industry because the pollution and destruction it causes is small scale.

The wilderness druids wish to change the nature of human and humanoid population. Dramatically. They want lower birth rates, higher mortality rates, less impact on the land, a return to savage, brutish and short lifestyles, and a nomadic, illiterate, uneducated population. An animalistic manner of living. They promote the fey ideals of low impact living and valuing life in a holistic manner: eat raw meat and ripe fruit/seeds, but don't harm living plants, till the soil or burn wood. Wilderness druids have wild animals (predators) as animal companions. Agrarian druids have domestic animals as companions.

Part of why I've banned druids in my game is that none of my players have ever "gotten" where I'm going with druids or what their philosophy is. It's like taking a cleric of an LG god and then playing CN, then acting confused when the DM tells you that you're not conforming to the ethos of your deity.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-25, 03:37 PM
Should we perhaps look at Celtic society, where the druid concept is originally drawn from?

Remind me again: How many Celts could turn into large, angry bears at the drop of a hat?

Golthur
2007-01-25, 03:41 PM
Remind me again: How many Celts could turn into large, angry bears at the drop of a hat?
Well, as a Celt (at least genetically and somewhat culturally), I'd have to say "all of them". :wink:

Whiskey's the secret. Shh! Don't tell anyone I told you. :tongue:

Frosty Flake
2007-01-25, 04:11 PM
Should we perhaps look at Celtic society, where the druid concept is originally drawn from?

The druid presented in D&D has become a very FAR stretch from what little we know of ancient Celtic, Germanic and Gallic druids... But the idea of an elitist, intellectual, secretive preisthood of philosopher-scientists that occasionally whips up primitive tribes into rampaging hordes of destruction unleashed upon more civilized lands is pretty close to how the romans described them... keep in mind, the druids of yore had absolutely no written documents and didn't share much about themselves with outsiders, although it's assumed they had a strong oral tradition and probably valued most in pupils eiditic memories and reasoning.

I think that drawing from history in our own world is good to a point, but I prefer using my own reasoning to try and surmise how society would be like if magic actually existed and if druids had a whole bunch of mind-boggling powers.

headwarpage
2007-01-25, 06:49 PM
Actually, in the interest of getting back to the roots of the druid...

(or at least a completely different feel - I'm not exactly a Celtic scholar)

Let's throw out all that silly stuff about druids worshipping "nature". "Nature" consists largely of trees, birds, and cute fluffy bunnies. What druids actually worship is a collection of elemental and spiritual forces. These forces are powerful, mysterious, generally unconcerned with our continued existence, and occasionally openly malevolent. And the druids don't "worship" them, as much as they try to keep them from killing us.

The druids also don't get their powers from "nature." See above. They get powers from being so closely tied to the World Beyond - tricks they've picked up while wrangling with the unknown forces to try to continue mankind's existence. Your average druid is more aware of the Spirit World than the average person, and his powers come from his connection to this realm.

Throws the PHB fluff right out the window, that does.

Mike_Lemmer
2007-01-25, 06:56 PM
Throws the PHB fluff right out the window, that does.


Not to mention most of the fun we're having with the topic. Really, all you have then is a bunch of powerful sorcerers trying to keep humanity alive from the Elder Gods.

headwarpage
2007-01-25, 07:08 PM
Well, there is that. I probably went a little bit overboard with it, but I wanted to try to come up with something something that gives nature some real power, rather than simply being a vague ideal. I mean, there's a pretty tenuous connection between really, really liking trees and slinging around massive amounts of divine power. But you're right, there wasn't enough of the original druid left in that.

What if nature - by which I mean the animals, the seasons, the sun, the moon, the weather, etc. - contains the embodiments of all these elemental forces? And druids worship them (and try to appease them) through these embodiments in the natural world, receiving their powers in return.

Frosty Flake
2007-01-25, 07:24 PM
or you could break it down to animism... perhaps the druids get their powers when they work towards the good of nature-spirits that represent, spiritually, certain life-forms? Like... A druid drawing power from tree-spirits would protect the forest from lumberjacks or lose his power whereas a druid granted power by wolf-spirits would help cultivate a healthy deer herd or something... It could be explained (truthfully or not) that humans do not have guardian spirits becouse of some great sin committed long ago, say the creation of civilization and the distancing of themselves from nature, so there are no druids working, purely, for the benefit of mankind. Remember, if you make a spyglass, the hawk-spirits will get angry and curse your children with blindness.

krossbow
2007-01-25, 07:54 PM
So, then druids would be like captain planet? All I'd have to do would be torch the environment and throw pollution at them and they'd lose their class abilities? :belkar: Sweeeeeeeet...

headwarpage
2007-01-25, 08:01 PM
Either that or their spirits would direct them to kill you, personally. And you'd have a bunch of full spellcasting dire bears after you.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-25, 08:02 PM
I'm honestly surprised Captain Planet was such an effective superhero. You'd think his enemies would start carrying around buckets of oil or something to stop him. Or hell, just always eat at McDonalds and keep some burgers on hand.

Gamebird
2007-01-26, 11:14 AM
... It could be explained (truthfully or not) that humans do not have guardian spirits becouse of some great sin committed long ago, say the creation of civilization and the distancing of themselves from nature, so there are no druids working, purely, for the benefit of mankind.

Or you could say that mankind allied themselves with the gods, distancing themselves from nature and, according to those gods, granting mankind dominion over the beasts of the field, birds of the air and every thing that creepeth, crawleth and whatevereth else upon it.

krossbow
2007-01-26, 03:55 PM
Either that or their spirits would direct them to kill you, personally. And you'd have a bunch of full spellcasting dire bears after you.


Eh, I'll take that over a civilized wizard gating in an infinite number of solars to slam me to the 9 hells and back any day!:smallbiggrin:

At least the bears lack wish spells!... Wait, unless they're planar sheperds...:smalleek: