Random thoughts on druids..

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Thread re-opened. Please restrict all discussions of Druids to their explicitly fictional versions.

[S@tanicoaldo]

2. Druids CAN be all about the gold pieces. Druids have high wisdom. They know that the best way to protect their favourite part of nature is to buy it.

I take a lot of issue with this. Money is not a natural thing. It's not from the natural world and it has nothing to do with nature.

Druids should stay away from it as an object if possible and as a concept philosophical, it clearly clashes with their goals.

Nature belongs to the world, it belongs to everyone, Druids should be against private property.

3. Druids don't have to be good guys. Nature is the lion disembowelling the wildebeest while still alive, or eating babies, parasitic wasps that lay eggs and eat their prey from the inside. Druids can be nasty, vicious and petty. {Scrubbed}

These things are amoral, not imoral, animals kill to eat and keep themselves alive not for cruelty or pitty reasons. A cruel and petty Druid makes no sense.

4. Druids seem to be humano-centric. Why? Humans chop down forests, dam rivers, convert wilderness into farmland and kill things they don't eat. The bestial races tend to be nomadic, and eat what they kill (including your party members).. Much more in tune with the environment.

Again those concepts are not natural, many human civilizations live in harmony with nature. Not every human civilization chop down forests, dam rivers, convert wilderness into farmland and kill things they don't eat, nor should they. If the humans in your setting are all the same, I'm sorry but I think you are doing humans wrong.

[Anonymouswizard]

Again those concepts are not natural, many human civilizations live in harmony with nature. Not every human civilization chop down forests, dam rivers, convert wilderness into farmland and kill things they don't eat, nor should they. If the humans in your setting are all the same, I'm sorry but I think you are doing humans wrong.

I've come to dislike other intelligent species in a setting, as most of the time I've seen it lead to racial monocultures with humans getting the most variety. As in the elves are A and the dwarves are B, but the humans are both C and D.

There's never an actual need to play a nonhuman to play a different character anyway, and I've found that when my nonhuman characters aren't bards they tend to forget their silly hats and just act like humans. I've started playing almost exclusively humans and half-humans, and leave elves and dwarves as low level supernatural creatures in most of my world-building. It really, really helps me get humans right, and the last time I liked what I did with elves they were humans (no pointed ears, just as much diversity, the only inherent differences were being slightly taller and a resistance to some toxins) and were for an attempted novel where the fact that there are organised expansionist elves was a plot point (abandoned because I never liked what I did with them).

[S@tanicoaldo]

I've come to dislike other intelligent species in a setting, as most of the time I've seen it lead to racial monocultures with humans getting the most variety. As in the elves are A and the dwarves are B, but the humans are both C and D.

There's never an actual need to play a nonhuman to play a different character anyway, and I've found that when my nonhuman characters aren't bards they tend to forget their silly hats and just act like humans. I've started playing almost exclusively humans and half-humans, and leave elves and dwarves as low level supernatural creatures in most of my world-building. It really, really helps me get humans right, and the last time I liked what I did with elves they were humans (no pointed ears, just as much diversity, the only inherent differences were being slightly taller and a resistance to some toxins) and were for an attempted novel where the fact that there are organised expansionist elves was a plot point (abandoned because I never liked what I did with them).

Same. I know fantasy races are a big deal for many people but to me and my players? Nope.

Only humans are play characters. Nothing takes the magic of a setting for me than a half dragon or demon walking around nonchalant.

In my games when standard fantasy races appear they don't use generic tropes they often fall to.

Dwarves are highly magical troll like subterranean people who forge magicla artifacts and are alergic tot he sun.

The elves are more fey like or beings of pure ligth.

Gnomes are earth elemental that look like skinny and tall golems.

This sort of thing. my rule of thump is to get away from Tolkien and closer to their mythological roots with my own weird spin on it of course.

[King of Nowhere]

Money is not a natural thing. It's not from the natural world and it has nothing to do with nature.

nature is not a natural thing. the concept of nature and the division between what is natural and what is artificial is a purely human construct. Nature is the fight for survival and breeding. If something gives you an edge, then you use it. having money increases your chances of surviving and breeding? then you should definitely have money.
In fact, it's quite contrary to nature that druids have so many restrictions on what they can do. animals would gladly use metal, if they knew how to. animals sleep in towns, and they definitely prefer to sleep under a roof in a heated room than out in the wilderness. animals make their own megaprojects to change the environment to their purposes. animals hunt their prey to extinction from time to time; the only reason most of them don't is that they are not good enough hunters, not certainly any kind of self-restraint stemming from some concept of equilibrium. we humans broke the system not because what we do is unnatural, but only because we are so much better at it than anyone else.
also nnotice that nature does not fight against civilization. nature adapts and survives.

unless you decide that druids worship not nature, but the human concept of nature. which seems to be the case, since they cannot use metal. in which case i agree that they should also not use currency. or writing. or have a central organization.

ultimately, if we go down to the basics of what it means to be a druid, we find a lot of contradictions and misconceptions and selctive blindness. ultimately, to make druids well we have to decide, clearly, what do those druids actually stand for, what is the relevant concept of nature that they serve.

I've come to dislike other intelligent species in a setting, as most of the time I've seen it lead to racial monocultures with humans getting the most variety. As in the elves are A and the dwarves are B, but the humans are both C and D.

There's never an actual need to play a nonhuman to play a different character anyway, and I've found that when my nonhuman characters aren't bards they tend to forget their silly hats and just act like humans.

hats are silly, yes. sapient species would probably all be very mentally flexible, like humans. the point is that being sapient means being able to adapt your tought process to new circumstances. being able to think over things and change your mind. if you have some instinct into your brain pushing you towards evil, and you cannot change that instinct, then you're probably not sapient in the first place.

but still there's no reason to NOT have many races with different physical traits. it's just that they would not have racial hats, but more like cultural hats. as in, humans and elves living in the same nation will have more in common with each other than they do with other people from different nations with different cultures.
Some races may have a greater innate propension towards aggressivity and violence, or to put the well-being of the group before that of the individual, but ultimately all those innate traits will have a minor influence over culture.

then again, fantasy races that are presented as hats tend to live in a single monolitic (and often isolationistic) political entity. it would make sense that there would be a lot of political omologation among them.

[S@tanicoaldo]

I don't think this "XXXX is a social construct" argument can be used here, nature has so clear definitions just look around.

Trees are natural, parking lots are not.
Mountains are natural, skyscrapers are not.
Animals are natural, robots are not.

We can clearly see which of the points above a Druid would be in favor of and which ones he wouldn't be. Come on.

You can't do an anthropomorphization on animals and try to use it as justification without any evidence, there is no way to know what animals would think since they don't. Everything you did is just fantasy and speculation. we think our life style as humans is the best because we are humans and we know no or few alternatives. But an animal with intelligence could see it a self destructive or boring. So this whole argument of yours is kind of pointless.

Druids clearly stand for the natural world, things that were created by the forces of nature and not human interference, things that unbalance the structures of earth and respect the equilibrium of all living things.

[Maat Mons]

The definition of "natural" is "not influenced by humans." Calling humans "unnatural" is pretty inane, really.

[S@tanicoaldo]

The definition of "natural" is "not influenced by humans." Calling humans "unnatural" is pretty inane, really.

Did I do that? Sorry, that's not what I meant.

[Maat Mons]

That wasn't entirely directed at you.

Edit: I bear that word a longstanding grudge.

[King of Nowhere]

I don't think this "XXXX is a social construct" argument can be used here, nature has so clear definitions just look around.

Trees are natural, parking lots are not.
Mountains are natural, skyscrapers are not.
Animals are natural, robots are not.

We can clearly see which of the points above a Druid would be in favor of and which ones he wouldn't be. Come on.

how about dams? beavers dam rivers, is that natural? why is it ok for beavers to divert rivers, and for humans it is not?
how about anthills and other similar constructs? why are they less unnatural than skyscrapers?
how about toolmaking? monkeys, several birds, and even a few fishes and octopi use tools. some even manufacture their own tools, by snapping branches and peeling the bark out of them. I think there is even a bird chewing wood into some kind of paper. are human tools really all that different?
how about animal husbandry and agricolture? some ants practice it
some parasites take control of a host brain and force the host (mostly insects) to perform certain actions. that's not really a robot, but not even too far from it.
cats kill other animals without eating them. dolphins kill other animals without eating them. humans kill animals without eating them. two of those are natural, one is not. explain the distinction.
some pest can kill all the plants in an area and turn it into a desert. humans can kill all the plants into an area and turn it into a desert.

yes, of course we can see that druids would be in favor of trees and not of parking lots. but the question is why? why would druids be against humans cutting trees to make a parking lot, but they would allow a beaver to cut trees to make a dam and flood the area? what would they ultimately stand for?
- perhaps druids care for balance. humans grow too much and chop too much, they must be contained. if beavers grew too much, druids would also contain beavers.
but in this case, druids are pragmatic, end-justify-the-means guys. they would have no qualms using metal. they would have nothing, in principle, against civilization. they'd probably support sustainable development. also evolution stems from the equilibria being broken. those druids would stop evolution if they went too far.
- perhaps druids care for the human notion of nature, i.e. forest glades and wilderness and generally "not touched by humans". but there is a subtle hypocrisy in that, and druids (i.e. the DM) should sort it out. i mean, you're a human tromping in the forest and pursuing life choices that no animal would, and you are calling other people "unnatural"? if humans are so unnatural, why does nature need humans (and humanoid feys, or things with humanoid intelligence and organized societies) as its major defenders? if not all human activities are unnatural, where do you draw the line exactly?

druids make sense at first glance. but dig deeper, and they are riddled with contradictions. And I am the kind of guy who likes to ask questions.

Edit: I bear that word [natural] a longstanding grudge.

yep. me too.

[S@tanicoaldo]

how about dams? beavers dam rivers, is that natural? why is it ok for beavers to divert rivers, and for humans it is not?

You can't compare the impact of a Beaver dam and a full scale industrial human made dam.

How about anthills and other similar constructs? why are they less unnatural than skyscrapers?

Because of the materials, processes and work involved. You can't be serious about this.

A druid would be okay with a small Village and huts. But not a big city or castles.

How about toolmaking? monkeys, several birds, and even a few fishes and octopi use tools. some even manufacture their own tools, by snapping branches and peeling the bark out of them. I think there is even a bird chewing wood into some kind of paper. are human tools really all that different?

Druids use tools, they use wooden tools, staffs and sickles. Tools are ok as long as they, again, don't upset the natural order and balance.

How about animal husbandry and agricolture? some ants practice it
some parasites take control of a host brain and force the host (mostly insects) to perform certain actions. that's not really a robot, but not even too far from it.
cats kill other animals without eating them. dolphins kill other animals without eating them. humans kill animals without eating them. two of those are natural, one is not. explain the distinction.
some pest can kill all the plants in an area and turn it into a desert. humans can kill all the plants into an area and turn it into a desert.

Again it all depends on scale. It's ok to kill animals and harvest plants just not in a industrial scale.

They want humans and nature to coexist in harmony. This harmony is almost impossible in industrial and/or urban settings. That's why Druids oppose those things.

[Djem]

King of Nowhere hits some really good points. I guess for a druid the difference between natural and unnatural is really moreso about the "natural balance" of things minus when it comes to extinction. Extinction happens without human influence too, but if a druid was fine with such an extremity of lack/abundance of resources for certain living things; then they would not have to take any action about anything.

At least that seems to be the case for the classical druid; to maintain the life and death cycle for already existing species and stop any particular species from becoming too prominent. But one could always stray from the cliche and write about a druid who appreciates the natural role of extinction on the one hand and always wanting more (as humans do) on the other hand.

[Clistenes]

I love druids. IMVHO they are one of the best realised classes in the PHB. I think that people get them wrong though when playing them..

*SNIP*

I dunno... I haven't seen many people playing druids as pacifist shroom-eater hippies, but I have seen many, many, many scary druids attacking settlements, driving away woodsmen and travelers and burning people inside wicker men...

However, I think you are wrong about this:

5. Why do you never hear of druids maintaining the balance and taking out high level paladins and other powerful forces for good.

Druids as a group are Neutral not because they try to maintain balance between Good, Evil, Law and Chaos... they are Neutral because they don't care about Good, Evil, Law, Chaos or about the balance between them. They only care about Nature being preserved.

They don't care if Good is way more powerful than Evil and there are ten Paladins for every Evil Necromancer. They don't care if Evil is way more powerful than Good, either... they just want them to leave their forests alone.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Druids as a group are Neutral not because they try to maintain balance between Good, Evil, Law and Chaos... they are Neutral because they don't care about Good, Evil, Law, Chaos or about the balance between them. They only care about Nature being preserved.

They don't care if Good is way more powerful than Evil and there are ten Paladins for every Evil Necromancer. They don't care if Evil is way more powerful than Good, either... they just want them to leave their forests alone.

Well, not precisely true. They don't care about there being more good or evil in a societal sense, but they do care about cosmic Good or Evil exceeding certain levels of strength, because if the Lower Planes were ever to triumph over the Upper Planes there's a good chance they'd flood the Material Plane with fiends and render the Material worlds and the Nature on them unrecognizable...and if Good or Law or Chaos won, the same thing would happen because the whole point of one "side" winning is that they'd reshape the planes to match their philosophy. The same applies to balance among the Elemental Planes or any other cosmic forces or factions that might muck around with the Material Plane.

The Druidic hierarchy, preferring Nature to stay exactly as it is thankyouverymuch, is thus quite concerned with the overall balance of Good and Evil. They'd likely keep a close eye on the Paladin vs. Necromancer population ratios and intervene if things start tipping too far in either direction, possibly heading to the Outer Planes if necessary to deal with such an imbalance; this kind of planeshopping troubleshooting is the sort of thing Hierophant Druids largely spent their time on in previous editions.

[Anonymouswizard]

The Druidic hierarchy, preferring Nature to stay exactly as it is thankyouverymuch, is thus quite concerned with the overall balance of Good and Evil. They'd likely keep a close eye on the Paladin vs. Necromancer population ratios and intervene if things start tipping too far in either direction, possibly heading to the Outer Planes if necessary to deal with such an imbalance; this kind of planeshopping troubleshooting is the sort of thing Hierophant Druids largely spent their time on in previous editions.

When you think about it Druids going after powerful evil mortals more than powerful good mortals make sense, which alignment has all the liches, mummies, vampires, death knights, and other powerful undead?

Druids might also spend more time keeping Paladins and other forces of great good at lower levels, and what better way to do that than by sneaking one into their party and taking their XP?

Honestly Druids lost a lotwhen they lost the active neutrality in later editions, as problematic as they could be the strong heirachy and belief system did help separate them from being generic 'priests of nature'. I can't talk about 1e, I understand they were somewhat different there, but back in 2e part of the point of the druid was that they weren't generic nature priests, they were priests of a specific belief system and church which revered nature, was somewhat anti-urban (although not to the level people like to think), and engaged in active neutrality. They were clearly more organised and smaller in number than the religions standard Clerics followed, but they also might have been confined to a smaller geographical area.

2e Druids are far more interesting to me than later eidition because they're more strict, and included more as an example of what a nongeneric Priest class might look like (although the introduction of kits made the idea of Specialty Priests less important).

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I can't talk about 1e, I understand they were somewhat different there, but back in 2e part of the point of the druid was that they weren't generic nature priests, they were priests of a specific belief system and church which revered nature, was somewhat anti-urban (although not to the level people like to think), and engaged in active neutrality. They were clearly more organised and smaller in number than the religions standard Clerics followed, but they also might have been confined to a smaller geographical area.

2e Druids are far more interesting to me than later eidition because they're more strict, and included more as an example of what a nongeneric Priest class might look like (although the introduction of kits made the idea of Specialty Priests less important).

There are a few notable differences between 1e and 2e druids (the 1e version had a more-different spell list than the cleric and an accelerated spell progression, where the 2e version standardized on the same spheres and progression as the cleric, and 2e added Grand Druids and Heirophants), but druids were the same in both editions as far as being part of a specific hierarchy that they had to advance through as they leveled.

I do miss that aspect of AD&D classes a bit. For the second 3e campaign I ran--shortly after 3e came out, when prestige classes were more organization-focused than they later became--I houseruled the druid into a "Shaman" class (basically a cleric with access to the druid list instead of the cleric list and Turn/Rebuke Natural Creatures instead of Turn/Rebuke Undead, with none of the druid fanciness) and made a "Druid" prestige class to bring back the old-school flavor and hierarchy. I kept using that setup until I switched to a group that wasn't a fan of all that hierarchical stuff, but while it lasted it was pretty great.

[Anonymouswizard]

There are a few notable differences between 1e and 2e druids (the 1e version had a more-different spell list than the cleric and an accelerated spell progression, where the 2e version standardized on the same spheres and progression as the cleric, and 2e added Grand Druids and Heirophants), but druids were the same in both editions as far as being part of a specific hierarchy that they had to advance through as they leveled.

I do miss that aspect of AD&D classes a bit. For the second 3e campaign I ran--shortly after 3e came out, when prestige classes were more organization-focused than they later became--I houseruled the druid into a "Shaman" class (basically a cleric with access to the druid list instead of the cleric list and Turn/Rebuke Natural Creatures instead of Turn/Rebuke Undead, with none of the druid fanciness) and made a "Druid" prestige class to bring back the old-school flavor and hierarchy. I kept using that setup until I switched to a group that wasn't a fan of all that hierarchical stuff, but while it lasted it was pretty great.

I honestly find classes tied to settings really cool, and think that Druid being a Cleric-focused prestige class makes sense. I go from highly liking the 2e Druid (who has a clear identity) to disliking the 3.X and 5e versions because they don't differentiate themselves from the Cleric.

Actually, I think D&D would do well going back to 3/4 classes and using a kit/subclass system to flesh out settings. Druids become more than just another class, they're a Cleric variant for a specific religion in a specific setting with specific fluff and powers. Paladins are 'champions of a cause', they holy crusading knights sworn to uphold the ideals of Selflessness, Honour, and Law, in that order.

You can actually see this philosophy in 2e quite clearly, each class group has one class which is the basic generic version (Fighters, Clerics, Mages, and Thieves), while the other classes take up very specific niches and are potentially tied to organisations. Rangers aren't just warriors with wilderness skills, they're champions of good and protectors of men on the edges on civilisation. Kits varied between more and less generic, but generally served a similar purpose to the nonbasic classes, helping to fulfil a specific concept better.

I'm getting sidetracked, but it's been a while since I actually wanted a Druid class, or more than two dedicated spellcasters (and honestly, I'd be happy with one). Honestly I'd argue that D&D would work better if it changed to have the following base classes:

• Fighter: focuses on combat situations, but outside of them contributes with athletic prowess.
• Ranger: the wilderness class, some combat ability but mostly vastly increases group survivability. Tracking, herbalism, ability to get lost, can analyze enemies for weaknesses.
• Bard: focused on social skills, picks up most of the rogue's 'thiefy' skills.
• Magician: a highly cut back caster, can do a little bit of anything but not as well as a specialist and needs to prepare their more advanced spells.

Substitute Rogue for Bard if you want, but the point remains that you can represent most archetypes by altering those classes. The Barbarian Hero is a Ranger who sacrifices their foraging and herbalism skills for greater melee effectiveness, infernal pacts give access to Magician magic, Investigators turn their Bard skills to tracking people down, Paladins are Fighters blessed with the divine power to sense evil. Sure, you could probably add in a fifth or sixth archetype if you needed to, but is it really something that can't be the equivalent of a Prestige Class?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I'm getting sidetracked, but it's been a while since I actually wanted a Druid class, or more than two dedicated spellcasters (and honestly, I'd be happy with one). Honestly I'd argue that D&D would work better if it changed to have the following base classes:

• Fighter: focuses on combat situations, but outside of them contributes with athletic prowess.
• Ranger: the wilderness class, some combat ability but mostly vastly increases group survivability. Tracking, herbalism, ability to get lost, can analyze enemies for weaknesses.
• Bard: focused on social skills, picks up most of the rogue's 'thiefy' skills.
• Magician: a highly cut back caster, can do a little bit of anything but not as well as a specialist and needs to prepare their more advanced spells.

Substitute Rogue for Bard if you want, but the point remains that you can represent most archetypes by altering those classes. The Barbarian Hero is a Ranger who sacrifices their foraging and herbalism skills for greater melee effectiveness, infernal pacts give access to Magician magic, Investigators turn their Bard skills to tracking people down, Paladins are Fighters blessed with the divine power to sense evil. Sure, you could probably add in a fifth or sixth archetype if you needed to, but is it really something that can't be the equivalent of a Prestige Class?

I've seen several suggestions like that to tone the Wizard and Cleric down to "Hedge Mage" and "Village Priest" types at low levels to match the Fighter's and Rogue's thematic heft at those levels (and higher levels too, but that's whole 'nother topic) and subclass everything off the core four, and I do think that would be an interesting experiment. I've never seen a suggestion to use the Ranger in place of the Cleric, though, always Ranger in place of Fighter, so that's an interesting idea.


The Ranger swap reminds me: I read a blog post a few years ago--and haven't been able to find it since, so if someone knows what I'm talking about I'd love a link--which started off with the idea that the Ranger, despite its origins as a Fighter subclass, should really be a subclass of Rogue (sneaky, check; more Dex-based than Str-based, check; primary class feature about dealing extra damage to specific targets, check; etc.), which would help distinguish the Barbarian as the "nature Fighter" from the Ranger as the "nature Rogue," and ended with the idea of a D&D (retro-)clone that started with the core four classes and released further classes in thematic packages that created new (sub)classes out of the core four plus a specific theme and a core mechanic to go with it.

For instance, if you take Warrior/Magician/Expert/Priest and apply the "Nature Classes" package in PHB N (introducing a central magic-based-on-the-terrain-I'm-currently-in mechanic to be used in each new class plus some nature-themed spells and class features), you get Barbarian/Druid/Ranger/Spirit Shaman. The "Spooky Classes" package in PHB N+1 gets you Blackguard/Infernal Warlock/Assassin/Demon Cultist with fiend- and undead-themed powers, the "Arcane Classes" package in PHB N+2 gets you Duskblade/Wizard/Bard/Mystic Theurge, and so on and so forth. Basically, it's like what 4e was trying to do with its Power Source idea, but crossed with the core four classes instead of four roles and using subclasses that share mechanics instead of every class being a special snowflake.

(And, to tie that back to the old-school druid, in such a setup you can have a "Realm Management" package that gives the base classes all the 1e domain play stuff as the Warlord/Vizier/Spymaster/High Priest, an "Class Hierarchies" package that lays out rules for organization advancement like the 1e Druid or Assassin as the Soldier/Battlemage/Guild Thief/Druid, and so on.)

[paddyfool]

I'm getting sidetracked, but it's been a while since I actually wanted a Druid class, or more than two dedicated spellcasters (and honestly, I'd be happy with one). Honestly I'd argue that D&D would work better if it changed to have the following base classes:

• Fighter: focuses on combat situations, but outside of them contributes with athletic prowess.
• Ranger: the wilderness class, some combat ability but mostly vastly increases group survivability. Tracking, herbalism, ability to get lost, can analyze enemies for weaknesses.
• Bard: focused on social skills, picks up most of the rogue's 'thiefy' skills.
• Magician: a highly cut back caster, can do a little bit of anything but not as well as a specialist and needs to prepare their more advanced spells.

My idea for cutting back the spellcaster-ness of D&D 3.5 if you wanted to use it in a lower magic setting was to basically reskin the casters, especially the tier 1 casters but probably also the tier 2s, as early entry prestige classes. The idea would be to give them fairly simple entry requirements, e.g. 5 or 6 ranks in one or two appropriate skills. Perhaps spellcraft +/- knowledge (arcane) for wizard, or knowledge (religion) +/- concentration for cleric, or knowledge (nature) +/- survival for druid; maybe requiring one rank and/or skill fewer for entry into a tier 2 class than a tier 1. They'd be a small step behind on the power curve for long enough to give other chances a better chance at still being significant in the midgame, and to better fit a lower magic setting where magic isn't quite so ubiquitous, but more the province of those who've invested significant study into it.

Possibly you could also have a homebrew feat designed around entry to each (e.g. granting the necessary skill or skills for the class you wanted to take later as class skills, plus one or two cantrips or orisons of choice from their list 1/day), so that you could build to whichever of the tier 1 classes you wanted from whichever base class you wanted.

Never did playtest it though.

[Morty]

I'm not a big fan of few, broad classes - feels too much like a point-buy system with extra steps. But I can definitely agree that D&D druids, who have permeated popular fantasy gaming like far too many D&D things do, are two or three classes in a trench coat. A spellcaster drawing power from nature doesn't need their own class, while shape-shifting and beast-mastery can each hold a class on their own. Or between the two of them. Though at least 5E finally rids druids of animal companions, I think.

[Berenger]

My idea for cutting back the spellcaster-ness of D&D 3.5 if you wanted to use it in a lower magic setting was to basically reskin the casters, especially the tier 1 casters but probably also the tier 2s, as early entry prestige classes.

That's what d20 Modern did with their versions of wizard and cleric.

[mindstalk]

"Foolish rogue! I have class features more powerful than your entire class!"

I forget the details, but I think Paksenarrion did something interesting with druids besides changing the name to someting with lots of k's (just as drow were renamed).

I never *learned* all the details, but I think Eberron had three or even five different druidic organizations, ranging from benevolent "let's all live in harmony" to "burn civilization and salt the ashes".

'natural' is a very odd concept as people already said, but here's another twist: which is more natural, a bunch of trees in a timber plantation or an abandoned city parking lot where weeds are breaking through the asphalt? The latter is less managed and at some point may even have greater biodiversity.

For a given population, high civilization and intensive agriculture can mean *less* impact on non-human nature, as less land is needed to support that population. In reality agriculture meant more humans, but Stone Age hunter-gatherers had already colonized almost all the land on Earth, there were just fewer of them due to less of the biomass being edible. "There are no demographic voids".

Yes of course. Can be. Also - can they really? Frankly, lacking civilisation, they rarely get numerous enough to cause the problems humans generally do.

But sure ... they can =)

Hunter-gatherer humans probably caused or contributed to multiple mass extinctions when they came to continents where the megafauna didn't know enough to run on sight.

well, now i know what the druids will be doing if i ever put forth my plan for an industrial age campaign: giving away condoms!
in the end it's much better - both as morally acceptable, and less likely to make someone really mad at you, and less likely that someone will try to fix the problem - to keep natality low than to keep mortality high.

Or the approach of the Aaschen on Stargate SG-1, spread a subtle infertility plague. By the time anyone notices it's too late. Also an option for elves who don't like being outbred, or elves who think they're doing people a favor by preventing souls from being born into short-lived bodies.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I never *learned* all the details, but I think Eberron had three or even five different druidic organizations, ranging from benevolent "let's all live in harmony" to "burn civilization and salt the ashes".

There are nine of them, actually. The six that everyone remembers, in order from most to least friendly to civilization, are the Moonspeakers ("shifters are persecuted, let's teach and protect them"), the Wardens of the Wood ("farming is natural too, let's help people live in balance with nature"), the Greensingers ("fey are awesome, let's party in the forest"), the Gatekeepers ("everything not native to Eberron is a threat, let's keep them out"), the Ashbound ("non-druidic magic is unnatural, let's take out all the arcane infrastructure"), and the Children of Winter ("the apocalypse is nigh, let's help kill everything early").

There are also some more specialized sects, the Mask Weavers (halfling-focused, based in the Talenta Plains), Sela's Path (half-elf-focused, based in House Lyrandar), and Siyal Marrain (elf-focused, based in Valenar) that all promote coexistence and integration with nature to at least some extent (regarding funerary rites, agriculture, and horse breeding, respectively).

So on balance, 7 out of 9 Eberron druid sects are pretty chill about civilization and the last 2 sects are largely viewed crazy extremists even by the other sects' standards.

[mindstalk]

Thanks! Yeah, I was remembering some mashup of the Wardens, Gatekeepers, Ashbound, and Winter. Though I think our druid PC was actually Greensinger, heh.