do i have to be an eco-terrorist? [Archive] - Wizards Community

do i have to be an eco-terrorist? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Jin-Blade
08-04-04, 01:37 PM hi, my dm says that to be a druid, u pretty much have to be an eco-terrorist to a certain extent. is there a way to play a druid that could co-exist well with a party and not be so averse to human contact but still uphold the druid ideals? i was curious because i would really like to play a druid some time in the future but was kinda driven away by the rp-limit. thanks.

-Jin
EatFlan
08-04-04, 02:24 PM you could play someone who HAS to be tolerant to fullfill a larger goal. There are plenty of books out there where you have someone putting up with situations and circumstances that either repulse them or infuriate them, but to which they cannot react to or risk failure somewhere else.

You could be that one druid from the circle that is asked to go find something (item/knowledge/person) and be forced to go into the city. Forced to deal w/foresters and hunters. Yeah you can take your aggressions out on them in secret (sick a shark on them when they go swimming), but that way you can still deal w/things that would normally **** you off.

it would be cool if you and your DM set up some kind of system where you need to will save to not 'react' to things you find wrong. Of course the worse the offence the higher the will save, but also that would reflect on how as you get more xp and are wiser you are able to tolerate the small transgressions better.
Lhiannon Sidhe
08-04-04, 11:01 PM Urban Druid.

You live in a city and tend to the city's parks, stray cats, dogs, rats and pigeons. You see the city every bit as natural as a beehive or an anthill.
Glak
08-05-04, 02:10 AM Druids don't have to be neutral evil (ecoterrorists), they are also allowed to be N, LN, CN, and even NG. So no, you don't have to be a terrorist.
Jin-Blade
08-05-04, 09:59 AM Glak: ok maybe terrorist isn't the right word but i mean someone who doesn't get along with people because people tend to do things like cut down trees, kill animals, etc.

Sidhe: how do you play an urban druid? does that mean that his shifting abilities are restricted to urban animals as well?

i like eatflan's idea though about being "tolerant to fulfill a greater goal." thanx for all the help guys. i really appreciate it.

-Jin
Persephone Imytholin
08-05-04, 09:59 AM Druids don't have to be militant greenies. While some might be, others should accept that it's simply natural that a human settlement is going to need to rely on the forests for things like furs, timber, and other resources vital to middle ages society.

So long as the foresters, woodsmen, hunters and so forth respect nature and take no more than is needed, a druid should have no problem getting along with them. If a good druid sees someone who's having a small to moderate negative impact on the woods, they should probably start with a little word on how they should be a little more careful and respectful.

There's more to druids than just "Omg he kild a fox hes ebil kil!!!1!11!"
The_Yellow_Dart_Swinger
08-05-04, 11:48 AM It really depends on need and moderation. For instance, if a settlement cuts down some trees to make room for housing, a non-evil druid might except that. But if a rich man cut down tree's just so he could build a statue in his likeness, then the druid might have some beef.

A non evil druids message MIGHT (not saying it is or isn't) be respect nature, don't abuse it.
EatFlan
08-05-04, 11:56 AM playing a druid in conflict or even slightly militant will be way more fun than playing some druid that is 'okay' with letting humans do what they want.

if you were like that then you would just be a ranger. But your a druid, be the tree hugging maniac! Roleplaying flavor galore.

I would assume most Druids would think 'why does that single farmer even need to move out here! They have already taken all the coasts and rivers...time to send one more packing home.' Granted you dno't have to KILL the guy, but if all his live stock runs away and the trees regrow after he chops them down etc etc. He will get the picture, he will leave.
Hardware Jedi
08-05-04, 11:43 PM I play a druid who is True Neutral. The way I play him is he seeks to balance things. He understands that people need wood for homes and animals for food, but if there is abuse of nature, he would seek to rectify the problem.

I'm in a party of 8 and I don't seem to have any conflicts with them yet. We are a very nature oriented part as well (2 Rangers, 1 Druid, 1 Favored Soul of Habbakuk). I'm sure that even if I weren't in such company I could find a way to travel with a party. One can't be afraid of inner party conflicts. It adds to the role playing experience and makes a great story in the long run. Not every character in a novel gets along all the time.

The only limit to RP is the one you impose on yourself. Don't let shortsightedness hinder your choices. Try to make the druid class, or any other class for that matter, your own when you create your character.

:)

:g: "go druids!"
Arthur_Pendragon
08-07-04, 10:02 AM Much as others have said here before a druid need not be "We need to kill all those encroaching humans!"

Mass extenction and abrupt environmental change is nothing new and has occured MANY times before humanity ever even entered the picture. We just have become more self concious of our ability to do so with the past century or so. :D

I sometimes find the concept of a millitant druid a bit of an anchronism, an application of modern ecological thought from our time into the past.

I think we tend to see the past with rose tinted glasses, for example we seem to think pleasantly about how the Native American people live in balance with nature. But the fact is they only lived in "balance" with nature because their activities for the most part did not have a major ecological impact because they didn't build large scale industrial projects much of the time. And even they did not always live in "balance" with nature as once many eastern Native American tribes realized how much Europeans wanted beaver furs they went and hunted beavers to the point of temporary extinction in some regions of North America!

I see that nature has its own balance, and it tends to keep it for itself. In nature you do have things that upset the "balance" all the time. Forest fires, natural disasters, etc. but living things adapt to this events. (In fact certain species of trees use forest fires as triggers for seed release to grow new plants, and forest fires remove undergrowth and allow new trees a chance to grow. In fact modern park rangers and ecological restorationists actually START controlled forest fires in order to allow new growth in an area!

Nature's balance is a system of collapse and rebuilding that creates equillibrum. For example, wolves might overhunts all their food supply in an area. The result is a dramatic shift in the ecosystem and many wolves starve to death, and there are fewer new births. Have the wolves therefore not lived with nature's balance???

No, because this results in fewer predators, so the prey population can expand again, and then more wolves and be born because of an abundance of prey has returned to the area. That ITSELF IS nature's balance.

Another example, lets say a wizard goes and creates as magical sea of fire. This results in all manner of natural disruption as animals die, leave the area, etc. However, as a result new animals and creatures come into the area and create a totally new ecosystem that is unique and unlike anything else in the world. Now lets say some adventures come along and think they need to fix the wizard's mistake. In all likelyhood there would be a druid who should come along and explain to them that if they did so it would destroy a unique ecosystem that has developed, because (to the adventure's surpise) the "sea of fire" has become a "natural" environment that "belongs" because it supports a new ecosystem.

I think any druid should take into account a realization of these above things. Realistically I've always thought that druids worshiped, not the plants and animals, but natures capacity to create and recreate itself in response to whatever comes its way.

In that vein of thought, humanity (or whatever race you have, from trolls to elves), are also natural animals (no different from other beasts) with needs for shelter, food, and the desire to reproduce. Thus a druid would see humanity as another creature under heaven that needs to be cared for like anythings else.

Our modern thought of living in balance with nature is not REALLY about protecting all the cute and furry animals. Its about realizing that we are animals in a inconnective web of living organisms, and that like the wolves in the earlier example, we can very well, if we aren't careful, starve ourselves to death by not being careful with what resources we do have!

Thus Ecology and ecological thinking is not about saving the wild, its ultimately about saving oursleves from our own shortsightedness. Its about realizing that WE unlike the wolf are concious enough of our role in the ecosystem to realize that we have a choice NOT to "hunt" our fill of food and hold back so we don't starve ourselves in later days. Thus ecological ideology is about saving ourselves, not nature, by being careful with nature.

Thus the druid's job is not "saving nature" from mankind, but saving mankind from himself!

Not only mankind, or elfkind, or orckind, or wolf-kind, but ALL kinds of creatures. Thus a druid could work just fine with the hunter or the woodcutter. But he will gently remind the hunter not to over hunt, or there will be no food to hunt next year, and the woodcutter not to overcut the forest, or there will be less resources in the comming years for him to live off of.

Likewise he would want to protect a human village from an orc attack, not nessecarially because "orcs are evil", but because if he and his adventurer friends didn't help, the orcs would "over hunt" the humans just as the wolf would "over hunt" its prey and starve itself and do massive damage to the population of the animal its preying on. But, of course, that paints orcs as no more evil than a wolf hunting for its dinner and this attitude seems rather amoral . . . but then again Druids are at some point Neutral in alignment.

Then again, this doesn't mean the druid doesn't love the humans he is protecting, but that he sees a balance in all actions, in birth, in death, and in rebirth . . .

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jin-Blade 08-04-04, 01:37 PM	hi, my dm says that to be a druid, u pretty much have to be an eco-terrorist to a certain extent. is there a way to play a druid that could co-exist well with a party and not be so averse to human contact but still uphold the druid ideals? i was curious because i would really like to play a druid some time in the future but was kinda driven away by the rp-limit. thanks. -Jin
EatFlan 08-04-04, 02:24 PM	you could play someone who HAS to be tolerant to fullfill a larger goal. There are plenty of books out there where you have someone putting up with situations and circumstances that either repulse them or infuriate them, but to which they cannot react to or risk failure somewhere else. You could be that one druid from the circle that is asked to go find something (item/knowledge/person) and be forced to go into the city. Forced to deal w/foresters and hunters. Yeah you can take your aggressions out on them in secret (sick a shark on them when they go swimming), but that way you can still deal w/things that would normally **** you off. it would be cool if you and your DM set up some kind of system where you need to will save to not 'react' to things you find wrong. Of course the worse the offence the higher the will save, but also that would reflect on how as you get more xp and are wiser you are able to tolerate the small transgressions better.
Lhiannon Sidhe 08-04-04, 11:01 PM	Urban Druid. You live in a city and tend to the city's parks, stray cats, dogs, rats and pigeons. You see the city every bit as natural as a beehive or an anthill.
Glak 08-05-04, 02:10 AM	Druids don't have to be neutral evil (ecoterrorists), they are also allowed to be N, LN, CN, and even NG. So no, you don't have to be a terrorist.
Jin-Blade 08-05-04, 09:59 AM	Glak: ok maybe terrorist isn't the right word but i mean someone who doesn't get along with people because people tend to do things like cut down trees, kill animals, etc. Sidhe: how do you play an urban druid? does that mean that his shifting abilities are restricted to urban animals as well? i like eatflan's idea though about being "tolerant to fulfill a greater goal." thanx for all the help guys. i really appreciate it. -Jin
Persephone Imytholin 08-05-04, 09:59 AM	Druids don't have to be militant greenies. While some might be, others should accept that it's simply natural that a human settlement is going to need to rely on the forests for things like furs, timber, and other resources vital to middle ages society. So long as the foresters, woodsmen, hunters and so forth respect nature and take no more than is needed, a druid should have no problem getting along with them. If a good druid sees someone who's having a small to moderate negative impact on the woods, they should probably start with a little word on how they should be a little more careful and respectful. There's more to druids than just "Omg he kild a fox hes ebil kil!!!1!11!"
The_Yellow_Dart_Swinger 08-05-04, 11:48 AM	It really depends on need and moderation. For instance, if a settlement cuts down some trees to make room for housing, a non-evil druid might except that. But if a rich man cut down tree's just so he could build a statue in his likeness, then the druid might have some beef. A non evil druids message MIGHT (not saying it is or isn't) be respect nature, don't abuse it.
EatFlan 08-05-04, 11:56 AM	playing a druid in conflict or even slightly militant will be way more fun than playing some druid that is 'okay' with letting humans do what they want. if you were like that then you would just be a ranger. But your a druid, be the tree hugging maniac! Roleplaying flavor galore. I would assume most Druids would think 'why does that single farmer even need to move out here! They have already taken all the coasts and rivers...time to send one more packing home.' Granted you dno't have to KILL the guy, but if all his live stock runs away and the trees regrow after he chops them down etc etc. He will get the picture, he will leave.
Hardware Jedi 08-05-04, 11:43 PM	I play a druid who is True Neutral. The way I play him is he seeks to balance things. He understands that people need wood for homes and animals for food, but if there is abuse of nature, he would seek to rectify the problem. I'm in a party of 8 and I don't seem to have any conflicts with them yet. We are a very nature oriented part as well (2 Rangers, 1 Druid, 1 Favored Soul of Habbakuk). I'm sure that even if I weren't in such company I could find a way to travel with a party. One can't be afraid of inner party conflicts. It adds to the role playing experience and makes a great story in the long run. Not every character in a novel gets along all the time. The only limit to RP is the one you impose on yourself. Don't let shortsightedness hinder your choices. Try to make the druid class, or any other class for that matter, your own when you create your character. :) :g: "go druids!"
Arthur_Pendragon 08-07-04, 10:02 AM	Much as others have said here before a druid need not be "We need to kill all those encroaching humans!" Mass extenction and abrupt environmental change is nothing new and has occured MANY times before humanity ever even entered the picture. We just have become more self concious of our ability to do so with the past century or so. :D I sometimes find the concept of a millitant druid a bit of an anchronism, an application of modern ecological thought from our time into the past. I think we tend to see the past with rose tinted glasses, for example we seem to think pleasantly about how the Native American people live in balance with nature. But the fact is they only lived in "balance" with nature because their activities for the most part did not have a major ecological impact because they didn't build large scale industrial projects much of the time. And even they did not always live in "balance" with nature as once many eastern Native American tribes realized how much Europeans wanted beaver furs they went and hunted beavers to the point of temporary extinction in some regions of North America! I see that nature has its own balance, and it tends to keep it for itself. In nature you do have things that upset the "balance" all the time. Forest fires, natural disasters, etc. but living things adapt to this events. (In fact certain species of trees use forest fires as triggers for seed release to grow new plants, and forest fires remove undergrowth and allow new trees a chance to grow. In fact modern park rangers and ecological restorationists actually START controlled forest fires in order to allow new growth in an area! Nature's balance is a system of collapse and rebuilding that creates equillibrum. For example, wolves might overhunts all their food supply in an area. The result is a dramatic shift in the ecosystem and many wolves starve to death, and there are fewer new births. Have the wolves therefore not lived with nature's balance??? No, because this results in fewer predators, so the prey population can expand again, and then more wolves and be born because of an abundance of prey has returned to the area. That ITSELF IS nature's balance. Another example, lets say a wizard goes and creates as magical sea of fire. This results in all manner of natural disruption as animals die, leave the area, etc. However, as a result new animals and creatures come into the area and create a totally new ecosystem that is unique and unlike anything else in the world. Now lets say some adventures come along and think they need to fix the wizard's mistake. In all likelyhood there would be a druid who should come along and explain to them that if they did so it would destroy a unique ecosystem that has developed, because (to the adventure's surpise) the "sea of fire" has become a "natural" environment that "belongs" because it supports a new ecosystem. I think any druid should take into account a realization of these above things. Realistically I've always thought that druids worshiped, not the plants and animals, but natures capacity to create and recreate itself in response to whatever comes its way. In that vein of thought, humanity (or whatever race you have, from trolls to elves), are also natural animals (no different from other beasts) with needs for shelter, food, and the desire to reproduce. Thus a druid would see humanity as another creature under heaven that needs to be cared for like anythings else. Our modern thought of living in balance with nature is not REALLY about protecting all the cute and furry animals. Its about realizing that we are animals in a inconnective web of living organisms, and that like the wolves in the earlier example, we can very well, if we aren't careful, starve ourselves to death by not being careful with what resources we do have! Thus Ecology and ecological thinking is not about saving the wild, its ultimately about saving oursleves from our own shortsightedness. Its about realizing that WE unlike the wolf are concious enough of our role in the ecosystem to realize that we have a choice NOT to "hunt" our fill of food and hold back so we don't starve ourselves in later days. Thus ecological ideology is about saving ourselves, not nature, by being careful with nature. Thus the druid's job is not "saving nature" from mankind, but saving mankind from himself! Not only mankind, or elfkind, or orckind, or wolf-kind, but ALL kinds of creatures. Thus a druid could work just fine with the hunter or the woodcutter. But he will gently remind the hunter not to over hunt, or there will be no food to hunt next year, and the woodcutter not to overcut the forest, or there will be less resources in the comming years for him to live off of. Likewise he would want to protect a human village from an orc attack, not nessecarially because "orcs are evil", but because if he and his adventurer friends didn't help, the orcs would "over hunt" the humans just as the wolf would "over hunt" its prey and starve itself and do massive damage to the population of the animal its preying on. But, of course, that paints orcs as no more evil than a wolf hunting for its dinner and this attitude seems rather amoral . . . but then again Druids are at some point Neutral in alignment. Then again, this doesn't mean the druid doesn't love the humans he is protecting, but that he sees a balance in all actions, in birth, in death, and in rebirth . . .