Religious Powers checks and non-deists

[A G Thing]

Also when judging the presence of nature in Ravenloft you need to decide how much the Dark Powers influence it. Is nature unyielding but uncaring or does it have a motive in Ravenloft just as a deity might in a way.
Perhaps the extremes of maintaining the natural order might be the duties a Druid is dedicated too but they might also be responsible for protecting creatures that others would consider unnatural. These creatures may have unique methods and perhaps nature its self is not able to maintain its self. When natural forces such as elemental's or animal totem spirits, even loa act up the druid may be responsible to step forward. Even a heard of grazing beasts that are rampaging through town to free the cattle and destroy civilization would be hard to balance. If the herd is just behaving naturally out of agression then does the Druid force them back into being enslaved to the humans who will suffer or perhaps starve without them?
Fey are considered to be natural to the worlds they live in thus taboos against harming or impeding fey in certain deals or even moderating such disputes fairly may be responsibilities that are governed by a druid. Say a sinkhole in the forest produces a new type of fey (Similar to how bogeymen arise!) but they are a danger to a road way. This new fey is now a species and the corruption is now a part of nature, so weighing the balance of things versus the destruction of new species by destroying the sinkhole or containing it might be a serious issue. It is something that might require the Druid to deal with Fey leaders or Elemental Creatures that represent nature. If such a source can be convinced of the necessity of such destruction of this new species it could at least add a legitimacy to the act. But maybe they will have a solution that could save the species but move it or entrap it but it could require certain conditions and normal peoples actions or methods might put success of such at risk. Thus the druid becomes a mediator and leader in trying to stop the people from killing this new creature even though they have been wronged by it.
Elementals are beings of the natural forces but in Ravenloft they are composed of blood, grave soil, pyre ash and mist as well. When these darker natural forces of death, power and violence arrive they may demand lives or even actions that propagate their kind. A blood elemental may demand blood sacrifice just a pyre elemental might and yet a grave elemental might demand that the druid hunt undead as they should be fodder for further elemental formation. Mist elemental;s may demand weird or esoteric actions or even try to prevent actions staying quite mysterious perhaps.
And the normal elementals may also be partially corrupted by similar thoughts and the evils of the land. They may be rare and need to be kept pure or become more cruel task masters and change to blood/grave/pyre/mist if not tended by druids.
Lastly humanity is part of nature though so the druid understands that as diverse as humanity is it will choose from so many different paths they will take the extreme wrong path often enough. Humans are easy to create imbalance in nature but they are surviving better than most other species. Judging humanity by natural standards and the standards of morality will not always fit but it is the balance of what the druid is. A druid may shapeshift but they are still fundamentally human/humanoid thus it would be unnatural for them to think they are not part of their race. A druid needs to watch out closely so that they save humans from imbalance but not from nature. Killing a bear from eating a child that stumbled in might be fine for other humans but a druid would want neither to die. But a hunter who ran afoul of the bear knew the risks thus a druid if he saves the hunter should find a way to repay the bear perhaps by giving it a meal equal to that of the man. Still if the humans are creating imbalance or nature is the druid should not be restricted from acting to restore that balance more forcefully if they cannot turn the conflict away.

Hope this helps!

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Personally, I think the "nature vs civilization" motif is badly overplayed in many D&D games, mostly because of players' and DMs' preconceptions about how severely civilization is capable of harming the natural world. People in a D&D game don't have bulldozers, can't strip-mine mountains, have no clue how to build dams larger than most castles. Without reliable firearms, it's nearly impossible to wipe out a prolific species by overhunting; without railroads, it's not cost-effective to level a forest, because you can't get the lumber to market. Most medieval peasants didn't even know how to cut down trees taller than a few dozen feet without shattering them when they fell, and they practiced "recycle, reduce, reuse" because they honestly couldn't afford to throw anything away.

Rather, I think of D&D druids as being more concerned with fantasy-specific threats to Nature: mad wizards creating mutated new life forms and dumping toxic alchemical wastes; gluttonous dragons eating their way through a delicate ecosystem from the top down; rogue deities who decide that deer would be cooler if they sprouted fangs and ate heretics; plagues of undeath that upset the cycle of existence and leave the landscape barren. Why worry about a farmer pulling up the occasional weed, when there are demons -- or undead evil treants, if you're in Ravenloft -- infesting the next valley over? Sure, druids might offer a bit of advice on sustainable agriculture when the chance arises, but laying the smackdown on people who are just trying to feed their families would be hypocritical if the druid forgives, say, leafcutter ants for doing the same things that human villagers do.

[ewancummins]

Personally, I think the "nature vs civilization" motif is badly overplayed in many D&D games, mostly because of players' and DMs' preconceptions about how severely civilization is capable of harming the natural world. People in a D&D game don't have bulldozers, can't strip-mine mountains, have no clue how to build dams larger than most castles. Without reliable firearms, it's nearly impossible to wipe out a prolific species by overhunting; without railroads, it's not cost-effective to level a forest, because you can't get the lumber to market. Most medieval peasants didn't even know how to cut down trees taller than a few dozen feet without shattering them when they fell, and they practiced "recycle, reduce, reuse" because they honestly couldn't afford to throw anything away.

Rather, I think of D&D druids as being more concerned with fantasy-specific threats to Nature: mad wizards creating mutated new life forms and dumping toxic alchemical wastes; gluttonous dragons eating their way through a delicate ecosystem from the top down; rogue deities who decide that deer would be cooler if they sprouted fangs and ate heretics; plagues of undeath that upset the cycle of existence and leave the landscape barren. Why worry about a farmer pulling up the occasional weed, when there are demons -- or undead evil treants, if you're in Ravenloft -- infesting the next valley over? Sure, druids might offer a bit of advice on sustainable agriculture when the chance arises, but laying the smackdown on people who are just trying to feed their families would be hypocritical if the druid forgives, say, leafcutter ants for doing the same things that human villagers do.

I can see room for a 'shadow druid ' such as Michael describes, but I've never thought ecoterrorists were a good model for the 'typical' druid. IMC, most druids are happy to work with farmers, charcoal burners, herdsmen, and so on.

You are a bit off on medieval deforestation, though. Huge swathes of European forests were cleared in the Medieval Period. Wood was the main fuel source. A tall tree shattering might render some of the wood useless for building, but it's not an issue if you are going to burn it.

[Sathien]

Wow, I'm glad to see this generated a decent amount of response. I should also clarify that I'm only a player in this game (Half-Vistani, Half-Forfarian monk with the martial artist archtype--<i>Snatch</i> much?).

* The druid comes from dwarf outlander stock but was born in Darkon. We, as a group, asked if he was more of a pro-metal druid (and thus banned from using animal hide or wood for armor), but he's fine with the traditional druidic armor tenets.
* Instead of an animal companion, he has an earth elemental companion (as per the substitution feature from <i>Complete Mage</i>), modified to be a dread elemental as fits the setting (although it still shares his personal alignment).

Our last session ended with our dwarven gunslinger dealing 1440 fire damage by igniting a wagon toting 6 powder kegs with a gunpowder bomb in the middle of a forest trail toward Corvia. At the very least, I'm sure it'll elicit a Horror save from the druid from the ensuing forest fire (we ended the session right there because the massive blast ended up in one failed powers check and the DM needed time to figure out what to do for a fitting boon/bane.)

[YamatoIouko]

Wow, I'm glad to see this generated a decent amount of response. I should also clarify that I'm only a player in this game (Half-Vistani, Half-Forfarian monk with the martial artist archtype--<i>Snatch</i> much?).

Realizing my inexperience with the Ravenloft setting, I've decided to set up an account here. I'm the DM in the game Sathien has been referencing, and the input has been some useful things to think about. I hope my participation around here isn't too much of a bother.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

No bother at all, we're always glad to have fresh blood! Welcome, YamatoIouko!

[Zilfer]

Personally, I think the "nature vs civilization" motif is badly overplayed in many D&D games, mostly because of players' and DMs' preconceptions about how severely civilization is capable of harming the natural world. People in a D&D game don't have bulldozers, can't strip-mine mountains, have no clue how to build dams larger than most castles. Without reliable firearms, it's nearly impossible to wipe out a prolific species by overhunting; without railroads, it's not cost-effective to level a forest, because you can't get the lumber to market. Most medieval peasants didn't even know how to cut down trees taller than a few dozen feet without shattering them when they fell, and they practiced "recycle, reduce, reuse" because they honestly couldn't afford to throw anything away.

Rather, I think of D&D druids as being more concerned with fantasy-specific threats to Nature: mad wizards creating mutated new life forms and dumping toxic alchemical wastes; gluttonous dragons eating their way through a delicate ecosystem from the top down; rogue deities who decide that deer would be cooler if they sprouted fangs and ate heretics; plagues of undeath that upset the cycle of existence and leave the landscape barren. Why worry about a farmer pulling up the occasional weed, when there are demons -- or undead evil treants, if you're in Ravenloft -- infesting the next valley over? Sure, druids might offer a bit of advice on sustainable agriculture when the chance arises, but laying the smackdown on people who are just trying to feed their families would be hypocritical if the druid forgives, say, leafcutter ants for doing the same things that human villagers do.

That may be true real life wise, but why do you need trains when you can teleport materials to one location or another? When you add magic those probelms can go away pretty quickly. Also beasts of labor, you can always find a more powerful/magic beast of burden within the realms. I'm sure they might have minotaurs or giants easily able to move large amounts of trees. xD Not that I ever do a Nature vs Civilization type of campaign, I just think if you want to do it there's plenty of room for it.