In the 8th and 9th centuries, the Eastern Church went through the trauma of Iconoclasm — which literally means the breaking of the icons. At issue was the place of icons — the depiction of Christ and His saints — in worship and in the Church. The Iconoclasts equated their use with idolatry. The Seventh Ecumencial Council convened in the year 787 at Nicea specifically to defend icons and their use from a theological point of view. This view eventually won the day and icons are used by Orthodox Christians in worship to this day; however, underlying the whole controversy was humanity's relationship with nature and the place of nature in the Kingdom of Heaven.
The Iconoclasts had a difficult time with the depiction of Christ and His saints because they saw the act of making an icon to be an insult — that to use mere matter to depict our Saviour and the Holy people of God was to denigrate them. This argument finally runs counter to and calls into question the Incarnation of Christ — God Himself took on our humanity (became "mere" matter) for our salvation. It also fails to understand our place in creation and our relationship to creation. During the Seventh Ecumenical Council, St. Leontios of Cyprus states:
Through heaven and earth and sea, through wood and stone, through all creation visible and invisible, I offer veneration to the Creator and Master and Maker of all things. For the creation does not venerate the Maker directly and by itself, but it is through me that the heavens declare the glory of God, through me the moon worships God, through me the stars glorify Him, through me the waters and showers of rain, the dews and all creation, venerate God and give Him glory.
This sacramental view of our relationship can be seen in 1Peter 2:9:
You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of the darkness into His marvelous light.
In other words, our stewardship of nature — and the proper orientation of environmentalism — is centered on God. Through us — our prayers, our sacramental life and our "reduction of our carbon footprint" — nature is lifted up to God and participates in the eternity of the Kingdom of Heaven. In a very real sense, the proper platform from which to understand environmentalism is Christianity.
Thus, from this perspective, I believe that the LBBs got it right when they listed the Druid as a monster. As a defender of nature, the Druid fails to unite humanity with nature. Instead, they choose nature over and against civilization. They have no qualms about murdering thousands if it means saving a fish.
In my own understanding of the Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic alignment rules, I like the illustration of the city being attacked by hoards of cthuloid monsters and their minions. If you are on the wall defending the city, you are Lawful. If you are trying to break down the gate, you are Chaotic. If you don't care either way, you are neutral. Using this illustration, Druids actually fall closer to Chaotic than they do Neutral. Civilization is the major threat to nature and must be opposed. In this sense, Rangers, as the class that learns the ways of the wilderness in order to protect civilization from the wilderness, are the natural foes of Druids, not their comrades in arms, as they are in later editions of D&D.
Ultimately, the Druid's defense of nature makes the same mistake the Iconoclasts did in reverse — nature and humanity are incompatible. The result is destructive — the Iconoclasts destroyed thousands of invaluable religious artifacts and killed those who defended them, and Druids are willing to murder and destroy in the name of nature. In contrast, the relationship of humanity to nature in Christian theology is creative. We are called to not only protect our environment, but to live with it and to transform it — lift it into the Kingdom of Heaven to the glory of God.
In contrast, Druids are frightening. In my own version of the Temple of Elemental Evil, Druids run the show. They are rightly called monsters, and in my own worlds and campaigns they remain so.
I like this idea a lot and it's certainly one that comports well with my own alignment scheme. I think it's interesting how druids changed from being monsters in Supplement I to being a playable class in Supplement III.
ReplyDeleteYou make some compelling points from a Christian perspective, but regardless of what Supplement I laid out, I've always seen Druids in the game as more akin to sagely taoists living in balance with nature and mankind, and trying to serve as an example of this, rather than some sort of medieval eco-terrorists. Of course I first got into the game through the Holmes book and later 1E, so my views were never colored by the LBBs.
ReplyDeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind words. I suspect that the shift from Supplement I to III came about because someone wanted to play one.
ze bulette,
ReplyDeleteActually, I got into this hobby through Holmes as well; however, in all the years I've played I can only remember Druids being played twice. Given the choice of Druid or Cleric, the folks I played with almost always chose Cleric. I suspect the reason for this is that the class never really made that much sense to us. The LBBs listing Druids as monsters, though, does make sense.
Our games, though, always existed in a pseudo-European fantasy culture. I could see where the Druid class could be re-cast as a bunch of taoists in an Asian fantasy world...but I still think it doesn't fit quite as well as some of the other classes. You also rob yourself of a great adversary — think about Princess Mononoke and all those semi-demonic nature spirits. . .
I think an historical review of the depiction of "the Druid" in Western culture might be useful. In origin, they are some kind of pagan Celtic priest, although we don't really know enough about them to say much more than that. That pagan Roman Caesar famously depicts them as bloodthirsty savages, burning the living as sacrifices in their wicker men. Of course, Caesar says lots of nasty things about the Gauls, so he's hardly an unbiased source. There is, I believe, some evidence to suggest that the wicker thing was real, but we wouldn't really know how it worked.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, the real Gaulish Druid wouldn't seem to be any sort of Eco-Terrorist. He would be more associated with nature than a Roman priest, but that's only because he's a barbarian.
The Druid is eventually recast under the romantic impulse. Arguably, the Arthurian Romances have a "good guy" Druid in Merlin, but that's pretty speculative. 19th century Romanticism was, on the other hand, quite explicit in making the druid a wise man of the heath. The connection to Nature is clear here. This is totally in line with the general principles of Romanticism, which, however you slice it, is fundamentally at odds with Christianity in it's views of the relation of Man, God, and Nature.
Then you get the pulp depiction of Druids which is definitely a mixed bag: Kutner's Elak stories have the Druid as a good guy magician, while Carter's Thongor stories have the druids as servants of the Chaos Gods.
All of which is to say: the Druid can be whatever you want it to be.
But I agree that there was some real rethinking going on between Sups. I and III. I think the Greyhawk Druid was probably more inspired by the Roman depiction. Somewhere along the line, I'm guessing that a player of Romantic inclination wanted a revamp to so he could play one.
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteIt also helps to look at the Druid from the war gaming roots of D&D. The original alignment rules were mostly about Us vs. Them — who would ally with your army and who would fight against it. In this scheme, Lawful = civilization (i.e. Rome) and Chaotic = the wilderness (i.e. Barbarians). This is at the root of the sandbox campaign where characters represent civilization exploring and taming the wilderness. As such, the Druid makes much more sense as a "Them" due to there association with the wilderness.
In this regard, another helpful way to look at it is from a Scriptural point of view. The wilderness is where demons reside. The normal Scriptural pattern is for a hero to go into the wilderness, fight demons and then return to civilization to carry out their mission there — see Christ in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-17). Again, Druids choose the wilderness over civilization — they choose demons. Thus, they naturally fall into the Chaotic camp and make great monsters.
Again, Druids choose the wilderness over civilization — they choose demons. Thus, they naturally fall into the Chaotic camp and make great monsters.
ReplyDeleteI'm just saying that the idea that Druids worship/adore/obsess over the wilderness is kind of a made-up thing. One could as easily say that Druids in D&D function to harmonize Man and Nature. In a world where Nature = Scare Wilderness, Druids would be there to help people out.
I have no problem with them as Eco-Terrorists except that it doesn't make a lot of sense in any pre-modern setting for anyone to feel that nature is threatened by Man.
I personally find the pro/con arguments about druids as player characters to be interesting. I am currently leaning more and more towards having them as monsters only, but I can understand why some people want to play one as a PC. In many later versions of D&D the druid is the class that gets to have a pet right out of the gate, and that has done much to bring women into my circle of gaming, as they seem to love it when their PCs have pets.
ReplyDeleteMatthew,
ReplyDeleteMy Druids aren't as much "eco-terrorists" as anti-civilization. Regardless, think about what a disaster some of the Meso-American civilizations were on their environments. It doesn't take modern technology to pose that kind of threat.
Aaron,
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that irritates me about later editions of D&D is that because Druids get to have a pet right away, nobody else is allowed to have a pet.
In my Lost Colonies campaign, the party got themselves a pair of dogs to take on adventures — the players were quite free to do that or not regardless of their class. Back in the day, I remember being in a party that picked up a faerie dragon as a "pet" because we made friends with the guy. This is why I continue to use older rule sets — they allow me a lot more freedom as a player to do want I want without mechanics to get in the way.
Re: only druids getting pets
ReplyDeleteI think this falls in the category of "the rules don't specifically say nobody else can ever have one, but because a class specifically gets it as a class feature, nobody else ever bothers to ask." I never played OD&D, but that seems to be a common thing I hear people complain about in every thing afterwards, starting with the thief skills in the Greyhawk booklet.
Aaron,
ReplyDeleteI am not a big fan of thief skills as skills for much the same reason I don't like druid pets as class benefits. Instead of allowing thieves to do something beyond what everyone can do, they limit what everyone else can do.
In 3.5, I've experienced the ultimate frustration of describing exactly how a trap mechanism works, and how exactly to stop it only to be told that the DC is too high for my non-rogue to disarm the thing. In other words, why should I bother thinking out of the box, be creative or problem solve? When a mechanic limits what everyone else can do, it kills creativity and choice. In a game without the thief and his skills declaring that I can't disarm the trap, anyone with the imagination to problem solve could get rid of that trap. Personally, I find that to be much more entertaining.
In my D&D campaigns (close to 30 years over several editions), I've only ever seen one druid played...briefly, in a single D&D session. The reason for this is clear to me: druids are associated with the outdoors and the wilderness while the name of the game is DUNGEONS & Dragons.
ReplyDeleteI would also suspect the change in perspective came from a player wanting to portray a "nature cleric" with more "natural spells." But for on-going campaigns, druids as a character class are far less useful underground (for example, in nearly ALL of the original TSR modules of the 1st edition). As a one-time evil monster bent on unleashing the barbarian hordes against the castle, or as the mastermind of an "under-forest" dungeon they are great for the occasional appearance.
I'm not sure what the "pets" thing is all about. Do players want to portray Beastmaster?
Dave,
ReplyDeleteIt's ironic (or not) that I read this thread this evening after musing on this same topic this morning. I, too, have been coming around to the idea that Druids are not really suitable as PCs.
It's their neutrality and acceptance the Life is. Death is. We are. that makes it hard for me to have them as PCs. They make for interesting NPCs, where their interests can briefly concur or conflict with those of the PCs.
To be clear, though. I respect the Druid as a class, but coming to believe it has less merit as a PC class.
"In my own understanding of the Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic alignment rules, I like the illustration of the city being attacked by hoards of cthuloid monsters and their minions. If you are on the wall defending the city, you are Lawful. If you are trying to break down the gate, you are Chaotic. If you don't care either way, you are neutral. Using this illustration, Druids actually fall closer to Chaotic than they do Neutral. Civilization is the major threat to nature and must be opposed. In this sense, Rangers, as the class that learns the ways of the wilderness in order to protect civilization from the wilderness, are the natural foes of Druids, not their comrades in arms, as they are in later editions of D&D."
I have also adopted the view that Rangers are not tree-huggers. They use their knowledge of what's out there to keep it out there before it reaches civilization.