Druid War

>>54089688
In our DM's own setting, this scenario caused the apocalypse. Afterwards all our adventures took place in a verdant green world full of ruins and shit. It was pretty great.

I don't think they could be stopped, realistically speaking. It's better to set the game to the aftermath.

I read some good OSR stuff on this once:

goblinpunch.blogspot.co.nz/2014/09/7-myths-everyone-believes-about-druids.html

goblinpunch.blogspot.co.nz/2016/06/nature-is-horrible.html

But basically yes fighting a serious group of powerful druids would be horrible.

Goblin Punch was the seed for this a while back, but I'm going to be running this war saturday and while I personally believe it'll lead to an apocalypse, I'm more curious as to just how difficult it's going to be. If they're fighting a losing battle, what can they hope to save?

>>54090130
>If they're fighting a losing battle, what can they hope to save?
Depends. What do the druids actually want?

I don't think it's anything specific. If you've read the goblin punch articles, he talks about how they just resent civilization. That's the basis for the war.

Simple backstory is that there was a crusade that is similar to WWI in nature. Brutal, lots of casualties. And now, with the land scarred and civilization growing bigger, they're rebelling.

>>54089736

I read into those blogposts. Some nice thoughts to get away from the treehugger druids.

The whole "druids hate language" thing is utterly retarded though. Seems like the writer had a VERY limited perspective of what language is. Heck, even fucking trees can communicate somewhat (even though very rudimentary), but so fucking many animals talk/ communicate with each other, ignoring that is just dumb.


War is decided by many factors, but two of the most important are numbers and power. Especially numbers.

If your setting has a huge number of druids AND they're able to organize themself accordingly (which would go against multiple concepts layed out in the articles), it can get ugly. Just like any other war.

Power in this context means their druidic spellcasting and how strong it is compared to arcane spellcasting and technology. If it's extremly OP, Druids could do well with lower numbers. It's easy to say "they could utilize this and that, or X and Y,...." but it's another thing to think about how much of it they could actually use at the same time. Animate a tree to attack? Sure. Animate a whole forest? Very different level. Same goes for any other ressource druids might use.

>>54089688
Druids don't hate civilization, not any more than they hate chaos.

>>54090591
The writer literally comments on this below the post m8.

>Destroy all the cities! Now there's a great idea. The death of higher-level comprehension and a blissful return to instincts. Druids can finally stop teaching language to their children. That idea gets the druid lick of approval.

>Actually, the druids are right about one thing--there are some things in Centerra that are dangerous to comprehend. See also, the Book of Tigers, or the Madness of Avool.

>When the world ends, it won't be because of wolves and ducks and field mice got together and opened the door to something terrible. It will be People Who Wrote Shit Down.

>(It's comprehension and semiotics that druids abhor, because these things are a blight on the natural world in the same way that necromancy is. Wolf "language" is a lower order language--those are just remembered associations. Wolves don't combine abstract symbols in their heads to form new expressions; they just react to semi-taught, semi-instinctual association.)

>Like, if someone asks you what three times five is, and you answer, you aren't just trading blunt Pavlovian responses, you're doing a lot of high-level shit in your brain.