[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by robertsconley

So I agree (. . .) but if you want to make Druids have a deeper meaning than you have to supply the detail. And that more you diverge from the typical stereotypes the more you have to explain so the players explicitly understands what going on.

Many times stereotypes are starting points, and nowadays often people destroys or subverts them because a lack of awareness of their reason to be.

BTW that summarization of the Treahan looks good to me.

I agree that isn't possible to bring Druids into a RPG without bringing in a meaningful portion of background and specific assumptions in a given setting.

But my point for distinguishing the aforementioned "two natures", along with the rest of nuances, is for not enclosing the notion in ways that end stifling or even killing the Druid: as notion, the usual fantasy take on it can be a starting point for more detail, if a particular group of players is looking to it, and thus is good to have the possibilities open.

That not how I handle it but I seen that approach work out*. (. . .) Just remember to keep in mind how are you going to fill in a person that is a novice to your campaign

Yes, it works. It never is a problem for new players, since these things don't need to be explicitly stated, remaining in the underlying background inherent to fantasy elements even if they aren't noticed. Also they can notice them later, if they do.

Originally Posted by malloyd

(. . .) and given how little we actually know about historical druids, you can't even make much of a case those are more authentic.

Even if there isn't a lot to check about Druids, between other things it's clear that they had gods —which doesn't fit with pantheism (also it would be entirely anachronistic: Baruch Spinoza requires waiting until the XVII century), that the Celts and its priestly class shared many traits of other no-so-different civilizations, and "nature" being part of the Celtic environment, it provided some immediate symbolic supports (esoteric names for trees, plants, and such), while many other civilizations of the past also had natural or mostly natural environments —in contrast here with urban ones— without it implying to make an idol of nature naturata, which Abrahamic religions call "creation".