If a druid were abusing their powers the way you describe they'd probably lose those powers. Or awakening an owl that has become the druid's companion so they can work with the druid in their duties of safeguarding the lands more carefully. Awakening a wolf so it can lead its wolf pack more efficiently in the face of human hunters and to serve as a steward of the forest, as an example, is a completely druidic thing to do. But it can also be used in service to nature, which is how a druid would use that power. The ability to awaken animals could be misused, true. You're applying motive to the powers now though, and that wasn't a part of the original discussion. It is the behaviour of wizards and mages who enjoy fucking shit up for shits and giggles and don't give two damns about the consequences of their actions. It is not the kind of behaviour a Druid, a protector of the natural balance, engage in.
They might as well be fusing owl heads to bear bodies. Similarly, going around Awakening animals for shits and giggles would mean greatly altering the animals from their natural state. If they were to kill a lot of wolves, for example, that would greatly upset the natural balance of the ecosystem. This does not make anything they do with those powers natural. The Druid is availed a set of powers from nature. That's the same as thinking everything a Cleric does is good because the Cleric's god is good. and probably a number of shifty undead too, but maybe don't trust them quite as much. If you want to use the in-game classification, use 'humanoid', though there are a lot of people who aren't humanoids, as I'm sure any fiend, celestial or giant will reassure you. That's the first step - there's a lot more than humans out there. Don't think about humans think about people. If you want to talk about how people fit into it - talk about people. Nobody would try to say that it is not an 'animal' by our day to day usage of the word. Technically, for example, speak with animals should *not* work on the owlbear. Speak with animals, for example, specifically targets 'beasts', so many "by our real world definition of the term" animals are not included - because they are dragons, or humanoids, or monstrosities, or plants, or aberrations, or giants, etc. This is separate from 'monstrosity', 'dragon', 'humanoid' and many others. It uses 'Beast', which is a specific type. 5e doesn't use 'animal' as a classification anywhere. People talking about the biology distinction: may I suggest or recommend that you shift your terminology to using the types as defined by the game rule set? It might make getting yourselves on the same page for discussion easier. Remember also that a number of the bests around the grove may even be awakened. This common sense applied to Faerun means to change "humans" with "all entities able of the same characteristics that humans have: being self constious, being sentient, being able of abstract thinking, etc etc.". Indeed, but in the contest of this dialogue "animal" is not used in its biological meaning but in his common sense meaning, and in common sense there are "insects" (that include everything from centipoda and arachnida to proper insects), plants (in wich fungi falls), microorganisms (a group that includes all that is not visible by the human eye), and humans (that is the one animal species that has, scientifically proven, self coscience, astract thinking, ability in complex mathematical calculus, etc etc.
There is a definition of the word ''animal'' that includes humans too, since humans are technically animals, but if I were to use that definition my point wouldn't make any sense, and typically when we use the word animal we don't mean humans. I am using one of the definitions of the word ''animal'' from Cambridge dictionary which is ''something that lives and moves but is not a human'', only in this case I substitute the word human for ALL intelligent species of Faerun, dragons included. Do you think they are plants? Fungi? Very large bacteria?
0 kommentar(er)
