What do you want for 'nature'?
-
I would not support that unless there was a way for the grove to defend itself. Otherwise randos can wander in and taint it for teh lulz.
-
Tainting a grove is a EiG thing, it has happened in the past and been fun.
-
@CrystalRL said in What do you want for 'nature'?:
I would not support that unless there was a way for the grove to defend itself. Otherwise randos can wander in and taint it for teh lulz.
The idea is only a druid can claim a grove. So in theory a druid could take over a grove and taint it. Otherwise, they would have to be invited by the druid who claimed it.
My only concern is that if you have multiple groves, they should really be focused. The grove we had was great for your Silvanus/Chauntea types. I think a grove in the deep forests, essentially a shrine to the Seladrine would be good and work well as a faction base for elves. I think there should be a natural evil aligned grove too, perhaps in a swamp area which could double up as a barbarian/malar/talona base. Tainting/cleansing groves of rivals and especially the Seladrine are core to a lot of concepts.
-
Druids don't really taint groves of rivals. Tainting a grove would be interfering with the leyline, and would be the action of a blighter, if a druid were to do it. They would rather just duel the other druid in a challenge (not necessarily one of battle).
-
Tainting a grove is the same as corrupting it, and no druid will do so. A talonite druid would simply change the nature of the grove to promote disease and decay as opposed to a druid of Chauntea who would promote growth and such.
-
Blight druids should be non-app though, and set kit. They just dont need to be OTT stats wise.
When i say taint, it could mean desecrate. Malarites/orcs desecrating Seladrine, etc.
-
Blight Druids are on par to Black Guards, so no :)
-
Prestige wise, not on par, but their purpose is the same. The destruction of everything sacred and the complete dismantling of the current natural order.