Depends. Is it true?

You do know that in the real world, the most staunch defenders of wildlife do, in fact, cull, particularly in places where they can't yet introduce natural predators, don't you? Do you know how forestry management works? Do you know about controlled burns?

I suppose it boils down to the tired old theological distinction between imminent vs. transcendant. I always thought a commune led by Great Spirits should be very much an imminent view of spirituality. That's one of its greatest virtues, that its spirituality is not sullied by contact with the actual things it cherishes and their everyday existence, but ennobled by them, even by the "grim" bits and the "dirty" bits. That's what it's all about.

But a transcendant spirituality could certainly be made while still being attached to nature. I don't think it's sustainable, but I think the flaws in it are the kinds of things that wouldn't show up in an IRE game anyway. So by all means, run with it if you like. Just know that White Hart himself is against your interpretation, so you're starting out trapped in a paradox. You can't be all transcendalist about it and then ignore your transcendant's own views, at least not without drinking deeply of the self-delusion chalice. (Which real-world history shows is a very sustainable thing to do, so maybe I shouldn't knock it.)

All these things are fine. Remember, I actually wanted to introduce an ability to start forest fires in Nature.

But I cannot see how the forest is advantaged by replacing a single tree at regular intervals. As a Druid, unless there is a strong justification for slaying that which we revere, it grates on me.

Edit: And you needn't be as insulting as that. As far as I know, White Hart has not commented on the mulching of the Northern Serenwilde, or plans to repeat it regularly. I realize the sort of Druid I want to be is not what most Hartstone want, and that is fine. All I'm asking for in this thread is another option of saving the wood economy aside from this.

You also didn't answer. Assuming it does benefit society materially to cull older people, is such a society still valuing human life?

Regardless, it does. I would suggest "try living in one" as a way to prove it to you, but that's not feasible for most, so all I can really offer is "go look it up", because I doubt you're going to believe anything I offer at this point. Then again I doubt you're going to look it up either, so really, just nevermind.

I knew this was going to happen. It was inevitable. I would have been disappointed not to be disappointed. I just didn't figure it'd be you.

As to the question I didn't answer, I did, but I shouldn't've. It's a faulty analogy and answering it is just taking the bait. That you're not going to see it through shows that. Doesn't matter what I think, though. So I'll leave you to whatever ethics you like; call it victory if you want.

Actually, with the benefit of having a while to think about it, I've decided you are right in that there is no conflict of interest. Despite your condescension, I should have taken more time to think about the issue.

My problem was in relating trees to discrete individuals, when really I should be thinking more of them being inseparable elements of a greater whole. Or something like that.


So yes, done properly broad clearing can be workable. I'd still like to see these two abilities used to supplement the wood income, however.

I just remembered a rather important point about all this sapling business:

"If the tree is never harvested, it will
eventually die on its own in about 10 years (leaving only half the
lumber it would have yielded if harvested)."

Which I think changes it a lot from simply farming for resources. It's like picking fruit before it rots!

Excellent point.