Druids view on dire and were animals?

[Darafeyen]

I have a question on how druids would view oversize, and dire versions of animals..

Would they be viewed as monstrous - damaging to the natural balance of things, (out competing their natural cousins)
or
are they simply a large animal, part of the natural world, in a land such as Layonara.

Also, I presume dire does not mean infernal / or have evil connotations?

Similiary, what is the view on Were versions of natural creatures ?

Darafeyen

[Talan Va'lash]

Lycanthropy is a disease, thus were-creatures are not natural creatures.

[General_Ski]

OOC: My personal take ont he issue: I think dire beasts would be akin to cavebeats, i.e. cavelions cavebears, perfectly natural, but more dangerous, primitive versions of beasts, which theoretically should be more difficult to obtain empathy contact with. But that's just my take on the druids/rangers. As far as magically enhanced beasts, it gets murkier and I suppose they would be an abomination to the natural flow of things.

[Pankoki]

Dire are just spectacular specimens of the respective animals. Think of them as enhanced creatures whose heritage has proven to be outstanding. They are perfectly natural and a druid/ranger that has one as a companion is actually viewed upon as someone who has a great link with nature since such a powerful creature would answer to them.
  Were creatures are however shapechangers affected by a disease (lycanthropy). No control and usually very bloodthirsty. Some druids might see this as okay though. Heh never put frames on your characters.

[lonnarin]

I'm not sure about how they are in this setting, but werebears in PnP D&D are often tolerated by druidfolk as they are mostly Lawful Good and staunch supporters of environmentalism.  Of course, they practically never spread their infection to others unwillingly the way other lycanthropes are known to do.  Most are born with the affliction, and as "purebloods" they cannot be cured of the affliction by anything short of a wish.  Were-tigers are usually true neutral as well.  Also, as Pan said, some druids and rangers would see the bestial nature of the other types as a good thing sometimes... it depends on your outlook.

Dire animals, I would think would also be tolerated by druids, since they and rangers can train them as animal companions.  Beasts are too also often tolerated, like griffons, renders, ankheg, bulettes, etc so long as their presence does not impact the environment negatively.  (a render that was quickly making white stags extinct would be killed or reloated)  Dinosaurs are also listed as beasts.

Magical Beasts are sometimes a toss-up.  The ones that came into being from undoubtedly vile magics, (owlbears, chimera, manticore, warg etc) and that are destructive in nature are often seen as foes of nature.  Other ones that seem harmless to the woods around them, like Blink dogs, giant owls and eagles are often sided with rangers and druids to help protect nature.  Anything so horribly warped to become an abberation is certainly not natural and is often purged.  Vermin are usually fine unless they swarm out of control like locusts and leave devastation in their path.  Druids can't train them as their brains are too simplistic, but they don't kick an ant-pile out of spite either.

There are also certain monsterous humanoids that get along very well with rangers and druids.  Most notable are centaur and alaghi.  Plants like treant and myconoids too often don't raise a ranger or druid's ire, nor do Fey like satyr and kenku who most often only fight travellers to protect the forrests.

Also keep in mind that the treants in the high forrest are pretty goodly, and the kenku seem to live pretty well in concord with nature.  Ask our high druid Rhizome about the Dark Tree Father though, heheheh.  There are wars even in nature!

So pretty much, the litmus test for whether or not a druid would try to eradicate a species would be dictated by the extent to which that being can coexist with nature without defiling it.  Dwarves like Bjornigar on the other hand, who clear 5 trees per sneeze for profit, are greatly reviled.

[Leanthar]

Pankoki and Lonnarin are dead on.

[KageKeeper]

Thank you so much for clarifing this!

Luna has never had a problem with dire animals, just viewing them as bigger and badder variants, but still with a place in Nature.

The only were-beasts she has had contact with are the werewolves and shes not too fond of them and thinks they are an abomination, albeit a sad one since it is a disease.

The other beasts listed she generally does not dislike either. Her philosophy is fairly simple: If it has a place in Nature, and does not throw the Balance off, then she's fine with it. *shrugs*

[Darafeyen]

Thank you to everyone who replied - this is great.

Darafeyen

Well let me see if you ask my character what she thinks of werecreatures, she will talk to your character about her mother.
There are two types of werecreatures in nature, those that are true and those that are cursed.
If your character thinks that all weres are evil, then that character has been misguided and needs to be re-educated. Either with words or with...you get the picture.
If the were in question is true, not a problem.
If they are cursed, then they need to have the curse removed so they can once more live their life the way nature had intended.

As for druids opinion of dire creatures. They are just the largest and more tempermental of their smaller counterparts. Just have as much right to be of nature as any other creature.

[NEXUS7]

Spugly would say dem Dire critters are tasty but ware not good eatin