Re: I kind of agree that rangers should protect the forest, whether they are Sylvan or not. (explanation given)

Re: I kind of agree that rangers should protect the forest, whether they are Sylvan or not. (explanation given):
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum Log Board ]

Posted by Woodcutter on July 13, 2000 at 21:09:21:

In Reply to: I kind of agree that rangers should protect the forest, whether they are Sylvan or not. (explanation given) posted by Greengiant on July 13, 2000 at 18:46:06:

well, i dont think rangers need to protect for forest from its destruction all that much. for the most part, when one destroys a tree, or perhaps numerous trees within a forest, the space they leave empty fills quickly with new growth. in a sense, by the hapless slaughter of the beings of the forest, one leaves an openning for new growth to occur in the forest. guardians are the same concept. you cant bring a new one into the forest until you slaughter the old ones and leave the forest for a bit. to all the rangers of Thera: kill those little buggers and let the forest grow anew. rock on.

Follow Ups:

*cough* Like the Ashes of Nowhere? (n/t) Greengiant 22:16:40 7/13/2000 (1)
- It is all about % of destruction. If Masters were to transform in every room of the FON it should be gone. But one room should regrow. n/t Someone 01:20:38 7/14/2000 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail:
Subject:
Comments:	> well, i dont think rangers need to protect for forest from its destruction all that much. for the most part, when one destroys a tree, or perhaps numerous trees within a forest, the space they leave empty fills quickly with new growth. in a sense, by the hapless slaughter of the beings of the forest, one leaves an openning for new growth to occur in the forest. guardians are the same concept. you cant bring a new one into the forest until you slaughter the old ones and leave the forest for a bit. to all the rangers of Thera: kill those little buggers and let the forest grow anew. rock on.