2.3. In this context, we note that the Forestal defences, meant for our
defence against outside enemies, are primarily used against other
Forestals - against overharvesters. I combination with the situation
outlined above, we believe this situation to be extremely hazardous. We
would suggest that, first, the application of the Forestal defences to
Forestals is conductive to creating the authoritarian atmosphere which
we regard as poisonous. Second, the political processes present in the
application of Forestal defences to Forestals impede, rather than
create, and atmosphere in which loyalty is bilateral - the group to the
individual as well as than the individual to the group. Furthermore,
though harvesting still has the potential to damage Nature, this
potential is not the same as it was before the Divine changes to plant
growth. We have been negligent in discussing this issue - including,
indeed, one of the undersigned, when he was in a position to further
such discussion. We do not believe this negligence is excusable, or
forgivable, on our part or the part of the Forestal Community at large.
However, neither would be continued silence on our part. Finally, the
punishment of Forest enemying is arguably significantly harsher to
Druids and Sylvans than it is to Sentinels, and the punishment for all
these three groups in turn is harsher than it is to exterminators, with
no discernable justifications for this obvious imbalance.

2.3.1. We note here that the question whether overharvesting constitutes
damage to Nature is one we cannot answer at the moment, as opposed to
fifty years ago, when overharvesting clearly stunted regrowth.
Preliminary and tentative research has shown that regrowth rates do not
seem to be predicated on the initial number of plants, but we remain
open to argument on the matter. We believe, however, that the use of
Enemying as a punishment against overharvesting should be conditioned on
clear knowledge of damage to Nature done by such action.

2.4. Noting, additionally, that continuous plant growth makes
independent verification of overharvests significantly harder, we
therefore wish to propose that Forest enemying for anything but
intentional and massive overharvests comparable - in both intent and
damage inflicted - to exterminations, is abolished, unless a convincing
argument can be made that overharvests other than intentional, massive
overharvests consititute damage to the Forest.

2.5. We should note here that Forest enemying as a punitive measure for
infernoeing, massive and intentional overharvesting, or, in the case of
Sylvans, the use of magical rituals that damage the Forest, is, too, a
relatively harsher punishment than that for exterminators. However, we
note that in case of grieveous crimes committed by Forestals to the
Forest treason should count as an aggravating factor, unlike the case of
exterminators, and we henceforth unconditionally support the application
of Forest enemying for the cases mentioned above.

2.6. Likewise, we are aware of the need to conservate plant growth for
emergencies such as replants after fires and exterminations. We do not
oppose monetary punishments for overharvests, neither would we oppose
temporary loss of the Concoctions skill as a penalty for repeated
overharvests, if such a penalty could be implemented apart from Forest
enemying.

3. Another point that we believe needs to be brought up is the backlash
of the application of our defensive means to external enemies on the
Forestal Community. As we mentioned, we are in a comparatively low tide
as to the presence of external threats, and we do not see an end to this
low tide. We, simply, do not believe a threat to the Forest compared to
that which the Forestal Community successfully fought in the 270s and
280s will emerge in the foreseeable future. This advantegeous situation
has great potential disadvantages:

3.1. One potential hazard we are dealing with is an increasing
involvement of individual Forestals in conflicts of a non-Forestal
nature. This concerns all Forestal organizations (except Oakstone with
its sharply circumscribed mission). Involvement of Forestals in wars and
conflicts between the cities bears the acute risk of involving the
Forest itself, and the Forest will only be involved to its detriment.
Furthermore, the presence of Forestals as hired hands in any inter-city
conflict may gain us new friends and new enemies in an haphazard and
unpredictable fashion. We believe our new enemies will have longer
memories than our new friends. We admit that some of the undersigned, in
their recent political activity, chose not to discourage this kind of
activity and hence do not wish to suggest that there is an easy fix to
this problem, for there is none, but we do wish to point out that the
problem exists.

3.2. The sheer power of the Forestal defences, and their basic
sufficiency, bear the risk of incapacitating the Forestal Community
itself. A man used to being carried everywhere will, eventually, unlearn
how to walk. In a similar fashion, we must be wary of the Forestal
defences not becoming a crutch on our Community. We do not argue for
their abolishment, since we do not believe we can do without them, but
we argue that we must be wary not to grow too comfortable in their
power, and perhaps discuss means by which our individual members may
play a more crucial role in the defence of the Forest.

4. All of the above, we believe, comes down, in various ways, to the
hazard that the handling of great power poses for many people. Those who
are able to show themselves greater than the power they wield are few,
and most of us, when in a position where one wields authority and power
over many, will grow all too comfortable and careless in wielding it.
One can grow used to power, just like one can get used to the scent of
rotting meat. Hierarchical organizations and systems of organizations -
no matter how rudimentary the hierarchy involved - cannot survive
indefinitely, without conscious intervention to assure their political
health. The challenges we face deal, in various ways, with the
installment of checks and balances to limit the application of power and
to guide it into appropriate directions.

Signed,

Narses
Keryth
Melidere
Serendipity
Prythe
Sardaug

Penned by my hand on the 22nd of Ero, in the year 376 AF.