"Will not" is quite sufficient, it is clear, and backed up by Sage advice - 'it's up to the DM, not the player'. The DM is the final arbiter, has right of veto, defines the setting and the rules to be used.
That part of the Sage Advice has nothing to do with the RAW though. The DM has the right to veto or be final arbiter of anything, but that point has no bearing in a RAW discussion. The Sage Advice said that the Druid possesses the ability to wear the armor, and that nothing in the game system penalizes or stops them from doing so. That's the RAW. The fact that you should talk to your DM so that you don't do anything that goes against the world they have created is merely a general RAI reminder, but the fact that the DM gets final say is not a RAW factor.
You don't comprehend the meaning of the word 'rules'
'Taboo' DOES limit the character actions if the group as a whole respect the Lore - if they don't, well it's up to them. Thankfully I've never found a group like that... I've seen a few players with the 'it's all about ME' attitude, they've typically lasted 1-4 sessions before being shown where the door is and instructed to close it on the way out.
Taboo does not limit character actions if the group is playing RAW, unless there are RAW penalties for the behavior. I'm discussing RAW. It's fine to have a table that plays with the lore as physical restrictions that dictate actions they can perform, but that's not how it's written into the game system. That would be a table playing what they consider to be RAI, but it's not RAW. You can punish a Cleric in 5E for denouncing their deity, but that's not in the RAW.
You're willfully ignoring/misinterpreting 1E rules, especially regarding proficiencies.
I've only pasted them as written, and then applied standard reading comprehension to them. If performing A causes B, then the consequence of performing A is B. The fact that B happens as a result of A never imposes the idea that A is literally impossible to perform. If you think it does, then you're simply not applying common sense logic to your reading.
You're branding anyone who disagrees with you 'dumb', never a good stance to take.
No, I've never done that. You simply don't seem to understand what I'm saying, even though I've tried to clarify in multiple ways. I even used an example of how I was dumb at something, not because I would consider myself dumb as a person, but because I and everyone else simply didn't understand how a new thing worked at the time compared to the exact same people years later when the idea was more mainstreamed and the internet had more community interaction on the topic.
I'm not saying any one person is dumb, I'm saying that when information and discussion is not available, everyone involved is inherently going to be dumber in regards to the topic than if there was. Neither you nor I would have had the tools available to understand RAW 50 years ago as we do have available today. 50 years ago I would have had to ask my neighbor and hope they knew better, but today I can shoot a tweet at the creator of the game. We all have access to these tools now, and we're all inherently less dumb about the topics as a result.
Moving past that, the point is that AD&D was written with the same level of clarification as modern editions today, but people then typically read it more as board game restrictions than as a tabletop RPG. If someone 50 years ago had read in the rules that you can't wear metal because it spoils your magic, they may have been more inclined to assume that it meant you absolutely can't wear metal armor, because rules. People today will more likely assume it means that if you choose to wear metal armor, you lose access to your magic, much as it was more commonly interpreted in 3.5. Both people can read the same statement, but a better understanding of how tabletop RPGs work compared to board games can expand what the interpretation is.
You're trying to attribute modern approaches of play/design to old school rulebooks, that were NOT written as you maintain they were.
I'm not addressing the approach of play, merely how they were written. AD&D is indeed written as "You can't do A because B happens, or you suffer C consequence." People just read that as "You can't do A", which completely ignores over half of the context listed. That's the difference between reading a board game, and reading an RPG. Just because lots of people played it that way, doesn't mean that's what it was saying.
You're not listening to multiple people (who have more experience with the material in question than you do) telling you when are wrong - which you are - consistently.
And you're not listening to multiple people that agree with me. What's the point?
It is clear you've created this account here to argue stubbornly over one single issue which annoys you - and are unwilling to accept any other point of view on the issue.
I'm willing to accept any other point of view on the issue, but I stand by the point that nobody has sufficiently contested the major flaw of nothing in the RAW game system stopping a Druid from putting on metal armor. Bringing up table issues, or hypothetical agreements between DMs and players, does not address RAW. The Sage Advice said to ask your DM to make sure you don't undermine their story, but that's a general reminder that's true of every decision in the game. What they also did was clarify that Druids do not lack the ability to do so, and that nothing in the game system is broken as long as they adhere to their proficiencies. Show me anything in the game system that says otherwise and I'll accept that as RAW. As it stands now, it's standard fluff at a RAW table, because there's nothing in the RAW system that forces you to abide by it or penalizes you for opposing it, unlike Paladin tenets, but not unlike Clerics and deities or Warlocks and their pacts.
