Sword of Spirit
Legend
One issue that has been discussed extensively on other threads is that the way it’s written in the book is oddly infringing on player agency, by telling them what their character will or won‘t do—and its literally the only place in the game that something like that is defined.
Now, I‘m not talking about character creation intent. I‘m not saying its fine for a player to say they are going to create a druid that wears metal armor regardless of how their group does things, anymore than it would be fine for someone to say they are going to create an Oath of Devotion paladin that enjoys killing and maiming innocent people. Regardless of whether it would be disruptive to play in general (probably) in most campaigns it would be well with the group social contract to tell that player that that doesn‘t fit a non-fallen Devotion paladin in their world and the player needs to create a character that fits. In like manner, if a taboo against wearing metal armor is inherent to druidic philosophy in your world, it would be well withing the social contract to make sure the player’s character is on board with the basic philosophy of their order. It would be fine if they had personal doubts about some of the philosophy (maybe the principles on which the armor taboo is based), but they’d need to be on board with the philosophy to have become a druid in the first place, just like you’d need to be basically on board with a paladin philosophy to become one in the first place.
That‘s not the issue of agency. The issue of agency comes during play. If the player of a paladin of Devotion character decides to have their character murder an innocent you might reasonably pause the game and talk about the ramifications. You might ask the player why they want to have their character do that, and let them know what sort of consequences there will be. It might derail the campaign, cause their subclass to change to Oathbreaker, or just add serious complications that the player might not want. If that sort of thing isn’t really appropriate in your campaign you might talk with them out of character about whether they want to just retire this one and play a different character that‘s a better fit. In like manner if a player of a druid character decides to have their character start wearing metal armor, you might talk about the ramifications. Maybe it will get them in big trouble with their order and they won’t get the instruction needed to gain more druid levels. Maybe they won’t be able to cast spells, wild shape, or use supernatural abilities while wearing it. If that sort of thing isn’t really appropriate in your campaign you might talk with them out of character about whether they want to just retire this one and play a different character that‘s a better fit.
Even in those cases, there is still player agency (just not the option to derail the campaign if that doesnt fit the social contract). The problem is if the player has his paladin say “I kill him”, and the DM says, “your character won’t do that”. I think that is outside of the intended player agency. Unless magical compulsion (or Fear/Horror mechanics) is involved, a player always decides how their character acts and thinks about things. The DM can talk about it, impose consequences, or if the player is just being a jerk kick him from the game. But it would be really, really weird for him to step in and tell the player what his character will and won’t do.
It’s the exact same situation with the metal armor. No matter how much I might be on board with a druidic philosophy, if for some vital mission I find myself in an unexpected situation where about the only good option is to hide in some plate armor (for instance), and I role-play through my character wincing and considering consequences, and finally grits his teeth and “I put on the armor”…and the DM says, “your character won’t do that”, I’m going to be rather taken aback. I mean seriously? I can’t choose what my character does now for some reason? You can bet I’d be having a serious discussion with the DM afterwards to try to understand their reasoning and whether this game is a good fit for me.
The armor section for the druid class is the only place in the rules that, as (poorly) written, might imply the DM is within their role to tell the player exactly that sort of thing. I think most players, whether new or old, have an understandable issue with it. If it was written more like the paladin oath sidebar, explaining that not wearing metal armor is part of the philosophy of druids and if a player breaks this taboo what the possible options are, there wouldn’t really be the issue of player agency.
So consequences, mechanical penalties, character creation discussions, or even pauses to discuss campaign ramifications and whether this character (or their player) is a good fit for the campaign are all fine. Straight up telling the player, that their character (not under any magical or similar compulsion) will not attempt the course of action they say they do just isn’t really going to fly for 99% of us.
Now, I‘m not talking about character creation intent. I‘m not saying its fine for a player to say they are going to create a druid that wears metal armor regardless of how their group does things, anymore than it would be fine for someone to say they are going to create an Oath of Devotion paladin that enjoys killing and maiming innocent people. Regardless of whether it would be disruptive to play in general (probably) in most campaigns it would be well with the group social contract to tell that player that that doesn‘t fit a non-fallen Devotion paladin in their world and the player needs to create a character that fits. In like manner, if a taboo against wearing metal armor is inherent to druidic philosophy in your world, it would be well withing the social contract to make sure the player’s character is on board with the basic philosophy of their order. It would be fine if they had personal doubts about some of the philosophy (maybe the principles on which the armor taboo is based), but they’d need to be on board with the philosophy to have become a druid in the first place, just like you’d need to be basically on board with a paladin philosophy to become one in the first place.
That‘s not the issue of agency. The issue of agency comes during play. If the player of a paladin of Devotion character decides to have their character murder an innocent you might reasonably pause the game and talk about the ramifications. You might ask the player why they want to have their character do that, and let them know what sort of consequences there will be. It might derail the campaign, cause their subclass to change to Oathbreaker, or just add serious complications that the player might not want. If that sort of thing isn’t really appropriate in your campaign you might talk with them out of character about whether they want to just retire this one and play a different character that‘s a better fit. In like manner if a player of a druid character decides to have their character start wearing metal armor, you might talk about the ramifications. Maybe it will get them in big trouble with their order and they won’t get the instruction needed to gain more druid levels. Maybe they won’t be able to cast spells, wild shape, or use supernatural abilities while wearing it. If that sort of thing isn’t really appropriate in your campaign you might talk with them out of character about whether they want to just retire this one and play a different character that‘s a better fit.
Even in those cases, there is still player agency (just not the option to derail the campaign if that doesnt fit the social contract). The problem is if the player has his paladin say “I kill him”, and the DM says, “your character won’t do that”. I think that is outside of the intended player agency. Unless magical compulsion (or Fear/Horror mechanics) is involved, a player always decides how their character acts and thinks about things. The DM can talk about it, impose consequences, or if the player is just being a jerk kick him from the game. But it would be really, really weird for him to step in and tell the player what his character will and won’t do.
It’s the exact same situation with the metal armor. No matter how much I might be on board with a druidic philosophy, if for some vital mission I find myself in an unexpected situation where about the only good option is to hide in some plate armor (for instance), and I role-play through my character wincing and considering consequences, and finally grits his teeth and “I put on the armor”…and the DM says, “your character won’t do that”, I’m going to be rather taken aback. I mean seriously? I can’t choose what my character does now for some reason? You can bet I’d be having a serious discussion with the DM afterwards to try to understand their reasoning and whether this game is a good fit for me.
The armor section for the druid class is the only place in the rules that, as (poorly) written, might imply the DM is within their role to tell the player exactly that sort of thing. I think most players, whether new or old, have an understandable issue with it. If it was written more like the paladin oath sidebar, explaining that not wearing metal armor is part of the philosophy of druids and if a player breaks this taboo what the possible options are, there wouldn’t really be the issue of player agency.
So consequences, mechanical penalties, character creation discussions, or even pauses to discuss campaign ramifications and whether this character (or their player) is a good fit for the campaign are all fine. Straight up telling the player, that their character (not under any magical or similar compulsion) will not attempt the course of action they say they do just isn’t really going to fly for 99% of us.
