Depends on the character's backstory more than the designers' suggestions.
Look, I acknowledge that replying to all of your arguments by saying "you mean" and rephrasing them to support my position is... abusive. I'm trying to participate in this argument
in good faith, but every asinine post you make seems predicated on the belief that nothing means anything unless you say it does. I can't imagine playing D&D with you. I can't imagine playing
Candyland with you.
Words have meanings.
Words. Have. Meanings.
The prohibition against Druids wearing metal armor is part of the
rules of the game, written in the
same rulebook by the same designers with
all of the other rules that tell you metal armor exists and what metal armor does. Druidic magic is
divine, which means that it derives from some external source of power that imposes ethical restrictions on its use; you cannot simply remove those limitations by saying that this external source has granted you those powers
without the usual ethical restrictions, or that you're not getting them from an external source at all.
Because words have
meanings, and while you can
change the rules-- with the consent of the DM and the other players-- you can't change decide which parts of
the rulebook are rules and which are not based on your simple desire that it be so. And you can't making meaningful arguments, and expect other people to take them seriously, when you aren't willing to acknowledge that the rulebooks you're advocating to change even exist.
