D&D 5E Can your Druids wear metal armor?

[J.Quondam]

Oh! And back ON-TOPIC....

First, re-posting the situation from just upthread:

The party has made some bad rolls in a fight. The druid finds himself disarmed, and outnumbered by a pack of ghouls. He is contemplating breaking the druidic stricture and use a discarded metal shield in order to better defend against these monsters, creatures which he has been raised to regard as abominations to nature.

Even assuming the GM has chatted with the player about the druidic vow in session zero, the player is nonetheless in this situation and has voiced the PC's thoughts.

• How do you handle this ghoul situation as a GM, in light of the RAW no-metal rule?
• Do you retcon when the rule issue becomes evident, or try otherwise preempt it from happening? If so, how?
• Do you allow that character the free will to go through with it, or forbid the attempt?
• Do you devise an in-fiction way to prevent it (paralysis? the shield disappears/corrodes/etc? an electrified forcefield surrounds it?)?
• Do you devise an after-the-fact ramification, RP and/or mechanical? (lost powers? proficiency? ostracized from their Circle? atonement?)

Serious questions, especially for the "hard" RAW folks on this issue.

 

[Oofta]

But what if everything was shifted around a little. Like, what if (bear with me, this is still a contrived and spur of the moment example) the mission is to close an interdimensional portal that the bbeg intended to use to bring about the end of the world. The portal emits energy that would kill any creature that gets too close. The only way to close it is to walk up to it and smash the artifact that created the portal. There is an enchanted metal shield that will protect the wielder from this energy. The GM didn't intend to force the druid in the party to be the one who used the shield to approach the artifact to save the world, but it just so happens that all the other party members have fallen.

I think that a valid choice is to allow the druid to use the shield to save the world. Do you? I also would be impressed with a player that would choose not to use the shield because they think their character is that adamant about the taboo of their order and try to find another solution whatever that might be.

It should be up to the player at that point and what they think their PC would do.

Another example. In one of the Fallout games the game forces you to enter a chamber filled with deadly radiation. Even though you had a party member who was immune to radiation, even though you could get high levels of radiation resistance, it didn't matter. Either you died or a nuke went off killing you and everyone around you. I hated that ending. It was dumb.

Forcing self sacrifice should never be the only option IMHO. In D&D the DM is in charge, they can always change things. Maybe there's a chance for Gaia (if druids put a name to mother earth) to intercede. Maybe they can risk permanent death because they don't use the shield while still solving the issue.

I don't make people do a Sophie's Choice a woman in a Nazi concentration camp has to choose which of her two children will die. I don't set up trolley car problems. I don't make PCs choose between a devil and a demon. So no, I wouldn't tell a player that the only way for the world to survive would be for a PC to reject their religious beliefs. There will always be another way.

Maybe this is just a pet peeve of mine. Religious beliefs and convictions, personal morality is not "challenged" by forcing a choice of doing something you swore you would never do or the cost of failure is something that affects more than just your PC. It's kind of the equivalent to me of asking a PC if they want their PC sexually assaulted by Bob or Joe and if you don't your home town is going to be wiped out.

I really don't understand why this is particularly controversial. People complain about PCs being "forced" to not wear metal armor, but then think it's perfectly okay to effectively force them to wear metal armor? They're flip sides of the same coin.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I really don't understand why this is particularly controversial. People complain about PCs being "forced" to not wear metal armor, but then think it's perfectly okay to effectively force them to wear metal armor? They're flip sides of the same coin.

I don't think most people think it's okay to force these situations, more that they're constructing hypotheticals where the fact that the game has forced a preference onto the character is thrown into start relief.

 

[Oofta]

Nobody has suggested this. My first scenario merely said it was the best option to save the world. I have yet to see players CHOOSE a less than best option. That does not equal "forced," though.

It's not a conviction unless it is tested and the PC upholds it. If it is never tested, it's just words on a sheet. The DM sets the stage, YOU choose whether to uphold the conviction or not. The DM cannot force you to set it aside.

There wasn't any option. Druid PC puts on metal armor or the world (okay, nature) ends

You're still avoiding the issue. Let's try it this way.

If you were a player in a game where if the 5e druid(not your PC) didn't put on metal armor all of nature would perish, do you think the druid would or should be able to put on the armor?

 

[Oofta]

I don't think most people think it's okay to force these situations, more that they're constructing hypotheticals where the fact that the game has forced a preference onto the character is thrown into start relief.

I simply posted to explain why I'm against forcing someone to do things that are against their PC's strongly held beliefs. Sadly, yes, it does happen. I've had DMs gloat/chuckle about how they f***ed over my PC because I dared play someone with convictions. It's not a hypothetical situation, although for me it had nothing to do with druids.

As far as the druid rule, I stand by what I've said previously and don't see a need to repeat myself.

 

[CleverNickName]

Oh! And back ON-TOPIC....

First, re-posting the situation from just upthread:

(snip)

Even assuming the GM has chatted with the player about the druidic vow in session zero, the player is nonetheless in this situation and has voiced the PC's thoughts.

• How do you handle this ghoul situation as a GM, in light of the RAW no-metal rule?
• Do you retcon when the rule issue becomes evident, or try otherwise preempt it from happening? If so, how?
• Do you allow that character the free will to go through with it, or forbid the attempt?
• Do you devise an in-fiction way to prevent it (paralysis? the shield disappears/corrodes/etc? an electrified forcefield surrounds it?)?
• Do you devise an after-the-fact ramification, RP and/or mechanical? (lost powers? proficiency? ostracized from their Circle? atonement?)

Serious questions, especially for the "hard" RAW folks on this issue.

I'd probably describe the discarded shield as being made of wood, especially if I had placed it there specifically for the druid to use as an item of last resort. The player wouldn't bat an eye.

If that wasn't possible for some really weird hypothetical reason, I would go the Thorin Oakenshield route: I'd let the druid pick up a nearby chunk of wood or whatever, to use as a rudimentary shield.

And if that wasn't possible for an even weirder, more hypothetical (or contrived) reason: I would call a break, discuss this with the player, and devise an after-the-fact ramification that both of us can live with, then return to the game. It would probably involve loss of powers and atonement, and would become the premise for another adventure.

And if even that wasn't possible, somehow, for no reason I can even imagine: I would conclude the player is being stubborn and actively trying to break the rule for no other reason than to see it broken, and is unwilling to compromise. So I would call a break to discuss that issue privately with the player, and the player would likely be removed from the group.

 

[ad_hoc]

There is no one true way, but if you can't understand how setting up a lose-lose scenario is not fun for everyone I don't know what to say.

It's not "edgy" to force people, even by proxy, to violate core beliefs. It's just being asinine. IMHO of course.

Yeah, and I would say it's 'edgy' too and that isn't a good thing.

A heroic fantasy RPG is just typically not a great venue for such themes. It isn't 'adult' or 'mature' to delve into themes that can't fully be realized by the format. If we're going to do that I want buy in before starting the game and I'd have reservations. I'm playing an action fantasy game, not a drama.

Surface level Faustian stuff is appropriate but should still be given as true choices not 'gotchas'.

How many action/fantasy/superhero movies end with the protagonist needing to do the evil thing to save the world? When these situations are put forward to the heroes it's temptation for personal power which would result in death and destruction.

Imagine if in Guardians of the Galaxy 3 Starlord needs to murder all of his companions at the end of the movie to save the world, and does. No one would feel good about that and it would also not be saying anything new about moral dilemmas. It's not the right venue for such a thing. But it would be very 'edgy' so the few people into that would be all about it I'm sure.

 

[Faolyn]

As far as I can tell, you are having your own little argument that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Since you're so busy arguing against a book, instead of the person actually writing here, I'll just leave you to it. Have fun.

"Little argument." Wow, way to condescend.

You specifically said, in response to me saying "what if the DM wanted to do five elements where metal was one of them":

Then the vaguely European-style Druid is probably already not a great fit. That view of elements wasn't independent - it was tied in with fundamental views of how the natural world worked.

But when I pointed out that "the vaguely European-style Druid" was actually a mash-up of ancient Celts and Greek philosophy (which, BTW, did include five elements, with the fifth being aether), you suddenly started saying that that didn't mean anything.

The elements were never part of the "vaguely European-style Druids." Those were tacked on by writers who decided elements were natural and therefore it made sense for druids to use them, probably because they thought to include druids in the game before they thought to include alchemists. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason why a DM can't decide that air/earth/fire/water aren't only elements in their campaign--and if metal is one of those elements, then it also stands to reason that the prohibition against metal armor doesn't make sense.

And more importantly, there is no reason why changing the number and type of elements wouldn't work with the druids! Unless you're against the idea of renaming or reskinning classes in the first place, or against the idea of modifying D&D's Inner Planes or creating a brand-new planar structure.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'd probably describe the discarded shield as being made of wood, especially if I had placed it there specifically for the druid to use as an item of last resort. The player wouldn't bat an eye.

If that wasn't possible for some really weird hypothetical reason, I would go the Thorin Oakenshield route: I'd let the druid pick up a nearby chunk of wood or whatever, to use as a rudimentary shield.

And if that wasn't possible for an even weirder, more hypothetical (or contrived) reason: I would call a break, discuss this with the player, and devise an after-the-fact ramification that both of us can live with, then return to the game. It would probably involve loss of powers and atonement, and would become the premise for another adventure.

And if even that wasn't possible, somehow, for no reason I can even imagine: I would conclude the player is being stubborn and actively trying to break the rule for no other reason than to see it broken, and is unwilling to compromise. So I would call a break to discuss that issue privately with the player, and the player would likely be removed from the group.

So, let’s say the warrior hireling of the party is dead, their shield abandoned by their side. Easy reason it can’t just be retconned to a wooden shield.

But it’s so strange to me that “they use the metal shield and there is no ramification it’s just a personal moment of stress for the PC” isn’t even on the table.

 

[TwoSix]

It's not malpractice to challenge a conviction. Sometimes there's no good choice, so you make the one your character would do and deal with the result.

Also, if a lie will help and a truth would hurt, don't do either. Just omit information. I don't believe in lies by omission. Omitting information may be a deception, but it isn't a lie or we wouldn't need two different words. Or maybe there's another option that could work.

To be clear, I'm saying NOT challenging convictions is bad DM practice. The best games are generally the ones where you put the PCs through the wringer.