Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 9123238" data-attributes="member: 6677017">The biggest issue for me with any druid armor type restrictions is just having an explanation that doesn't involve "choosing to play this character means choosing never to do this". I say that despite the fact that I have no problems with such a social contract in and of itself--for instance, saying choosing to play a character in this campaign means choosing not to betray the other characters. I don't even have a problem with a DM insisting that they like the druid armor restriction amd choosing to play in the game means choosing not to try to circumvent it.What doesn't work for me is if there is no in-world explanation of what the consequences would have been if someone had chosen to do such a thing. "You're character permanently becomes unplayable because..." is fine if the answer is "they lose all class levels and go insane", or "they would be forever hunted by their former order" (and we don't want that in this campaign), etc.I would have some issue with the supernatural geas element, unless at least one other class had some sort of similar restriction. It's too weird to make druidic armor the most sacred taboo in the whole multiverse. If it were the case that it wasn't a unique element, I'd still find it the least satisfying way of handling it, but I'd be able to work with it.And with any of that, such an extreme restriction is quite likely to set up situations where the logic of the rule gets put to the test. What if you are captured and have armor forcibly put on you? Are there any situations where an exception is allowed in-world. If not, are there any cases where the DM would not throw a fit if you willingly chose to permanently sacrifice your character by violating the restriction for some greater good (like saving a forest full of puppies and orphan trees)?I'm not sure why, but occasionally in the past I've seen pushbacks against even the modest sorts of requests I've expressed in this post. I'm not sure if it's just a matter of people assuming the opposite side in a discussion is automatically supporting the most extreme version of opposing views, or if it's a reaction to negative experiences with antagonistic players demanding explanations as a way of trying to control the game rather than attempting to make sense of the game so they can interact with it as intended, or something else entirely, but it just strikes me as odd.</blockquote>

Verification