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

[Maxperson]

Even in the best of circumstances, Sage Advice should be taken with a grain of salt, so the fact that SA says something different isn’t really a point against @Oofta (and may be a point in favour of @Oofta).

But then, I don’t treat RAW as RAW.

It doesn't really say anything different, though. "Will not" indicates choice, not prevention. The Sage Advice just clarified the taboo already indicated in the PHB.

I do agree, though, the Sage Advice should be taken with a grain of salt. I ignore it as often as I follow it.

 

[Maxperson]

 

[J.Quondam]

The point is that the taboo can be broken just as easily as a vegetarian eats meat when necessary. The designers have said so. It's not hard for them to do it, they just choose not to if it isn't an emergency.

Yeah, but... A taboo is supposed to be difficult to ignore*. If it's a thing that isn't hard to do, or isn't important to abide -- if it isn't causing great doubt, or risking shunning by the group, or evoking disgust or fear or shame -- it's not really a taboo.

While someone who (for example) won't eat meat for religious reasons might (not will, but might) violate that stricture in order to stave off starvation, that doesn't mean they'd do it willingly or without disgust. Afterward they may well feel intense guilt or shame, and the need to atone or confess or cleanse as appropriate for their faith. Likewise, if this druid restriction on metal is truly a taboo, then the expectation is that there ought to be some sort of serious struggle associated with violating it. It shouldn't be a casual thing in the game if it's a genuine taboo.

But how that plays out at the table will obviously vary a lot from player to player-- which is why I think some posters here are wary of addressing it all in the game. Why? Because for people (like me) who don't have tough religious limits in their lives, it's easy to shrug it off without really grasping the seriousness of such a inner conflict; so I run a real risk of roleplaying that to the point of insensitive disregard. And for someone who does hold to some sort of taboo or strong religious restriction, they may simply not want to deal with that in a game they play for fun.

So I think that's a fair ask, just like any other "red line" is. If a player doesn't want the theme of taboo or religious inner-conflict in a game-- even in a general sense-- I'd work to accommodate that. I mean it's easy enough to clarify it before the players join the game and avoid the issue altogether, right?


* It really doesn't help that Sage Advice seems to misuse the word "taboo" here.
** And none of this, of course, excuses the horrible, no-good, burn-it-with fire and just-fix-it-already RAW on druid armor, however.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

...

THE BOX WILL TELL US HOW TO APPLY THE RULE.

THE BOX WILL TELL US HOW TO APPLY THE RULE.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, but... A taboo is supposed to be difficult to ignore*. If it's a thing that isn't hard to do, or isn't important to abide -- if it isn't causing great doubt, or risking shunning by the group, or evoking disgust or fear or shame -- it's not really a taboo.

I agree, which is why I've been talking about exceptions this entire thread. An emergency that requires it. The star metal found and creating a unique armor that is different. That sort of thing.

While someone who (for example) won't eat meat for religious reasons may well violate that stricture in order to stave off starvation, that doesn't mean they'd do it willingly or without disgust. Afterward they will likely feel intense guilt or shame, and the need to atone or confess or cleanse as appropriate for their faith. Likewise, if this druid restriction on metal is truly a taboo, then the expectation is that there ought to be some sort of serious struggle associated with violating it. It shouldn't be a casual thing in the game if it's a genuine taboo.

Agreed.

But how that plays out at the table will obviously vary a lot from player to player-- which is why I think some posters here are wary of addressing it all in the game. Why? Because for people (like me) who don't have tough religious limits in their lives, it's easy to shrug it off without really grasping the seriousness of such a inner conflict; so I run a real risk of roleplaying that to the point of insensitive disregard. And for someone who does hold to some sort of taboo or strong religious restriction, they may simply not want to deal with that in a game they play for fun.

My father was an alcoholic and both grandfathers if they weren't alcoholics, drank very heavily. As a result, I won't touch the stuff. I've never been drunk. I didn't buy the customary drink at 21, because it would have been a waste of money to buy something I wouldn't drink. My friends have offered at celebrations. I even had a DM offer me two full levels if I would drink a shot. I never wavered. At my own wedding during the toasts I took tiny sips of the champaign, such that after all the toasts at the wedding, my champaign flute had dipped maybe an 1/8th of an inch.

In 2015 when my father passed away, I attended his funeral and afterwards the family offered up a toast. I decided that this was one moment in my life where I would break my commitment not to drink and I had one full shot of whisky in his memory. I didn't even hesitate. Because I don't drink, that one shot actually made me light headed for 10-15 minutes. I also felt no shame for breaking my taboo.

Even a strong taboo can be overcome without shame or disgust if the right moment comes up. Or maybe with shame or disgust. Had I taken the shot offered for the +2 levels, I would still be someone who doesn't drink, but I probably would have been disgusted at myself for doing it. It all depends on the circumstances. And it should ONLY be the player of the PC who determines what circumstances are valid for his PC.

 

[Chaosmancer]

1e only. Gygax was out before 2e started being worked on.

Eh, a matter of some historical debate. A lot of people say 2e was based heavily on his notes. Either way, by 3e the game was no longer under his direct design sensibilities.

 

[Chaosmancer]

In animism, the features of nature are living minds all around.

I never understood why some people assume people "worship" nature beings.

When I live in an apartment building, I know there are persons with minds all around me. LOL! I dont "worship" them! I just say "hi" if I happen to run into them, and sometimes have a good friend who is a neighbor. Maybe I knock on the door of a stranger if there is a party or a problem.

Nature beings are about coexistence. There is no worship. The goal is to have a peaceable constructive community that includes all of the nature beings, including the type of nature beings that are humans.

The main job of a shaman is find ways to resolve conflicts to keep the community functional. For animism, the environmental community − the neighborliness and the hospitality − is the sacred "cosmic force". Not any particular nature beings, per se.

Honestly, it is a bit of the monotheistic mindset along with the idea of power.

If you see a catholic priest with a censer chanting in Latin, it is because he is venerating and worshiping God.

If you see a animist figure burning incense and chanting, it is easy to think that what is going on is also worship, instead of just a way to talk to those spirits. It doesn't help that "worship" isn't always completely inaccurate and the English language and translations don't have a lot of better words.


Add to this how close "respect" can be to worship, how we view power and the distribution of power, and a history of worshiping Kings and Queens. And you can see how translating a more nuanced version of something that people have little context for understanding the complexities of can be difficult.

So, they default to an understanding that they do have, and a context that is "close enough" in a lot of ways.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Eh, a matter of some historical debate. A lot of people say 2e was based heavily on his notes. Either way, by 3e the game was no longer under his direct design sensibilities.

I think the following might be helpful:

Gary Gygax’s Thwarted Plans for Second-Edition Dungeons & Dragons

In 1985, D&D co-creator Gary Gygax wrote a column for Dragon magazine describing his plans for a second edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. “This task does not preclude later supplement…

dmdavid.com

How Much Would Gary Gygax’s Second-Edition D&D Have Differed From the Version That Reached Gamers?

In 1985, Dungeons & Dragons co-creator Gary Gygax shared his plans for a new, second edition in Dragon magazine. Even as his column reached print, Gary was forced out of TSR, ending his work on…

dmdavid.com

If you want to see one person's concept of Gygax 2e, google Adventures Deep & Dark.

Hey look, it's the Mountebank!

 

[Maxperson]

Eh, a matter of some historical debate. A lot of people say 2e was based heavily on his notes. Either way, by 3e the game was no longer under his direct design sensibilities.

I've been reading the Gygax threads here and he said he personally had nothing to do with it. They may have worked off of his notes for some of it, but he himself didn't do work.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So they are sort of like Wizards and Sorceries in a sense.

Honestly? Figuring out a good and solid metaphysical answer to why a Wizard is different from a Cleric would be a boon for the game, I think.

For me, I went with power sources. Divine power is the power of mortal beings, focused and refined in a being, then portioned back out to beings like clerics. Primal power is the power of the natural world. Arcane is the power of the underlying structures of reality (which is why it is the premier power of the outer planes).

In one world I've made, Bardic magic is closer to ancestor magic. It comes about by the groove left by a hundred thousand people doing the same thing, for the same reasons, over and over again. So a Bard can use something like Thunderwave, as the sound of the horn before the charge of cavalry, which has occurred so many times that it has a meaning, an element, in and of itself.

But, yeah, a lot of times if you start digging into these questions, the line ends up really blurry.