The idea of druids as uncompromising is just silly. They’re wardens of nature. Fire bad, except you need fire to manage forests. Mining bad, but if a necromancer has raised army and needs to be stopped, you’re not gonna avoid using the best tools to defeat him.
It's not a gotcha. It's just a question to see if there is even a single reasonable circumstance under which they would view that "rule" as breakable.
No. It's more like,
Because it doesn't read like a rule, and doesn't seem to be intended to be an actual rule per the writer of the text.
Eh, I tried.
Neither of those claims are true.
I’d consider a DM that ran the game like that to be either quite inexperienced, or…let’s just say not a DM I want in my group.
That doesn't change the fact that by the PHB (you don't need the DMG to play), you cannot see light through darkness. It's dumb, and poorly written, but that is the rule. All these sacred text worshippers need to square that the rules contradict themselves, so maybe some amount of parsing through the sloppy naturalistic language is necessary.
Both are.
I agree. But, since there are no consequences given, it’s an incomplete rule. Your only option is to house rule consequences or to tell the player “your character wouldn’t do that,” which steps on their agency.
