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

[FrozenNorth]

Why would this be a problem?

It isn’t. I just don’t think saying “your warlock requires a patron” impinges on player agency less than “druids will not wear metal armor”.

 

[Oofta]

On the other hand, why bother integrating deeply held beliefs into the game via features like oaths or vows if they're not going to be challenged? If that's not your thing, cool. But for many players, that's the whole point of those kinds of characters. Presenting such challenges in no way means the GM "doesn't think having strong convictions are worthy of consideration".
Jeez, not everyone has nefarious intentions.

So you think it' would be okay in the real world to set up a scenario that forced someone to violate their most deeply held beliefs?

To some people it's just a game, a stupid rule that can be ignored. For some it's something they identify with, can say that it's just like how some people are dismissive of their beliefs. For some, even if it's not personal they have empathy for those who's beliefs are belittled.

I don't take people's convictions or beliefs lightly. Even pretend ones. I don't tell people that what their PC's firmly believe is something that can just be tossed aside because I, as the DM and the one who runs the universe and could have easily come up with some other alternative, decided to set up a Sophie's Choice scenario. I don't tell people that I think convictions and beliefs are just personal choice that they can tossed aside.

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.

 

[Oofta]

Respectfully, my take away from the story is that you had a DM that let you play your character the way you wanted to even though it was inconvenient for the material he was running. That's a cool DM.

(I also wonder how it was that there were only two choices. There's clearly more to the story, but why not try to play one against the other and take them both down, or something else?)

The DM did not run the module as written. As written, you were forced to choose between a literal demon and devil.

This was the living campaign that also had a module that had you help with an obviously evil act or the module was over after 15 minutes. Which, yes, the same paladin also played and we showed up for a game day only to go home after playing for 15 minutes.

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

 

[Oofta]

The bolded and underlined part? That is 50% of the problem. In your example, you chose to take the taboo seriously.

We don't get a choice. Our only choice is hoping that the DM gives us a choice, or to make the choice to not play a class that some of us really like. The point of these examples isn't to mock religious ideals, it is to show how egregious it is that we weren't given a choice in the matter.

Guess what? If I want to play a paladin who isn't "basically the Tick"? I have SEVEN alternatives. SEVEN. If I want to play a Druid who wears metal armor? That is taboo and forbidden, because no druid in the entire multiverse under any circumstances would do that. That is what makes you example not applicable.

So because you don't think a taboo is important, nobody can believe it's important? Gotcha.

 

[TwoSix]

The DM did not run the module as written. As written, you were forced to choose between a literal demon and devil.

This was the living campaign that also had a module that had you help with an obviously evil act or the module was over after 15 minutes. Which, yes, the same paladin also played and we showed up for a game day only to go home after playing for 15 minutes.

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

Yea, but that sounds more like railroading and terrible module design than an actual problem with interrogating a character's beliefs.

I mean, if I have a character who has a tenet of "I never lie" and I never put them in a situation where telling the truth can cause actual collateral damage, I feel like I'm committing some kind of DM malpractice.

 

[Oofta]

Yea, but that sounds more like railroading and terrible module design than an actual problem with interrogating a character's beliefs.

I mean, if I have a character who has a tenet of "I never lie" and I never put them in a situation where telling the truth can cause actual collateral damage, I feel like I'm committing some kind of DM malpractice.

The railroading is what I was responding to - the scenario that was proposed was that the druid either ignore a taboo and wear metal armor or the world ends. I wouldn't want to play with a DM that pulled that kind of stuff.

 

[TwoSix]

The railroading is what I was responding to - the scenario that was proposed was that the druid either ignore a taboo and wear metal armor or the world ends. I wouldn't want to play with a DM that pulled that kind of stuff.

Yea, I certainly wouldn't run that sort of situation (do it or the world dies is kind of hokey). Especially since the rules as presented make that decision uncompelling and force the bad rules into the spotlight.

Now, if the rule was "Wearing metal armor for more than a few minutes violates the druid's oaths, and the druid will lose their Wild Shape and Spellcasting for a year and a day unless they atone", then you could make the situation a little more compelling.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So because you don't think a taboo is important, nobody can believe it's important? Gotcha.

But it is important to force someone to play a taboo because 'rules'.

 

[Oofta]

But it is important to force someone to play a taboo because 'rules'.

It's the DM's decision whether or not to follow any rule in the book. If someone identifies with druids in part because they have a taboo that some people think it's stupid, if that player takes it seriously, then it is important.

 

[carkl3000]

The DM did not run the module as written. As written, you were forced to choose between a literal demon and devil.

This was the living campaign that also had a module that had you help with an obviously evil act or the module was over after 15 minutes. Which, yes, the same paladin also played and we showed up for a game day only to go home after playing for 15 minutes.

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

This goes to exactly what I was saying. It's surprising to me that there were modules with this kind of binary choice written in. It's supposed to be role playing not a choose-your-own-adventure book.

I think moral dilemmas are interesting. Especially if a player is creative enough to come up with their own third way solution.