Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8571829" data-attributes="member: 6779196">That doesn’t tie it to an alignment, it specifies an alignment to which it is not tied: good.Sure they are. It says good right there on the character sheet, and they did the thing. Now what happens? The rules don’t say.I don’t see a rule that says a good PC can’t do those things or what happens to them if they do.You’ve inserted the word “can” in there, which does not exist in the text in question. A proper analogy would be a “law” that says only women enter women’s restrooms, which isn’t a law at all, it’s just a factually incorrect statement.That’s neither RAW nor RAI. RAW just says they won’t, and doesn’t specify what happens to a PC who does anyway. RAI is nothing happens at all, it’s only meant as a statement informing the setting. It’s right there in Sage Advice.Any of these things would be not-unreasonable house rules, if a DM wanted to enforce druid PCs conforming to the statement about the setting.The “rule” doesn’t prohibit druids from wearing metal armor, or just says they won’t, which a druid PC can easily prove false.Fine and dandy as a house rule, but nowhere in the rules does it say to do either of those things.That’s not how the rules of D&D work. They’re exceptions-based, they say what you can do, not what you can’t do.The text in question does not contain any prohibitive language. It is a statement of what characters do, which can easily be proven false.According to what rule?I mean, a player playing a serial rapist character would get kicked out of my game. But that’s part of the social contract, not the rules of the game. If one decided to allow a player to play this character though, no rule of the game says the effects of a unicorn’s lair wouldn’t affect them.</blockquote>

Verification