Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8572345" data-attributes="member: 6779196">The rules DO NOT SAY they aren’t supposed to do those things. If the text said druids can’t wear metal armor, or that only evil characters can cast animate dead, this would be a very different discussion.It’s not necessary, because in this case the player is doing something contrary to what the rules instruct them to do. The player who says “my character puts on that armor” or “my character casts animate dead again” is not doing something contrary to what the rules instruct them to do - they are in fact acting in accordance with what the rules instruct them to do. The text also says that some characters won’t do some things, but the players, acting entirely in accordance with what the rules instruct them to do, can cause a gamestate to arise in which their character is attempting to do something which the text says a character in a category to which their character belongs won’t do. This is a problem if you interpret said text as rules, which can only be resolved by DM ruling.The rules DO NOT SAY it’s impossible for a druid to wear metal armor or a good character to cast animate dead. Again, if they actually used prescriptive language, this would be a very different discussion.If a player described such an action, the DM could fairly easily determine what happens as a result (probably the character lands on the gold and takes falling damage). They do not need to contend with any contradictory statements in the text like “only ducks will dive into bins of gold.” If the text contained such a statement, it would be equally meaningless.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8572345, member: 6779196"] The rules DO NOT SAY they aren’t supposed to do those things. If the text said druids [I]can’t[/I] wear metal armor, or that only evil characters [I]can[/I] cast animate dead, this would be a very different discussion. It’s not necessary, because in this case the player is doing something contrary to what the rules instruct them to do. The player who says “my character puts on that armor” or “my character casts animate dead again” is not doing something contrary to what the rules instruct them to do - they are in fact acting [I]in accordance[/I] with what the rules instruct them to do. The text also says that some characters won’t do some things, but the players, acting entirely in accordance with what the rules instruct them to do, can cause a gamestate to arise in which their character is attempting to do something which the text says a character in a category to which their character belongs won’t do. This is a problem if you interpret said text as rules, which can only be resolved by DM ruling. The rules DO NOT SAY it’s impossible for a druid to wear metal armor or a good character to cast animate dead. Again, if they actually used prescriptive language, this would be a very different discussion. If a player described such an action, the DM could fairly easily determine what happens as a result (probably the character lands on the gold and takes falling damage). They do not need to contend with any contradictory statements in the text like “only ducks will dive into bins of gold.” If the text contained such a statement, it would be equally meaningless. [/QUOTE]

Verification