Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ohmyn" data-source="post: 7624794" data-attributes="member: 6999115">I'd still argue the possibility that the dryad thinks the Druid is possibly doing something right, as opposed to something wrong. Something like "These people all claim to be defenders of nature, but I sense a strong proclivity in this one." If the Druid does not present himself as a Druid, and merely makes claim of being a member of his Fey Knight crew, they'd maybe be suspicious, but the only thing they have to go off of is a strong connection to the primal forces. If he's truly a worshiper of the natural deities, it could appear as if he somehow has more of the deity's favor versus what they would sense from the Nature Cleric and the Oath of the Ancients Paladin with similar but different abilities. Ultimately it's DM call, but an argument could be made that the situation could be more curious than suspicious, and that would probably prevent the Druid from outright gaining favor, but I wouldn't see it universally applying that they'd immediately be distrustful of them, or treat them with more distrust than someone in metal armor that they don't sense such a strong connection with.I'd feel that wearing a closed metal knight's helmet and never interacting directly with any natural creatures of the Feywild (unless taking down evil ones like hags), instead first leaving that to your party unless you felt it necessary to later take the precautions to meet with them individually, would actually cover it quite well. I look at it like being a Cleric of a specific deity, but you're not preaching and waving your holy symbol at everyone you meet. If any information did leak out it would likely take a long time to put the pieces together, as individually the only thing the creatures would have to go off of is that they witnessed some knight that seemed to have a particularly strong link to nature, and they wouldn't even have a face to describe.Also yes, I'd agree that having to take such precautions is a consequence in itself, but it's far less inhibiting than DMs that make reality momentarily cease if a Druid tries to put on metal, because "the rules". Natural beings distrustful of them is effectively the same as a Tiefling interacting with literally anything if the DM utilizes the "mutual mistrust" fluff from the PHB, and is a consequence that literally any action or decision a player makes can cause. Even a Half Orc may suffer that if they have to deal with Elves for a while and the DM makes them hate each other by default.Yes, I agree with this, but that's what I meant by, "I could understand if they just so happened to have to take such a creature out, and utilized the hide after killing it, but to hunt something purely for its hide sounds very not Druid to me."Heck, just as a side note, I could argue even that to be not Druidic if we follow their lore exactly from their original concepts. They believe in maintaining the natural balance and have a distaste for the unnatural creations of civilization. It could be argued by another Druid to be contrary to that idea to tan an animal hide into leather, since tanning is a result of civilization (albeit more primitive civilization than converting ore to metal), versus leaving it to decompose and be reused naturally by nature itself.The more I think about Druids the more holes I see in the beliefs that could be interpreted either way, which is why it's silly to me that DMs feel the need to control Druid characters in their actions, as far as making certain actions as simple as strapping on a shield into something literally impossible, even though D&D has taken great strides over the years to indicate that no action is impossible unless the character simply lacks the capability. An 8 strength Gnome Wizard cannot lift a house, and would be super hindered by full plate, but the distinction there is that the DM would not say they can't put in the effort to try. Of course they'd fail to life a house, and they'd be super slow in the armor and unable to cast spells due to the mechanical implications hindering them, but they can do it. When it comes to Druids, however, DMs simply want to take their choices away if it doesn't match the fluff of the class, despite the fact that the fluff has change in its entirety since the class was first introduced, just like everything else.Your story implications are fine, and something I'd have no trouble with, outside of some small differences of opinion that wouldn't matter anyway because I know my opinion doesn't outweigh the opinion of an NPC any more than it does that of any real person. It just irks me to see DMs enforcing taboo without mechanical implications as mechanical limitations, especially when Paladins have tenets that can have strong mechanical implications, but I've never met a DM that contests them performing actions against their oaths.</blockquote>

Verification