Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 7625961" data-attributes="member: 23751">LOLHappily, this was not one of those times.&nbsp; The druid could put on armor and they can get through it.&nbsp; Putting on armor is within the rules.&nbsp; Taboo is not binding.&nbsp; The rules specify(at least in 1e and 3e) what the consequence of putting on armor is.&nbsp; It's losing access to the druids magical abilities.&nbsp; That line is no different, other than size, than the descriptions in the monk and paladin sections about what happens when you break the &quot;rule.&quot;&nbsp; Both monk and paladin use language that's even stronger than can't.&nbsp; The paladin &quot;fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment (q.v.) and always remain awful good...&quot;&nbsp; Always.&nbsp; Not sometimes.&nbsp; Not here and there and then I can break it.&nbsp; Always.&nbsp; As in every single time.&nbsp; The portion after that can never possibly come into effect under your interpretation of the 1e rules.&nbsp; Since the paladin has to always be LG, he cannot ever get to the &quot;or&quot; section and lose his powers.The monk is similarly stuck with being lawful.&nbsp; He MUST be lawful, which precludes him from ever possibly taking a chaotic action and hitting the penalty spelled out.OR, you can understand that all three, druid, paladin and monk, despite the absolute language being used, can in fact choose to break those restrictions and suffer the in game penalties.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 7625961, member: 23751"] LOL Happily, this was not one of those times. The druid could put on armor and they can get through it. Putting on armor is within the rules. Taboo is not binding. The rules specify(at least in 1e and 3e) what the consequence of putting on armor is. It's losing access to the druids magical abilities. That line is no different, other than size, than the descriptions in the monk and paladin sections about what happens when you break the "rule." Both monk and paladin use language that's even stronger than can't. The paladin "fighters, all paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment (q.v.) and always remain awful good..." Always. Not sometimes. Not here and there and then I can break it. Always. As in every single time. The portion after that can never possibly come into effect under your interpretation of the 1e rules. Since the paladin has to always be LG, he cannot ever get to the "or" section and lose his powers. The monk is similarly stuck with being lawful. He MUST be lawful, which precludes him from ever possibly taking a chaotic action and hitting the penalty spelled out. OR, you can understand that all three, druid, paladin and monk, despite the absolute language being used, can in fact choose to break those restrictions and suffer the in game penalties. [/QUOTE]

Verification