Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 7626549" data-attributes="member: 23751">All of that is just repeating the same one line over and over and over.&nbsp; Druid's can't wear metal armor.&nbsp; Repeating something doesn't make it more true.&nbsp; Once you boil it down, there is one line that says, &quot;Druid's can't wear metal armor.&quot; and one line that says, &quot;Metal armor spoils their magical powers.&quot;&nbsp; The druid section gives a restriction, and then the consequences of breaking that restriction.&nbsp; The absolute language used is hardly unique to druids and is also used with other classes and things that also have consequences for breaking the restriction.&nbsp; If you are going to treat the absolute language in the druid section as invalidating the consequences given for breaking that restriction, you have to do it for all of the classes. This is what 1e says about the various classes.Paladins: &quot;paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment (q.v.) and always remain lawful good.&quot;&nbsp; Absolute language that if you are correct about druids, also applies to paladins and makes the consequences for violating the restriction impossible.Monks: &quot;Therefore they must always be lawful in alignment.&quot;&nbsp; Absolute language that if you are correct about druids, also applies to paladins and makes the consequences for violating the restriction impossible.Druids: &quot;druids are unable to use any armor or shields.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Absolute language that if you are correct makes the consequences for violating the restriction impossible.Gygax is huge on making restrictions(and not just with classes) and then allowing PCs to break them and suffer the consequences.&nbsp; That's how he wrote the edition.&nbsp; He was huge on consequences, not absolute no's.&nbsp; The druid is no exception to that.Not only is the a player whose PC has his druid put on metal armor not being disruptive or violating the social contract, but he's actively engaging in the Gygaxian way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 7626549, member: 23751"] All of that is just repeating the same one line over and over and over. Druid's can't wear metal armor. Repeating something doesn't make it more true. Once you boil it down, there is one line that says, "Druid's can't wear metal armor." and one line that says, "Metal armor spoils their magical powers." The druid section gives a restriction, and then the consequences of breaking that restriction. The absolute language used is hardly unique to druids and is also used with other classes and things that also have consequences for breaking the restriction. If you are going to treat the absolute language in the druid section as invalidating the consequences given for breaking that restriction, you have to do it for all of the classes. This is what 1e says about the various classes. Paladins: "paladins must begin as lawful good in alignment (q.v.) and always remain lawful good." Absolute language that if you are correct about druids, also applies to paladins and makes the consequences for violating the restriction impossible. Monks: "Therefore they must always be lawful in alignment." Absolute language that if you are correct about druids, also applies to paladins and makes the consequences for violating the restriction impossible. Druids: "druids are unable to use any armor or shields." Absolute language that if you are correct makes the consequences for violating the restriction impossible. Gygax is huge on making restrictions(and not just with classes) and then allowing PCs to break them and suffer the consequences. That's how he wrote the edition. He was huge on consequences, not absolute no's. The druid is no exception to that. Not only is the a player whose PC has his druid put on metal armor not being disruptive or violating the social contract, but he's actively engaging in the Gygaxian way. [/QUOTE]

Verification