I brought this topic up elsewhere, but I think enough people have shown interest in it that it deserves its own thread. So, to quote myself:
“Druids are prohibited from wearing metal armor, but the class rules don’t specifically prohibit druid pets from wearing it. Can a druid dress his/her animal companion in metal armor?”Now the druid code isn’t particularly well thought-out, but it does clearly imply a RAI answer to this question. Druids swear an oath not to wear metal armor, which clearly implies that they have an ethical objection to it. Whatever that ethical objection may be, it’s sure to hold up in regards to an animal which a druid is responsible for. Ergo, druid pets wearing metal armor is utterly silly.
I’ll be honest: If this wasn’t a public forum, I’d use a more colorful word than “silly,” and my opinion probably won’t change. I’m honestly dumbfounded that any noticeable number of people wouldn’t come to the same conclusion. But they have, and I’m trying to keep an open mind and a civil tongue.
Man, since I read that druid-armored companion thing, it has been bumping around in my head.
Those against it, what is your position?
A. If the animal companion wears metal armor/barding, then the druid can’t cast spells or use spell-like abilities for 24 hours.
B. If the animal companion wears metal armor/barding, then the druid can’t cast spells or use spell-like abilities on the animal companion for 24 hours.
C. If the animal companion wears metal armor/barding, it immediately explodes.
D. Other result.
Definitely A.
Also, I have been thinking, how would such an interpretation effect arcane casters with familiars? A wizard casting (spells with somatic) in armor has a percent chance of failure. Let’s say the wizard isn’t wearing armor, but his familiar is wearing armor/barding. What would happen in that case?
A. If the familiar wears metal armor/barding, then the wizard has to roll a spell failure chance whenever he casts a spell (with a somatic component).
B. If the familiar wears metal armor/barding, then the wizard has to roll a spell failure chance whenever casting a spell on or sharing a spell with the familiar.
C. Other result.I know, you may feel that the expansion of the interpretation to the wizard might not be as immediately obvious, but I would point out that wizards are even more tied to their familiars than druids are to their companions (a familiar at a location counts as the wizard observing the location for things like teleport).
Definitely C: Arcane Spell Failure is the result of armors making a wizard too clumsy to cast his spells reliably; wizardry requires very exact movements and a delicate sense of touch. So his familiar can wear all the armor it wants to without hindering its master.
Now, to elaborate on Scott’s analogy:
Priests in the Catholic church take vows of celibacy. Does this mean that they have an ethical objection to sex? No. It means that they have a personal reason to abstain from relationships that might interfere with their position as priest. A personal oath is not necessarily a blanket condemnation.
I believe Scott mentioned that this is a devil’s advocate’s argument, but I’ve heard similar ones.
So first, I’d like to point out that although Catholic priests don’t universally condemn sex, there are ethics involved. By Biblical values, sex is acceptable under certain conditions (two married adults). But sex is also wrapped up with Original Sin: see the Fall from Grace for details. So while Catholic priests don’t condemn all sex, there is a certain degree of “Sex is a base instinct to be overcome in order to attain a better purity.”
Second, I’d like to expand on Scott’s analogy. To create a dilemma similar to the “Can Fluffy wear full plate?” question, we would have to ask “Can a Catholic priest, who receives magical powers from his God for following His tenets, force-train a child to perform sexual acts without losing his magical powers?” Now that sounds gratuitously heinous, so let me explain:
Just as the druid has some [albeit ambiguous] ethical objection to metal, the priest has a certain ethical objection to sex. And much like a child knows nothing about sex, an animal knows nothing about metal or armor. Just as a child wouldn’t engage in sex on his/her own, an animal would never wear metal [or anything] on its own. In order for an animal to wear metal, or a child to perform sexual acts, some parental force has to train them to do that unnatural thing.
And if that parental force (the druid, the priest) has an ethical objection to those unnatural acts, I don’t see how they can be justified in forcing that act upon an innocent creature.
And finally, because I think someone questioned the druid’s ethical objection to metal armor:
The armor of a druid is restricted by traditional oaths to the items noted below. All other armor is prohibited. Though a druid could learn to wear full plate, puttng it on would violate her oath and suppress her druidic powers.
Now, normally oaths are sworn for one of three reasons:
1. You’re under duress by the law, or by an angry man with a sword.
2. You’re joining a fraternity or sorority.
3. Your higher power wants you to.
Barring Rich Burlew shenanigans, the third option is by far the likeliest. So with that said...
Let the insanity begin!
As easily as a druid can switch his bond with an animal there is no reason it couldn't wear the metal armors without penalty.
I believe Scott mentioned that this is a devil’s advocate’s argument, but I’ve heard similar ones.
I might as well continue in the role.
So first, I’d like to point out that although Catholic priests don’t universally condemn sex, there are ethics involved. By Biblical values, sex is acceptable under certain conditions (two married adults). But sex is also wrapped up with Original Sin: see the Fall from Grace for details. So while Catholic priests don’t condemn all sex, there is a certain degree of “Sex is a base instinct to be overcome in order to attain a better purity.”
I don't see this particular point as having relevance to our druid argument unless it's further expanded upon.
Second, I’d like to expand on Scott’s analogy. To create a dilemma similar to the “Can Fluffy wear full plate?” question, we would have to ask “Can a Catholic priest, who receives magical powers from his God for following His tenets, force-train a child to perform sexual acts without losing his magical powers?” Now that sounds gratuitously heinous, so let me explain:
I have to admit that, from a debate standpoint, this line of reasoning is brilliant.
Just as the druid has some [albeit ambiguous] ethical objection to metal, the priest has a certain ethical objection to sex.
An objection, I would argue, that is personal, and inextricably linked to his position as shepherd of the faith.
And much like a child knows nothing about sex, an animal knows nothing about metal or armor. Just as a child wouldn’t engage in sex on his/her own, an animal would never wear metal [or anything] on its own.
Neither would an animal come under the effects of a Bull's Strength spell on its own. You need to provide a stronger differentiation than "It wouldn't be like this on its own."
In order for an animal to wear metal, or a child to perform sexual acts, some parental force has to train them to do that unnatural thing.
Druid animal companions can be trained just like any other animal to do any number of unnatural things. If "unnatural" is your standard, then that standard needs to be defined (and justified), and all things which fall under it need to be similarly prohibited lest it become a double-standard.
And if that parental force (the druid, the priest) has an ethical objection to those unnatural acts, I don’t see how they can be justified in forcing that act upon an innocent creature.
The distinction lies in the difference between one having an ethical objection to something, and one having a personal ethical objection to it.
One might more aptly ask: Would a priest suggest sexual intercourse to a married Catholic couple who wishes to conceive but who has not been engaging in intercourse? (Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that we live in the year 1900, and so intercourse is the only accepted way to conceive.)
I would argue that they, in fact, would. Indeed, I read an article some years back about a married couple so sheltered by their upbringing that they remained blissfully unaware of the necessity of sex to conception (found a link referencing the article, apologies in advance for being forced to link to WND, it's honestly the best I could do given the age of the article). Would a priest find it morally reprobate to educate an otherwise responsible couple on what they need to do in order to fulfill their desire to have children?
3. Your higher power wants you to.
Barring Rich Burlew shenanigans, the third option is by far the likeliest.
I agree. The kicker, of course, lies in the fact that your higher power wants you to. It may be that your higher power wants all others to, as well, but that would be little more than an assumption, and one that may well have not been intended with the crafting of this particular rule.
I think Tri hit the nail on the head the Druid swore and oath not to wear the armor the animal didnt period.
As easily as a druid can switch his bond with an animal there is no reason it couldn’t wear the metal armors without penalty.
Wouldn’t an animal companion need a feat to wear any kind of armor, metal or otherwise?
In order to avoid the check penalties, yes. But druid pets do gain feats as they gain HD, so it can happen.
Being that it is the druid that swore the oath, I don’t believe the animal is required to eschew any armor.
If we were talking about a druid’s paladin ally, you’d have a good point. Problem is, any druid pet does eschew armor simply by virtue of being an animal.
So first, I’d like to point out that although Catholic priests don’t universally condemn sex, there are ethics involved. By Biblical values, sex is acceptable under certain conditions (two married adults). But sex is also wrapped up with Original Sin: see the Fall from Grace for details. So while Catholic priests don’t condemn all sex, there is a certain degree of “Sex is a base instinct to be overcome in order to attain a better purity.”I don’t see this particular point as having relevance to our druid argument unless it’s further expanded upon.
I’m basically just establishing that there is an ethical aspect to your priest analogy.
Second, I’d like to expand on Scott’s analogy. To create a dilemma similar to the “Can Fluffy wear full plate?” question, we would have to ask “Can a Catholic priest, who receives magical powers from his God for following His tenets, force-train a child to perform sexual acts without losing his magical powers?” Now that sounds gratuitously heinous, so let me explain:I have to admit that, from a debate standpoint, this line of reasoning is brilliant.
I must warn you Scott, I am susceptible to flattery. :)
Just as the druid has some [albeit ambiguous] ethical objection to metal, the priest has a certain ethical objection to sex.An objection, I would argue, that is personal, and inextricably linked to his position as shepherd of the faith.
Nevertheless, I don’t think the priest’s God would look kindly upon him training a child to do something that, not only would the child never normally do, but that also violates his ethics to a degree. In fact I imagine the priest’s God would be rather wroth with him.
Just as I imagine a druid’s god would be wroth if the druid trained his pet to do something that, not only would the animal never normally do, but that also violates the god’s ethics.
And much like a child knows nothing about sex, an animal knows nothing about metal or armor. Just as a child wouldn’t engage in sex on his/her own, an animal would never wear metal [or anything] on its own.Neither would an animal come under the effects of a Bull’s Strength spell on its own. You need to provide a stronger differentiation than “It wouldn’t be like this on its own.”
It’s not just that “It wouldn’t do this on its own.” It’s that “You’re intentionally training an innocent creature to do something that not only violates your own ethics, but that it would never do on its own.”
Casting druid spells on a pet is a non-issue because the Oath likewise doesn’t prohibit the druid casting spells on himself. In other words, there’s no double standard there.
One might more aptly ask: Would a priest suggest sexual intercourse to a married Catholic couple who wishes to conceive but who has not been engaging in intercourse? (Let’s pretend, for the sake of argument, that we live in the year 1900, and so intercourse is the only accepted way to conceive.)
I don’t think that’s an awfully apt question.
Unlike a druid pet wearing armor, a married couple is two fully responsible and self-aware creatures. The priest can advise them, but he’s not directly responsible for the decisions they make. They might decide to have sex even without the priest’s advice. Also, sex comes naturally: the priest doesn’t have to train them. (Well, unless they're German.)
Whereas a druid training Fluffy to wear full plate is directly responsible for Fluffy’s choice of wardrobe. He’s training Fluffy to do something that Fluffy would never do on his own, and that violates his own Oath.
Incidentally, Christianity has a rule about this. I don’t know what it’s called, but it means that until a child comes of age, the parents are responsible for the child’s sins. In the eyes of God, anything the child does wrong the parents may as well have done themselves.
Indeed, I read an article some years back about a married couple so sheltered by their upbringing that they remained blissfully unaware of the necessity of sex to conception (found a link referencing the article, apologies in advance for being forced to link to WND, it’s honestly the best I could do given the age of the article).
All I can say is, wow. Just...wow. I would have thought that nature would have given thema pointer or two after eight years.
Your making the arguement that its wrong for the animal to wear metal armor because its unnatural. what about leather armor this would be unnatural to the animal and must be forced on it by the druid however you make no caveat about the spells being lost then.
|
If we were talking about a druid’s paladin ally, you’d have a good point. Problem is, any druid pet does eschew armor simply by virtue of being an animal.
"I don't wear armor" is not the same as "I am forbidden from wearing armor".
If you are referring to animals being nonproficient in it, there are plenty of classes that are not proficient in some or even all armors. They are still able to learn and wear armor without restriction.
Edit: Note that I do not claim an animal companion should wear armor, only that it can if the druid chooses. But with things like Barkskin and the like, well...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most druids probably won't see their animal companions as servants or subordinates but as, well, companions. They won't expect them to follow the same believes he does any more then he expects his fellow adventurers to do (if he can accept the parties fighter wearing full plate, he can also accept metal armor for his more feral fighting companion - and I don't mean the barbarian...).
Most druids also would't consider putting their companions in armor they consider unnatural and most animals won't go shopping at the armory, though.
Once animal companion and druid start "talking" (awakened animal, regular use of speak with animal) the animal might ask for some sort of protection, if it regularly gets hurt fighting at the front row. Then the druid might try to convince adhere to his own oath, or he might get his friend the best armor he can afford.
In short: I think the rules don't forbid the animal companion of a druid to wear armor, neither RAW nor RAI. The druids faith should respect the free will and personality of every animal and don't treat any animal as the possession or slave of thze druid, therefor he should not suffer, if the animal doesn't adhere to his own oath - likewise he shouldn't just force any animal companion to run around in full plate just because he thinks that would make it a better front line fighter.
“Druids are prohibited from wearing metal armor, but the class rules don’t specifically prohibit druid pets from wearing it. Can a druid dress his/her animal companion in metal armor?”Now the druid code isn’t particularly well thought-out, but it does clearly imply a RAI answer to this question. Druids swear an oath not to wear metal armor, which clearly implies that they have an ethical objection to it. Whatever that ethical objection may be, it’s sure to hold up in regards to an animal which a druid is responsible for. Ergo, druid pets wearing metal armor is utterly silly.
I’ll be honest: If this wasn’t a public forum, I’d use a more colorful word than “silly,” and my opinion probably won’t change. I’m honestly dumbfounded that any noticeable number of people wouldn’t come to the same conclusion. But they have, and I’m trying to keep an open mind and a civil tongue.
Man, since I read that druid-armored companion thing, it has been bumping around in my head.
Those against it, what is your position?
A. If the animal companion wears metal armor/barding, then the druid can’t cast spells or use spell-like abilities for 24 hours.
B. If the animal companion wears metal armor/barding, then the druid can’t cast spells or use spell-like abilities on the animal companion for 24 hours.
C. If the animal companion wears metal armor/barding, it immediately explodes.
D. Other result.
Definitely A.
...Also, I have been thinking, how would such an interpretation effect arcane casters with familiars? A wizard casting (spells with somatic) in armor has a percent chance of failure. Let’s say the wizard isn’t wearing armor, but his familiar is wearing armor/barding. What would happen in that case?
A. If the familiar wears metal armor/barding, then the wizard has to roll a spell failure chance
FROM DESCRIPTION OF THE CLASS:
"Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor. A druid may also wear wooden armor that has been altered by the ironwood spell so that it functions as though it were steel. See the ironwood spell description. Druids are proficient with shields (except tower shields) but must use only wooden ones.A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter."
There is no mention of any oath (at least I can't find it).
the word "prohibited" may just as well "can't" as "won't".
If it means *can't*, then it should be alright.
If it means *won't*, then I'd guess that the pet will have to go without metal armour.
Your guess is as good as mine, but a guess is all it is (unless that oath really is in the class description somewhere?), maybe this is one for the Mighty Buhlmann?
this is interesting and I think that it's great that you are bringing it up - the Druid is a great class and the Grizzly in heavy armour is potentially a killing machine...
good subject, Tequila,
GRU
Still dont see why the druid would not get it for his companion even if prohibated means won't. That implys the druid makes a descision about his armor wearing not for anyone else he assosciates with.
Still dont see why the druid would not get it for his companion even if prohibated means won't. That implys the druid makes a descision about his armor wearing not for anyone else he assosciates with.
Hm, that too...
GRU
No.
Yes.
Oh... right... rational argument. Supporting my answering with reasoning, yadda yadda... here goes.
Once you get into the realm of TRICKS you are forgoing the idea that teaching the animal to do something 'unnatural' is against the druid code. Did you teach your tiger to attack aberrations and undead and evil outsiders? Then you've done just as much a 'sin' as teaching them to protect themselves by wearing metal armor. Did you teach them to to hunt for you? Solitary predators DO NOT hunt for other creatures, and in fact vengefully attack any creature that gets near their dinner. Did you teach the wolf to follow you, even over a wobbly rope bridge and into a town full of dangerous, smelly humanoids? To go deep underground? To trust you while using Wind-Walk, or to wear simple magical items like rings and bracers and vests and amulets that will keep him effective above LEVEL FIVE?
If he can't wear armor because it's unnatural, he can't wear amulets or rings or anything else either. And he can't be taught to fight demons and undead and aberrations.
That gorilla goes down like a ton of bricks if you don't give him mithril breastplate barding, and he needs it to survive in your dangerous adventuring campaign. Let him have his armor. Or get a falcon and relegate your most valuable class feature shy of spells to a simple scout.
There is no mention of any oath (at least I can’t find it).
Check out the Characteristics section on page 33.
Your making the arguement that its wrong for the animal to wear metal armor because its unnatural. what about leather armor this would be unnatural to the animal and must be forced on it by the druid however you make no caveat about the spells being lost then.
Not quite. My argument is “A druid who dresses his pet in metal armor loses his spells for a day because he violated his oath. He may as well be wearing the armor himself, because it’s the druid who made the decision rather than the pet.”
Non-metal armor of course is a non-issue, because the druid has no ethical objection to it.
Edit: Note that I do not claim an animal companion should wear armor, only that it can if the druid chooses. But with things like Barkskin and the like, well...
Ah, and there’s the clincher. The druid is making the choice [for Fluffy] to wear the armor, not Fluffy. That makes the druid solely responsible for the armor, which makes it a violation of his oath.
Once animal companion and druid start “talking” (awakened animal, regular use of speak with animal) the animal might ask for some sort of protection, if it regularly gets hurt fighting at the front row. Then the druid might try to convince adhere to his own oath, or he might get his friend the best armor he can afford.
Ah, good sub-topic! When an animal is awakened, it suddenly gains a free will, self-awareness, and the ability to understand the ethical implications of its wardrobe. So yeah, I can imagine an awakened Fluffy wearing metal without short-circuiting his druid’s magic.
Still dont see why the druid would not get it for his companion even if prohibated means won’t. That implys the druid makes a descision about his armor wearing not for anyone else he assosciates with.
There’s a difference between Fluffy and everyone else his druid associates with -- free will, and everything I just mentioned above. A druid has no right dictating what most others wear, because most of them are fully-functioning adults. Fluffy on the other hand, if left to his own devices, will never wear armor. (I’m talking about a non-awakened Fluffy, just to be clear.) If he does, his druid has to make that decision for him. And that’s the problem -- choosing to dress a dumb animal in metal is ethically identical to dressing himself in metal.
Once you get into the realm of TRICKS you are forgoing the idea that teaching the animal to do something ‘unnatural’ is against the druid code. Did you teach your tiger to attack aberrations and undead and evil outsiders? Then you’ve done just as much a ‘sin’ as teaching them to protect themselves by wearing metal armor. Did you teach them to to hunt for you? Solitary predators DO NOT hunt for other creatures, and in fact vengefully attack any creature that gets near their dinner. Did you teach the wolf to follow you, even over a wobbly rope bridge and into a town full of dangerous, smelly humanoids? To go deep underground? To trust you while using Wind-Walk, or to wear simple magical items like rings and bracers and vests and amulets that will keep him effective above LEVEL FIVE?
The problem with this argument is that none of these things violate the druid’s oath -- a druid can do any of these things himself without losing his spells.
Yes.
Oh... right... rational argument. Supporting my answering with reasoning, yadda yadda... here goes.
Once you get into the realm of TRICKS you are forgoing the idea that teaching the animal to do something 'unnatural' is against the druid code. Did you teach your tiger to attack aberrations and undead and evil outsiders? Then you've done just as much a 'sin' as teaching them to protect themselves by wearing metal armor. Did you teach them to to hunt for you? Solitary predators DO NOT hunt for other creatures, and in fact vengefully attack any creature that gets near their dinner. Did you teach the wolf to follow you, even over a wobbly rope bridge and into a town full of dangerous, smelly humanoids? To go deep underground? To trust you while using Wind-Walk, or to wear simple magical items like rings and bracers and vests and amulets that will keep him effective above LEVEL FIVE?
If he can't wear armor because it's unnatural, he can't wear amulets or rings or anything else either. And he can't be taught to fight demons and undead and aberrations.
That gorilla goes down like a ton of bricks if you don't give him mithril breastplate barding, and he needs it to survive in your dangerous adventuring campaign. Let him have his armor. Or get a falcon and relegate your most valuable class feature shy of spells to a simple scout.
Your line of reasoning is way too out there for me. An animal companion walking over a wobbly bridge and defending themselves against something that is attacking them is not the same as being able to use any magical item they come across. I'd love to see a tiger wear a ring, bracers, vests or anything else made for a bipedal ape-like creature. That would be funny. That said, it ain't happening in games I run. If you want to do it, be my guest. In your games, I'm making a druid and having his animal companion be Ravage. Since you feel they should be able to use whatever magical items they find, I'm having him have the snap-on (magic)missile launchers too!!!
Once animal companion and druid start “talking” (awakened animal, regular use of speak with animal) the animal might ask for some sort of protection, if it regularly gets hurt fighting at the front row. Then the druid might try to convince adhere to his own oath, or he might get his friend the best armor he can afford.Ah, good sub-topic! When an animal is awakened, it suddenly gains a free will, self-awareness, and the ability to understand the ethical implications of its wardrobe. So yeah, I can imagine an awakened Fluffy wearing metal without short-circuiting his druid’s magic.
"Why for you let Fluffy get shot at? Fluffy no meat-shield! You buy Fluffy +1 tower shield or partnership OVER!!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think druids would consider wearing metal armor to be ethically wrong any more than Samson would have considered barbers to be servants of the devil. At least in my campaign they wouldn't.
|
|
Ah, and there’s the clincher. The druid is making the choice [for Fluffy] to wear the armor, not Fluffy. That makes the druid solely responsible for the armor, which makes it a violation of his oath.
How?
Does his oath say 'I will never use armor' or 'I will never wear armor'?
As I understand it, the druid is prohibited from wearing armor. The druid is not prohibited from having his animal companion wear armor.
If he was prohibited from using metal at all, then you may have a point. However, he doesn't lose his powers just because he uses silverware for dinner.
As I understand it, the druid is prohibited from wearing armor.
He's not even prohibited from wearing metal armor, per se; it just makes some abilities (but not others) unavailable for 24 hours. There's no Atonement spell needed, for example.
There's one important question that hasn't been asked yet, and that is "Is the druid willing to pay for custom made metal armor that will fit his usually non-humanoid companion instead of getting something magical arms and armor (because wild armor is not cheap) for himself?" While the custom cost is still there for non-metal armor, the non-metal standard armors tend to be the lighter armors, so cheaper, and easier to absorb doubling the cost. Getting full plate made for your large dire bear companion would be quite cost prohibitive.
|
There's one important question that hasn't been asked yet, and that is "Is the druid willing to pay for custom made metal armor that will fit his usually non-humanoid companion instead of getting something magical arms and armor (because wild armor is not cheap) for himself?" While the custom cost is still there for non-metal armor, the non-metal standard armors tend to be the lighter armors, so cheaper, and easier to absorb doubling the cost. Getting full plate made for your large dire bear companion would be quite cost prohibitive.
All things are possible. Some things are just damned expensive. What is prohibitive in one campaign, or at a given level, is not prohibitive in another campaign or at a different level. Full plate for large dire bear is 6k. This is hardly prohibitive if Fluffy is the focus of Mr. Twiggy's offensive efforts by middle levels.
As for the original question, the druid is bound by traditional oaths. The nature of the oath is unclear. There is nothing that says that it extends to the animal companion, much less that the AC's use of metal would then violate the druid's oath. A druid choosing to limit what he places on his AC in accordance with the oath is great from an RP perspective. A given campaign my opt to identify the traditional oaths in greater detail, and have them extend to the druid's charge. That's excellent as well.
By RAW, the oath doesn't extend to the AC and OP's argument isn't compelling. All we know about the oath is that it is a traditional oath. By nature, an oath is a promise. In this case, if the promise is broken, some divine powers are lost. Explicitly, the promise is for the druid to not wear metal armor. It doesn't say that the druid has an objection to metal armor; although a given campaign can add that assumption. For another oath of limited rationale, take the oath of the biblical character Samson to not cut his hair. Why does he make the oath? The reader doesn't know. He merely makes the promise and gets something in return (great strength). Nothing says that Samson is opposed to skin-heads or that he doesn't shear his sheep.
Adding detail is good. Assuming everyone is silly or worse for not assuming the same detail is not good.
Good gaming.
“Why for you let Fluffy get shot at? Fluffy no meat-shield! You buy Fluffy +1 tower shield or partnership OVER!!”
“Shut up, Fluffy. If it weren’t for me, you’d still be licking yourself in some cave! I’ll buy you nice things when you start earning them. Now assume the [combat] position!”
I don’t think druids would consider wearing metal armor to be ethically wrong any more than Samson would have considered barbers to be servants of the devil. At least in my campaign they wouldn’t.
I won’t argue that dropping the oath is a bad idea. In fact, dropping the oath is probably a whole lot more sensible than keeping the oath as-is. So kudos to your campaign!
But the discussion is about RAI, so...
If he was prohibited from using metal at all, then you may have a point. However, he doesn’t lose his powers just because he uses silverware for dinner.
Like I mentioned in the OP, the oath isn’t terribly consistent. That doesn’t mean that the druid gods don’t mind their druids violating it.
As I understand it, the druid is prohibited from wearing armor. The druid is not prohibited from having his animal companion wear armor.
As for the original question, the druid is bound by traditional oaths. The nature of the oath is unclear. There is nothing that says that it extends to the animal companion, much less that the AC’s use of metal would then violate the druid’s oath.
By a strict reading of RAW, you are inarguably correct. Applying the simplest and smallest of logical steps, however, creates a very different RAI. And when I say ‘the simplest and smallest of logical steps,’ I don’t mean Ethics 101. I mean ‘stuff that I learned as a kid.’
When I was a kid, I loved to play in the mud -- I would cover myself in it head-to-toe -- and then track it all over the house. So finally my mother said “I’ll give you ice cream if you don’t play in the mud today.” I liked mud, but I loved ice cream, so I agreed. True to my word, I didn’t touch a bit of mud that day. But I did give a bucket of it to my baby sister, who was crib-bound at the time. So before mom knew what was happening, the baby was covered in mud and I was laughing. When my mother asked why I had given my sister a bucket of mud, I told her “I promised I wouldn’t play in it, but I didn’t promise anything about my sister.”
Now, do you think I got my ice cream that day? No, of course not! Why? Because I failed to adhere to the purpose of my promise, despite adhering to its literel meaning. The letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law, as it were. That day, I learned that there’s a reason for every promise that’s more important than the wording of the promise itself.
So what’s the reason for the druid’s oath? It could be some sort of deific joke, a hazing ritual to weed out the independent-thinker acolytes...but I rather doubt it. Druids gods are concerned with preserving nature, balance, tree hugging and all that; so what’s the most likely reason to prohibit their druids from wearing metal armor? Well, metal requires deep mines, lots of men to dig those mines, heavy infrastructure to support those mines, more men to work the metal and lots of dead trees to stoke the fires that work the metal.
Ah! Metal, and particularly large quantities of it in single items such as armor, represent the rape of nature by civilization. Ergo, the most likely reason for the druid oath is to save a small bit of the natural world, and to make a symbolic statement. Whether the game devs neglected to mention that a druid’s oath applies to his pet or the druid gods neglected to include that rule in the Oath, the result is the same: no druid god is going to be pleased with a druid who ignores the reason for swearing his Oath.
For another oath of limited rationale, take the oath of the biblical character Samson to not cut his hair. Why does he make the oath? The reader doesn’t know.
If it’s in the Bible, it’s probably a morality tale with the message “Just do whatever God says, no matter how silly it is.” God is an all-powerful deity who gives gifts to those who demonstrate blind faith, often with no identifiable motivation.
D&D gods, on the other hand have identifiable motivations, so comparing a biblical tale with a druidic oath is a shaky comparison at best.
|
|
People tend to want others to believe and think as they do. It’s human nature, there’s nothing wrong with it. It’s just the way we are (one only has to look on these boards for an example of this). People also tend to apply human traits upon their pets…
So given that people tend to raise their pets to a higher standard (i.e. their own), it is reasonable to believe that people would extend their ethics to a pet.
Examples of this in the real world include: Vegetarians feeding their pets only food that contain no meat products (or by-products), health-food nuts feeding their pets food that only contain 100% all-natural ingredients, or people that only eat food that is Kosher feeding their beloved pet food that is also Kosher…
Does a dog really care if its food is Kosher or 100% all-natural? Go ask it while it’s drinking from the toilet bowl!
If we see this behavior in people in real life, why is it such a stretch to believe that a druid would be any different?
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
And my point has been that while it is perfectly reasonable for a druid to feel that way, nothing actually prevents the companion from wearing metal armor except for that feeling.
Of course, if he were, I'd love to have the companion kidnapped and forced to wear armor in order to deprive its master of his powers.
|
|
nothing actually prevents the companion from wearing metal armor except for that feeling.
Right, BUT, that feeling tends to be VERY strong within any given individual...
You don't tend to see many Christians teaching their children that God does not really exist...
Meaning that we tend to "extend" our beliefs, virtues, ethics, and life-styles upon those within our direct influence (i.e. pets, and children); to do something contrary to that would be unimaginable to most people...
I agree with TOZ. The rules are silent on the issue. So it is left to each individual GM to decide how the druid code works in their world. I'm good either way. Although, I'm more likely to play a summoner anyway. Who cares what the dirty hippies do?
So your arguement is if that as long as its okay for the druid he can teach his animal to do it but if he "forces" the animal to wear metal and only metal armor it violates his oath so two questions
1.What if the party ranger feeling sorry for the poor bear getting hit by every goblin they encounter puts a chain shirt on the bear already trained to wear light armor?
2. As a NE druid i buy several children as slaves force them to wear halfling fullplate and guard me. How does this react with my oath?
3. One more if i make a monk druid and have a vow of chains and i choose not to have my animal companion wear chains do i lose the Ki from the vow.
“Why for you let Fluffy get shot at? Fluffy no meat-shield! You buy Fluffy +1 tower shield or partnership OVER!!”“Shut up, Fluffy. If it weren’t for me, you’d still be licking yourself in some cave! I’ll buy you nice things when you start earning them. Now assume the [combat] position!”
|
|
I'm glad we agree. :)
Somehow I get the feeling you missed my point...
Let me ask you this: Would you teach your children something totally contrary to what you TRULY believe to be true, right, fair, and just (and yes children are people, but most consider their beloved pets to be full fledged members of the family)?
I mean nothing in the rules of life says you can't...
I'm glad we agree. :)Somehow I get the feeling you missed my point...
Let me ask you this: Would you teach your children something totally contrary to what you TRULY believe to be true, right, fair, and just (and yes children are people, but most consider their beloved pets to be full fledged members of the family)?
I mean nothing in the rules of life says you can't...
No i wouldn't however it doesnt mean the occansional one wouldn't.
|
|
it doesnt mean the occansional one wouldn't.
You'd be hard pressed to find an atheist willing to teach their child about how Jesus is the son of God and The Lord and savior of mankind, because he died for our sins, etc., etc...
Conversely, you'd be just as hard pressed to find a true believer of any religion that would teach that their faith is false and wrong...
Does such a person exist? I'm sure he/she does. But then again, can that person be considered to be true to his/her professed beliefs?
I mean if I tell you that I think alcohol is evil, yet you catch me in a bar giving my best friend vodka martinis, what is your first thought?
It would depend on why you believed it. If you thought it was becuase it interrupted your connection with the world to cast spells, than that would not apply to the animal companion, where the primary concern would be protection. This seems the most logical case as druids are still allowed to use metal weapons, just not wear it, so they obviously don't think it's completely bad and evil. For a companion that could use the protection and doesn't need the constant link to the spirits providing the druid his spells, than it becomes a matter of priorities, and I could easily see many, probably not all, but still many, druids deciding that protecting their companion is a higher priority even if in a perfect world, they would choose differently. Someone mentioned what you teach your children. Teaching them to be able to make tough decisions despite what your own personal preference is just as important as teaching them your core beliefs and values. Knowing when to compromise in an imperfect world and when not to is an important skill.
|
|
While you are steadily missing mine. You're too focused on "No True Druid would do that".
But if "No true Druid would do that", then why even entertain the idea? If a couple TRUELY believes that divorce is never an option, then divorce is never considered...
Would putting Fluffy in metal barding be beneficial? Perhaps, but a "true druid" wouldn't even consider it because of his oath...
it doesnt mean the occansional one wouldn't.You'd be hard pressed to find an atheist willing to teach their child about how Jesus is the son of God and The Lord and savior of mankind, because he died for our sins, etc., etc...
Conversely, you'd be just as hard pressed to find a true believer of any religion that would teach that their faith is false and wrong...
Does such a person exist? I'm sure he/she does. But then again, can that person be considered to be true to his/her professed beliefs?
I mean if I tell you that I think alcohol is evil, yet you catch me in a bar giving my best friend vodka martinis, what is your first thought?
The Crux of your arguement is that the nometal armor is a religion or very religious thing to the druid. By your arguement you wuld be hard pressed to find a highly religious person who puts his life in the hands of an Atheist or even someone of a opposing religion.
This is an oath like one sworn when joining the military and i do know ex-military people who have taught their children that the miliatary is wrong and bad even though they swore that oath themselves years ago.
oh and thanks for ignoring the rest of my arguement about pets since thats what the animal is.
|
|
But if "No true Druid would do that", then why even entertain the idea? If a couple TRUELY believes that divorce is never an option, then divorce is never considered...
Would putting Fluffy in metal barding be beneficial? Perhaps, but a "true druid" wouldn't even consider it because of his oath...
I already told you we agreed on that.
You still haven't answered my question.
|
|
By your arguement you wuld be hard pressed to find a highly religious person who puts his life in the hands of an Atheist or even someone of a opposing religion.
Depends upon the religion I would suppose. I'm a Christian, and I've been taught to "Hate the sin, Not the sinner!" So, if the person whom is of another religion than I has proven him/herself to be trustworthy than I'd have no problem entrusting that person with my life...
This is an oath like one sworn when joining the military and i do know ex-military people who have taught their children that the military is wrong and bad even though they swore that oath themselves years ago.
I'll grant that it is similar to an oath given by one in the military or even law enforcement, but I would equate the druidic oath to more along the lines of the oath that priests gives when they enter the seminary.
oh and thanks for ignoring the rest of my argument about pets since that’s what the animal is.
And thank you for bringing unwarranted snark to an otherwise civil rules discussion!
But to answer this, I did not ignore your argument. In another post upthread, I said most people tend to think of their pets as full fledged members of their family...
1. We are looking at a religious practice (If thats how you want to describe it) with immediate consequnces if as a christian (Which i also am) commiting a sin was immediatly punished though some means (IE the old tell a lie and get struck by lighting) then we would look at our lives more seriously.
2. If you want ot compare to a priest oaths his family isnt bound by those oaths and if he were to have children maybe from adoption they wouldn't be bound to not have sex.
3. sorry if i seem snarky but even as a member of the family your dog is not bound by the same laws you are. I cant go pee in my neighbors bushes no matter how bad i need too.
|
|
You still haven't answered my question.
But I did answer the question. Unless you mean the one where you kidnap (wolfnap?) Fluffy the Wolf and force him into metal barding ("Muahahahaha, aren't I Evil?")?
I would say no, but just as soon as he could, the druid would remove said barding in a heartbeat. Regardless of whether it affected his casting of spells or not..
It's like my divorce analogy, not even in his vocabulary...
|
|
Then you admit that the druid would not be penalized for dressing his companion in metal barding?
Or, if you feel that would be against his oaths, can you show me where in the text he would be penalized for it?
Near as I can tell, TS has admitted that druids are not penalized for it, but that he doesn't like that and will change it in his games.
Of course, his reasoning about 'metal is banned because mining destroys nature' falls flat for me, since druids are perfectly allowed to wield metal weapons...
|
|
we would look at our lives more seriously.
And so the druid does just this...
If you want ot compare to a priest oaths his family isnt bound by those oaths and if he were to have children maybe from adoption they wouldn't be bound to not have sex.
Well, if he was a Catholic Priest (I'm not Catholic BTW), then he wouldn't have an "earthly family". But for the sake of argument, you bet he would be teaching his child the consequences (and sin) of pre-marital sex!
sorry if i seem snarky but even as a member of the family your dog is not bound by the same laws you are. I cant go pee in my neighbors bushes no matter how bad i need too.
It's okay :-)
As for your dog...
If because of your religion, you only ate food that was Kosher, then Fluffy would certainly NOT be getting fed pork! In fact, you'd more than likely being spending the extra money to buy the fancy Kosher dog food...
Pre-marital sex yes but by that defination the druid wouldn't assocaite with metal wearers. the priest swore himself to celibacy he wouldn't be cast from favor because his very close family memeber (by this i mean someone as close to him as the animal companion to the druid so there is no confusion) got married and had sex would he?
|
It would depend on why you believed it. If you thought it was becuase it interrupted your connection with the world to cast spells, than that would not apply to the animal companion, where the primary concern would be protection. This seems the most logical case as druids are still allowed to use metal weapons, just not wear it, so they obviously don't think it's completely bad and evil. For a companion that could use the protection and doesn't need the constant link to the spirits providing the druid his spells, than it becomes a matter of priorities, and I could easily see many, probably not all, but still many, druids deciding that protecting their companion is a higher priority even if in a perfect world, they would choose differently.
I'd take this idea even further. Perhaps the druid's prohibition on metal armour is strictly practical. A druid might have no personal problem with metal armour and in fact wish they could wear it, but unfortunately, their magic just isn't compatible with it. By RAW, a druid could even choose to wear a chain shirt voluntarily for years, and still be penalty-free 24 hours after taking it off, with no need to atone. Since this is the case, there's no reason at all not to give Fluffy metal armour.
|
|
Then you admit that the druid would not be penalized for dressing his companion in metal barding?
I am, BUT, it's like you're asking someone that thinks eating kittens is plain wrong (and no one should do it, ever) to consider eating this nice fluffy kitten you hold in your hand...
It's just not something that EVER would be thought of or considered (or even speculated) by the person you're asking...
As for metal weaponry, well, a scimitar has a LOT less metal in it than a suit of armor. But perhaps it has to do with the deity not having issue with metal weaponry...
I don't know...
I have no issue with it however...
|
I'll grant that it is similar to an oath given by one in the military or even law enforcement, but I would equate the druidic oath to more along the lines of the oath that priests gives when they enter the seminary.
That's my thought as well. It's a personal oath. It doesn't apply to a druids wife, children, pets or animal companion any more than a priests vows apply to his family, friends or pets.
Unless the animal (wife, child, cohort, familiar, other party member) is awakened, and takes levels in druid, and then has it's own sacred vows to consider, it can wear metal fullplate.
Heck, in Golarion, Druids of Gorum have metal fullplate barding made *for themselves* and accept that they won't be casting spells when in 'armored bear mode.'
Meh. Dragonhide is surprisingly cheap. Absorb the extra double cost and dress Fluffy up in dragonhide fullplate.