Dealing with the Vow of Peace

[carborundum]

I'll be DM-ing the Savage Tide in a month or so and I'm busy with all the players doing little email intros to get them in the same place and acquainted. One player is a monk with Vow of Poverty, which is fair enough. The problem is he's said his intention is to take a Vow of Peace. I've said I'm not sure if I will allow it for PCs but wondered if any DMs here have had experience with it.
I can maybe live with the NPCs all being less nasty (though it would be a shame) but I'm curious about how it has affected the other players in your games.

Bring on the tips!

 

[Voadam]

That one allows killing undead and constructs, but not living things, right? Everything must be subdual damage. Expect the monk to take a ton of prisoners. If he can't fight at all, well then I'd change the vow or disallow it.

If it is just not killing then think of some versions of Batman.

 

[Goldmoon]

A PC Healer played it in a game I was in. I cant see how it would work with a combat class though.

 

[Wycen]

I recommend against it. I had up until recently a high level game with the 16th level cleric constructed around the vow of poverty/peace.

Unless you choose to play loose with the rules, you'll have to keep ridiculous track of when your companions and when your enemies enter and leave that 20 foot radius. Roll the save before attacking, then remember in the next round/combat, then remember again when the barbarian rages, or what happens when the raging barbarian enters the 20 foot radius and fails his save.

You may eventually have the character start trying to summon monsters and use them to attack, which is seems like a violation of spirit of the vow.

Then the other party members may not enjoy the sanctity of life the pacifist forces upon the party. You as the DM may not like it when your big, dumb (read low Will save) pipe hitting monster stands around like an idiot while they talk to him. Sure, the same could be accomplished with a Hold person spell or Feeblemind, but those are limited resources, not EVERY encounter, because you can not turn the vow off.

However, you might find someone who can tell you the virtues of the feat, in the right type of game.

 

[shadowthorn]

As a player & DM, I'd like to chime in if I may. I'm running monk with the Vow of Poverty now, and he started out with the Vow of Peace. It made things interesting for a while, but overall I don't think it worked for our group for several reasons:

1. It makes combat more difficult, with the 20' radius to keep track of, as Wycen said.
2. Since the group can seldom kill their foes, they have to either turn them loose or turn them in to the authorities, usually. That can become both frustrating, tedious and inconvenient to the campaign.
3. I realized that the Vow of Peace made the campaign into sort of the Amazing Peaceful Monk Show; my character was in the spotlight too much, and it took away from the other characters.

So, when we got into a heated combat and the mage killed some guys who were not fighting cuz they were in the 20' radius, my monk lost the feat. After deciding that it just didn't fit our group, I just moved on.

It did make some elements of the game more challenging, but I don't think the benefits outweighed the disadvantages.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I strongly recommend against allowing the Vow of Peace feat. In fact, I am wary of any exalted feats because most of the time, exalted behaviour is on a different parallel to "conventional" party behaviour. Now your idea of "conventional" and mine might be different but most likely not by too much.

What I have found is that the game becomes more about the "exalted" guy rather than the party as a whole. Now considering you are doing a "conventional" campaign arc in the savage tide series, I would if in your situation direct that player on a different course. If the player is adamant that they wish to follow that path, talk to the rest of the group and see if they are happy with it. If all agree then fine but even with just one dissenting voice, I would "force" the player out of it.

Unless the party as a whole enjoy the rigours of moral debate and dilemma, continually to the point of tedium, then fine; otherwise nip it in the bud now.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[EyeontheMountain]

To me it isanothro ne ofthe feats/class abilities/etc that allows one player to dictate the terms of the game to the rest of the party, and that is jsut not cool unless the rest of the party knows about it and accepts it. And when I say knows aobut it, knows the rules and ins and outs well enough to make an informed decision. Not jsut says, "Whatever you want, BOB."

Others are

Vow of Poverty
Paladin code

 

[Wycen]

So, when we got into a heated combat and the mage killed some guys who were not fighting cuz they were in the 20' radius, my monk lost the feat. After deciding that it just didn't fit our group, I just moved on.

It did make some elements of the game more challenging, but I don't think the benefits outweighed the disadvantages.

Just curious, did you just decide to get rid of the feat based on this event, or were you playing that the mages action caused you to lose the use of the ability? As I recall, the negative effect on the party for killing someone who succumbed to the vow was some negatives modifiers, but nowhere did I remember reading it caused the character with the feat to "fall".

 

[carborundum]

Well - that's quite the general consensus!
Thanks for the tips, folks - you've more than confirmed my fears

Cheers!

 

[shadowthorn]

Wycen -

I remember reading the rules very carefully when that happened during the combat. I don't have the book with me now, but I recall it being pretty clear that when a party member kills someone who is helpless due to the Calming Aura, you lose the feat.

I could have sought atonement, but I decided that it just didn't fit our group.