BoED -- Vow of Poverty

Pax

Banned
Banned
Lord Pendragon said:
If your buddy offers you the use of his spare warhorse every morning and you accept, what is the difference between that and owning the animal yourself? Nothing.
So, an ascetic can never travel by ship or boat?

Can never sleep indoors?

Can never walk on an actual road, manmade path, walkway, etc?

Can never cross a river or stream by "using" a bridge or artificial ford?

There's such a thing as going too far in either direction.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lord Pendragon

First Post
Pax said:
So, an ascetic can never travel by ship or boat?
Not without arranging to work for his passage. If his buddies pay the way, then basically that money's coming out of the treasure the party loots. His friends keep it for him, then spend it when he needs it. No.
Can never sleep indoors?
Same deal.
Can never walk on an actual road, manmade path, walkway, etc?
Since the state owns public roads, not individuals, I have no problem with this. This particular example seems out of place, really.
Can never cross a river or stream by "using" a bridge or artificial ford?
Again, these are things that anyone can use. Not items owned by someone else, that the PC is "borrowing" to get around the stipulations of the VoP. I think this example, like the one before it, is rather contrived.
There's such a thing as going too far in either direction.
I don't think so. The VoP very specifically states what it allows an asthetic to make use of. Potions. Not swords, not armor, not magical boots, and not horses.
 

CalrinAlshaw

First Post
And what if the players belief is one does not OWN an animal? But takes care of it, rides it for excercise, and feeds it? I know many people who raise animals who would feel this way, especially about horses. They technically own them, but they think of them as friends, and think of it as their pleasure and duty to ride that animal (for excercise), feed it, etc.

What if the party was using their PERSONAL share of treasure to get passage for the ascetic, is that against the rules, technically they are GIVING a ride to the ascetic.

I think there are many situations, and differences of opinion. Personally, there are minor things that I would allow, so as to not bog the game down thinking of every itty bitty technicality.

Calrin Alshaw
 

Pax

Banned
Banned
Lord Pendragon said:
Not without arranging to work for his passage. If his buddies pay the way, then basically that money's coming out of the treasure the party loots. His friends keep it for him, then spend it when he needs it. No.
What's the difference between working for one's passageon teh boat ... and tending someone's animals in return for "passage" aboard oneof them?

And, presuming that it's (say) my character who spends outof his own pocket (not a group or party fund), why would it matter if passage was bought by oneof the ascetics friends?

Methinks you are too focussed on the idea of someone trying to cheat their way past the Vow.

Same deal.Since the state owns public roads, not individuals, I have no problem with this. This particular example seems out of place, really.
Typical fantasy-medieval setting? There's no suchthing as "the state". The King, Duke, Baron, or whoever personally owns the road (and for that matter, the land to either side), and permits people to use it (might even charge a toll, if s/he needs to raise funds for something - especially a war).

Use the horse, use the road, what's the difference if using something is thekey element of voiding the vow?

Again, these are things that anyone can use. Not items owned by someone else, that the PC is "borrowing" to get around the stipulations of the VoP.
And again you assume that the intent is for the ascetic to "get around the vow".

Besides, bridges are someone's property. If you can't use someone's living, mobile property, why is nonliving, immobile property any different? Property is, after all, property ... is it not?

I think this example, like the one before it, is rather contrived.
Of course they are. Almost as contrived as "Uh oh, you accepted Sir Generous' offer to ride oneof his spare horses ... you just broke the vow of poverty - sucks to be you!"

I don't think so. The VoP very specifically states what it allows an asthetic to make use of. Potions. Not swords, not armor, not magical boots, and not horses.
So. If Bob the Rogue uses a rope-and-grapnel to help the party climba wall, Fred the voluntarily Destitute can't even climb the ope ... ?

Also note - the Vow doesn't specify the character can use doors, windows, bridges, roads, or buildings, either.

Like I said, there's such a thing as being too (ludicrously) restrictive. As long as the friggin' horse wasn't bought EXPRESSELY so that the ascetic could ride ... I fail to see theproblem. And yes, I've played in parties where we had an average of two-and-a-half remounts per PC - so that we could REALLY push hard on travel time, without killing the horses.

I've alsoplayed in groups where the party essentially incorporated itself - and the entity that was "theparty" then got a fullshare of the loot, withwhich to purchase needed food, water, animal feed, etc. The party bought a large wagon to transport said supplies.

So. When the ascetic in sucha party sits down to eat ... does he void hsi vow?

What aboutif one of his friends asks him to ride beside him on the wagon, and discuss the finer points of religion and philosophy from less-than-eight-or-more-feet-away?

The vow says what he can OWN, and specifies what he CANNOT use (magic items of any sort except potions). And that's all.
 

Lord Pendragon

First Post
CalrinAlshaw said:
And what if the players belief is one does not OWN an animal? But takes care of it, rides it for excercise, and feeds it? I know many people who raise animals who would feel this way, especially about horses. They technically own them, but they think of them as friends, and think of it as their pleasure and duty to ride that animal (for excercise), feed it, etc.
I've known a few horse-lovers and one of my good friends is pre-vet. None of them have claimed they don't own the animals they own. And regardless, as a DM I wouldn't allow it as a loophole. No more than I'd allow a PC to go around killing NPCs because the PC believes there is no such thing as the soul and everyone is already dead anyway.
What if the party was using their PERSONAL share of treasure to get passage for the ascetic, is that against the rules, technically they are GIVING a ride to the ascetic.
My stance is that an asthetic cannot get around his Vow by having the party buy/loan him things he's not supposed to have.
I think there are many situations, and differences of opinion. Personally, there are minor things that I would allow, so as to not bog the game down thinking of every itty bitty technicality.
Certainly there are differences of opinion. Personally, nothing is bogged down for me, because I don't need any time to recognize when someone's trying to get around a restriction or not. It's pretty clear to me, spelled out right in the description of the VoP in the BoED.
 

Pax

Banned
Banned
Lord Pendragon said:
I've known a few horse-lovers and one of my good friends is pre-vet. None of them have claimed they don't own the animals they own.
ROFLMFAO, gotta love the circularlogic here, "None of them have claimed they don't own the animals they own", indeed!

Where I learned to ride as an adolescent, the instructors were - every last one of them - volunteers. Their only "pay" was riding time for themselves, on whichever of the owner's animals needed excercise, and the volunteer wanted to ride that day. I guarantee you, none of the volunteers felt they owned a single one of those animals.

On top of which, the riding lessons weren't charged-for; the students did work around the farm - hauling bales of hay around, grooming and feeding the horses, mucking out stables (a couple hours a week spent (by the volunteers as well as the owner) teaching some teenagers the basics of riding, in return for one or two dozen healthy, energetic pairs of hands to do farmwork? She likely got a bit of a bargain, there!).


And regardless, as a DM I wouldn't allow it as a loophole.
Again with the assumption that it's a loophole ...


No more than I'd allow a PC to go around killing NPCs because the PC believes there is no such thing as the soul and everyone is already dead anyway. My stance is that an asthetic cannot get around his Vow by having the party buy/loan him things he's not supposed to have.
... so. No bridges,boats, roads, sleeping in-of-doors, openingof doors or windows, or lighting of fires (firemaking tools are NOT specified inthe vow as "okay"). Boy, that's gonna be one DEAD ascetic, inNO time at all. Without ever setting foot on an adventure, either.

Certainly there are differences of opinion. Personally, nothing is bogged down for me, because I don't need any time to recognize when someone's trying to get around a restriction or not.
Yep, you don't need any time ... because you just asume that's what they're doing, never-you-mind thepossible truth. Feh.
 

Lord Pendragon

First Post
Pax said:
Methinks you are too focussed on the idea of someone trying to cheat their way past the Vow.
It may be because that's what I feel this discussion is about. What people feel they can get away with without technically breaking the Vow.
Typical fantasy-medieval setting? There's no suchthing as "the state". The King, Duke, Baron, or whoever personally owns the road (and for that matter, the land to either side), and permits people to use it (might even charge a toll, if s/he needs to raise funds for something - especially a war).
By "the state" I meant "the King/Duke/Baron/local Chieftain/whatever" who usually grants all the use of his roads free of charge. The idea of a toll had not occurred to me.
Use the horse, use the road, what's the difference if using something is thekey element of voiding the vow?
Just using something isn't the key element. Repeatedly using something that belongs to somebody else, so that there's no functional difference between owning it or not, is the crux of it for me. Using a road is fine. Everyone uses the roads without owning them, save "the state" whatever that may be. Using your friend's warhorse every day as if it were yours? No.
And again you assume that the intent is for the ascetic to "get around the vow".
Again, that's what we're discussing. A player who tries to ride is friend's warhorse every day would be trying to get around his vow. He would be trying to gain the use of a warhorse--even though the vow forbids him from owning one--by having his friend technically own his warhorse instead. I wouldn't allow it. One ride? Sure. Every day? No.
Besides, bridges are someone's property. If you can't use someone's living, mobile property, why is nonliving, immobile property any different? Property is, after all, property ... is it not?
It's not the living or nonliving that concerns me. It's the distinction of ownership, what it means to own something. You can often (though not in the case of a toll bridge, certainly) use a bridge or ford to cross a river without owning it, even though somebody may own it. You don't get the services of a warhorse every day unless you own it.
Of course they are. Almost as contrived as "Uh oh, you accepted Sir Generous' offer to ride oneof his spare horses ... you just broke the vow of poverty - sucks to be you!"
Looking back over my posts, it seems I never made such a comment, so I'm not sure how it matters if it's as contrived as the ones you did make.
So. If Bob the Rogue uses a rope-and-grapnel to help the party climba wall, Fred the voluntarily Destitute can't even climb the rope ... ?
Sure he can, because I don't expect every party member to own their own grappling hook, so he's doing nothing differently than the various other party members who don't own that grappling hook.
Like I said, there's such a thing as being too (ludicrously) restrictive. As long as the friggin' horse wasn't bought EXPRESSELY so that the ascetic could ride
But that's just it. What is the difference between buying a horse expressly for the asthetic to ride, and dedicating one of the horses you've already bought expressly for the asthetic's use? Even more, doing this means that if you needed the horse at all previously, you'll have to buy another to replace the one you are now loaning to the asthetic. So why does it make a difference to you whether you buy the horse before the asthetic needs it, or afterward? In either case you've dedicated the horse for the express use of the asthetic, and he's getting the same warhorse service he'd have gotten if he owned it.
... I fail to see theproblem. And yes, I've played in parties where we had an average of two-and-a-half remounts per PC - so that we could REALLY push hard on travel time, without killing the horses.
Sure. Now enter the asthetic. If you let him use one of your horses, you're going to need another to really push hard on travel time. Isn't that the same as buying a horse expressly for the asthetic to ride? And didn't you mention earlier that you thought that was something that went over the line on what's allowed?
Pax said:
As long as the friggin' horse wasn't bought EXPRESSELY so that the ascetic could ride...
I've alsoplayed in groups where the party essentially incorporated itself - and the entity that was "theparty" then got a fullshare of the loot, withwhich to purchase needed food, water, animal feed, etc. The party bought a large wagon to transport said supplies.

So. When the ascetic in sucha party sits down to eat ... does he void hsi vow?j
I'm not sure I'd allow a character to take the VoP in such an incorporated party. By it's very nature, every member of the party would be part-owner of the Party Corporation, and the VoP forbids ownership. In this scenario, the whole party becomes, in a way, a VoP party, since they would have to give up a share of the treasure, and yet still support the VoP PC. I'm honestly not sure about this scenario. I'd have to give it more thought.
What aboutif one of his friends asks him to ride beside him on the wagon, and discuss the finer points of religion and philosophy from less-than-eight-or-more-feet-away?
This would be fine, unless he always rode in the wagon, getting the same use out of it he would if he owned it.
The vow says what he can OWN, and specifies what he CANNOT use (magic items of any sort except potions). And that's all.
One thing I love about these boards is that as we discuss things, it allows me to clarify my own thoughts on matters, even to myself. It seems to me that, for me, the key factor here is usage vs. ownership. If the VoP gets the kind of usage out of something that he would ordinarily only get from ownership, then he's breaking his vow, whether he claims to own something or not. If it's a random isolated incident (a single horse ride), or a situation where I don't expect a PC to have to own anything (climbing up the grappling hook), then it's fine.
 

Lord Pendragon

First Post
Pax said:
ROFLMFAO, gotta love the circularlogic here, "None of them have claimed they don't own the animals they own", indeed!
There's no circular logic here. They didn't claim not to own the animals, which they do indeed own by law.
Where I learned to ride as an adolescent, the instructors were - every last one of them - volunteers. Their only "pay" was riding time for themselves, on whichever of the owner's animals needed excercise, and the volunteer wanted to ride that day. I guarantee you, none of the volunteers felt they owned a single one of those animals.
Perhaps that's because they weren't the owners. If you'd asked the owners the same question, I wonder if they'd have felt the same? This is absolutely meaningless in regards to the earlier assertion that you could own an animal (as understood commonly) but claim "it's just my friend, I don't really own it" to get something the VoP does now allow.
Again with the assumption that it's a loophole ...
It's you assuming it's not a loophole. Or perhaps it's both of us stating our opinions, and neither of us making assumptions, save to assume that the other person in this discussion is going to continue being civil. Or is that just me?
Yep, you don't need any time ... because you just asume that's what they're doing, never-you-mind thepossible truth. Feh.
I'm not assuming anything. And what "possible truth" are you referring to? The only other possible truth I can think of is that a player might not understand my take on the VoP, at which time I'd explain it. If they keep trying to find ways to circumvent it, then they're looking for loopholes. It's not an assumption. That's what it is.
 

Pax

Banned
Banned
It may be because that's what I feel this discussion is about. What people feel they can get away with without technically breaking the Vow.
Not true; you're assuming ill intent on people's part, without considering that INSTEAD of seeing "how much can I get away with", the question might be "how restricted am I, REALLY?".

IOW, you might just be looking at this from the opposite direction from everyone else. There's nothing cheating about asking "can I do this, despite X", or even "how can I do this, despite X".

By "the state" I meant "the King/Duke/Baron/local Chieftain/whatever" who usually grants all the use of his roads free of charge. The idea of a toll had not occurred to me.
Legally and morally, there is precious little difference between a road, and one of the road's owner's horses. If you couldn't accept the offer of a ride on one of the horses, then you definitely shouldn't accept the "open offer" to walk on that road.

Of course, the land to either side of the road is ALSO owned, likely by the same person. I guess the Ascetic can't walk anywhere. Let's hope he can fly. And never needs to land. Or relieve himself in any way. Feh.

Using your friend's warhorse every day as if it were yours? No.
And why, exactly, not? If you don't own it, and have no say in wether or not the offer to ride is ever withdrawn, renewed, or anything else; if you know that, if and when you and the horse's owner ever part ways, you're back to using your own two legs; if you know that, should the horse's owner die, someone ELSE will be claiming their rightful inheritance - including said horse - and youwill similarly be back to relying on your own two (or more, given D&D) feet ...

... where in there is there ANY sense that the ascetic owns anything?

I mean, FFS. I can cast Mount, and if the ascetic rides one of the conjured (very much real and alive, but conjured rather than owned) horses ... it's okay. I can cast Phantom Steed and name you as the allowed rider, and that's okay.

But if I offer you a ride on the spavined old nag I actually own, suddenly your Vow of Poverty is endangered ... ?!? HOW does that possibly make even the remotest possible sense?!?

Again, that's what we're discussing.
What's this "we" sh*t, kemosabe? We are discussing nothing of the sort. We are discussing, at this moment, if-and-how an ascetic can travel by means other than his or her own born-with-em feet. And, simultaneously, staring in slack-jawed amazement at your "asinine-autocratic GM" attitude about the Vow of Poverty.

Seriously; you've gone PAST "way too far", and apparently you're still going ...

A player who tries to ride is friend's warhorse every day would be trying to get around his vow. He would be trying to gain the use of a warhorse--even though the vow forbids him from owning one--by having his friend technically own his warhorse instead. I wouldn't allow it. One ride? Sure. Every day? No
Earlier you implied - heck, no, you stated outright, that an ascetic could work to earn passage aboard a ship, and not void their vow.

I ask you again, why could he not work to earn passage aboard a horse ...?

And ... who (other than you) said the friend technically owns the horse? It is owned by said friend, in both the spirit AND letter of the word "owned".

The last knightly sort I played owned - and took with him on adventures - no less than five hourses. A heavy warhorse, two packhorses, and two riding horses. The warhorse was only ridden in the event of a planned-for battle; the "riding horses" were actually LIGHT warhorses, and he'd alternate, day by day, which one he rode - unless one was injured in an unexpected combat, or threw a shoe, or pulled up lame - all of which were the reasons why he owned two of 'em.

The packhorses were weighted down under relative mountains of supplies, of course; feed/grain for five horses, and food for my knight and his page, along with tents, a bit of camp furniture, and sundry other travellign supplies ... well, let's just say, I didn't envy those packhorses.

So. Why couldn't I offer that nice, friendly ascetic friar I just met, the opportunity to ride my remount for as far as our paths were the same? Or even ride pillion, behind me or my page (probably the page, actually, as he was a DARNED sight lighter than the knight). More importantly, why couldn't the friar accept ...?!

It's not the living or nonliving that concerns me. It's the distinction of ownership, what it means to own something. You can often (though not in the case of a toll bridge, certainly) use a bridge or ford to cross a river without owning it, even though somebody may own it. You don't get the services of a warhorse every day unless you own it.
And you can ride a horse without owning it, too. I know: for three years I got to ride various of SEVERAL horses, and I didn't own one fingerlength of a single one! Further, some of the volunteer instructors did show up every single day, rode one or another of the horses, and didn't own them.

Looking back over my posts, it seems I never made such a comment, so I'm not sure how it matters if it's as contrived as the ones you did make.
In as many words? Of course not. But look at what you're insisting - accepting the generous offer of a friend to ride his spare horse, gets you a voided Vow of Poverty. That's exactly what you're repeatedly insisting!

Sure he can, because I don't expect every party member to own their own grappling hook, so he's doing nothing differently than the various other party members who don't own that grappling hook.
What makes the rope and grappling hook (of which "not every party member owns one") any different from a horse (of which "not every party member owns one" - of course, since one is an ascetic!) ... ?

But that's just it. What is the difference between buying a horse expressly for the asthetic to ride,
BZZZZZZZT, wrong answer, thank you for playing. I never said the horse was bought expressly for the ascetic to ride - in fact, I said as long as that was not the case, there should be no problem. And I've repeatedly given examples of cases where someone with a spare animal, which they own without considering the ascetic's needs, offers the ride - and you've still said it'd void the Vow.


and dedicating one of the horses you've already bought expressly for the asthetic's use?
Plenty.

One, if you already own it, then you didn't buy it to "get around the vow".

Two, if you, the extra horse, and the ascetic are all travelling in the same direction, what is the big deal if the ascetic gets there while sitting on the horse's back?

Even more, doing this means that if you needed the horse at all previously, you'll have to buy another to replace the one you are now loaning to the asthetic.
Nope. It means that, if you discovered a need for ANOTHER horse because the ascetic is riding your spare, the ascetic shoud THEN leap down from the horse, and INSIST that you use it for it's originally-bought-for purpose ... while he walks.

But until that time, there's no reason the ascetic should be barred form riding an otherwise-unused spare animal.

So why does it make a difference to you whether you buy the horse before the asthetic needs it, or afterward? In either case you've dedicated the horse for the express use of the asthetic,
BZZZZZZZZZT, again. Stop assuming the hypothetical "I" happens to be a cheating bastard. That's a surefire way to p*ss me off, in fact. In case you somehow hadn't noticed. :mad:

and he's getting the same warhorse service he'd have gotten if he owned it
Nope.

Owner dies, heir shows up - no more free ride.

Owner decides to go west, while you want to go east - time to get used to walking again.

Owner meets an old friend, who needs a horse to ride on? Time to get off, profusely thank your friend for letting you use his spare mount, and humbly suggest that his other friend has an obvious and greater need of a mount than you do.

Horsetrader offers you a ludicrous five hundred gp for the horse you're sitting on? Smile graciously and direct him to the actual owner of said horse.

Farmer asks if the horse you've been riding can help plow his fields while the party rests in his house or barn the next day? Same answer as with the horse trader.

...

Are we beginning to get the picture?

Riding != owning.
 
Last edited:

Thanee

First Post
BTW, the text does list riding on your companion's ebony fly as allowed, so I guess this extents to riding on someone else's horse, too, as long as there is a need for it, and it is not only done out of convenience, because that would be violating the spirit of the vow.

Bye
Thanee
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top