BoED -- Vow of Poverty

[Zimri]

My question would be this... Why would such a character ACCEPT such a quest? If the ascetic character knows his limitations, why would he accept a quest that he know's he will either fail or have to break his Vow to fulfill?

This is the same scenario one would use to screw over that Lawful Good Paladin. The Paladin's commander orders him to slaughter orc babies. Does the Paladin disobey the commander, thus breaking his Lawfulness? Or does the Paladin kill the innocent orc babies, this breaking his Goodness?

The situation you pose above is the same thing when presented to an ascetic character.

The ascetic doesn't need to break his vow or fail the quest.It'll just take longer and be far less convinient. See in my world the king would make darn good and sure the ascetic , or the ascetics party had transportation as far as he could provide it. Either via good stout mounts (which if they survive must be returned), or a wizard teleporting them or whatnot. Some people here say that the VoP can not accept these I say hogwash. Besides if he believes her to be in imminent grave danger and he has been asked to help and REFUSES (assuming all parties are "good") he violates his vow anyway.

There is a way out for the paladin. First off let's assume the paladin is exalted. The BOED specifically says that targetting/killing non-combatants while it may be expedient certainly is NOT exalted behavior. I would however let a non exalted good character away with it (if they were not a paladin). The order to murder babies and (non combatant)women of any race (as well as the elderly, infirm, and disabled) is not a LAWFUL order. Any paladins I run, or who run under me know that there are things a Paladin can't do and remain a paladin, that is one of them, so is slaying an unarmed, unaware opponent from behind no matter what they are in the middle of doing. I am however completely fine with not allowing enemy combatants to surrender.

Lawful isn't JUST about being a good doobie and following orders. "I was just following orders" doesn't fly for me in real or game life. Though in game life it will lead to a somewhat easier atonement.

Perhaps the princess can teleport herself back with a ring the ascetic takes to her. According to naysayers here though the ascetic needs to make his own way back as a ring of teleportation is something luxurious he can't benefit from.

 

[Zimri]

Come on! Wouldn't YOU jump at the chance to have a hot teenaged chick all to yourself for a year, maybe more?

Taking advantage of her would neither be lawful nor exalted good. Neither would allowing her to take advantage of you.

Hey wait isn't having a princess as a travelling companion a rather luxurious thing espescially if she is all pretty and is relying on you to get her home thus rather dependant and needing to do as you say ? Dagnabbit now rescuing princesses is sure to violate the VOW.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I'd steer away from it. I considered playing a Druid with the VoP in my current campaign but I thought that the rules were kind of silly. Even if my other party members were to have pooled enough money together to buy a Wand of Cure Light Wounds I would be unable to USE it for them on their behalf without violating the VoP. If one of my party members is dying on the ground and their is a Wand of CLW lying on the ground next to him my character wouldn't be able to use it to save him without violating his VoP (assuming I was all out of my personal spells for the day). SO... taking VoP pretty much rules out taking any item creation feats because you really can't even own the materials needed to create the item. You can't create scrolls, wands, rods, or staves to benefit your party because you can't use them on someone elses behalf. I suppose you could create potions so long as your party members paid the material costs and you gave them all away.

 

[brehobit]

Hi folks,
Thanks for all the thoughts. I think my conclusion about VoP in a game is that some room needs to be given for back sliding. Allowing a 4 year old to die because you can't use a wand of CLW is something no good character should do. I realize the author of BoED would argue that the DM shouldn't put the PC in that situation but I still think this is a problem. Of course, it is a very slippery slope. Shouldn't I use the UberSword to kill the Evil Demon who will otherwise kill everyone in the city? Shouldn't I use a wand of CLW to heal my fighter friend so he can kill the Demon? etc.

Still, I think the book, and the VoP feat are one of the better things in 3.0.
It certainly makes you think about ethics, which is rarely a bad thing


Mark

 

[Zimri]

Hi folks,
Thanks for all the thoughts. I think my conclusion about VoP in a game is that some room needs to be given for back sliding. Allowing a 4 year old to die because you can't use a wand of CLW is something no good character should do. I realize the author of BoED would argue that the DM shouldn't put the PC in that situation but I still think this is a problem. Of course, it is a very slippery slope. Shouldn't I use the UberSword to kill the Evil Demon who will otherwise kill everyone in the city? Shouldn't I use a wand of CLW to heal my fighter friend so he can kill the Demon? etc.

Still, I think the book, and the VoP feat are one of the better things in 3.0.
It certainly makes you think about ethics, which is rarely a bad thing


Mark

Wouldn't matter for my character because well it's a sword but yes they should pick it up. I would seriously allow for an atonement (not the spell) regarding the 4 year old use the stigmata exalted feat if you have it, or bind the wounds and get help. (although I would also allow an atonement *not the spell* for that act)

 

[Pax]

My question would be this... Why would such a character ACCEPT such a quest? If the ascetic character knows his limitations, why would he accept a quest that he know's he will either fail or have to break his Vow to fulfill?

Because that's the next adventure the DM has put together, and either the player (and thus the character) accepts, or they sit out on the next two-to-ten sessions of gaming ... ?

This is the same scenario one would use to screw over that Lawful Good Paladin. The Paladin's commander orders him to slaughter orc babies. Does the Paladin disobey the commander, thus breaking his Lawfulness? Or does the Paladin kill the innocent orc babies, this breaking his Goodness?

Malicide isn't an evil act.

Simple concept probably held by most, if not all, paladins (eventhe rare half-orc paladins): there is no such thing as an "innocent" orc - baby, warrior, or otherwise. Orcs are consummately and inherently evil, born into sin and the next thing to irredeemable.

As for those rare, exception-to-the-rule few actual INNOCENTS ... well, killing them is a MERCY; they will no longer have to face a future of suffering at the hands of their evil parents and peers.

 

[RigaMortus]

Taking advantage of her would neither be lawful nor exalted good. Neither would allowing her to take advantage of you.

Hey wait isn't having a princess as a travelling companion a rather luxurious thing espescially if she is all pretty and is relying on you to get her home thus rather dependant and needing to do as you say ? Dagnabbit now rescuing princesses is sure to violate the VOW.

Are you "owning" or "using" the princess? If anything, she is using you (to get home safely).

 

[RigaMortus]

Shouldn't I use the UberSword to kill the Evil Demon who will otherwise kill everyone in the city? Shouldn't I use a wand of CLW to heal my fighter friend so he can kill the Demon? etc.

Mark

If you have VoP, the answer is no. If you wanted these options available to you, you would not have taken VoP.

You can ask similiar questions of any class or alignment. Shouldn't the LG Paladin sneak up and backstab the unarmed evil wizard about to sacrifice the virgin to the dark gods? No. Because that isn't what a LG Paladin does, it's not how they are "supposed" to act (w/o repricussions). If you want the option to do this, should the situation arise, don't play a LG Paladin.

 

[RigaMortus]

Because that's the next adventure the DM has put together, and either the player (and thus the character) accepts, or they sit out on the next two-to-ten sessions of gaming ... ?

Well whose fault is that? The DM for setting that up as an available quest? Or the Player for picking the VoP feat? Or the DM for allowing the VoP feat? In the end, the DM has complete control and say over what happens in his campaign world, and what feats he will and will now allow players to take.

I think it's the DMs own fault to allow the VoP feat and then present that player with a set of circumstances that either forces the player to (a) break the Vow or (b) stop playing. Bad DM, bad DM!

Malicide isn't an evil act.

You forgot to add "in my campaign". In other people's campaign worlds, it very well could be. In the campaign world I am playing in, suicide is not an evil act either, however, I can easily see it being an evil act in someone elses. If I were DM, I'd make suicide an "evil" act. It would certainly prevent you from moving on into the celestial heavens. Since the Core books do not spell out every single "act" and if it is good, evil, neutral, we have to basically make it up on our own, which is why everyone's campaign world is different.

Simple concept probably held by most, if not all, paladins (eventhe rare half-orc paladins): there is no such thing as an "innocent" orc - baby, warrior, or otherwise. Orcs are consummately and inherently evil, born into sin and the next thing to irredeemable.

As for those rare, exception-to-the-rule few actual INNOCENTS ... well, killing them is a MERCY; they will no longer have to face a future of suffering at the hands of their evil parents and peers.

Again, this is campaign specific. It is not spelled out in the rules, one way or another. IMC, children are basically innocent. It is society which determines if they turn out good or evil. Even demons and devils "could" be LG, though they would still have the [Evil] subtype. Ever see Hell Boy? What about Drizzt?

Anyway, we are slowly getting off track here. This is sort of turning into an alignment debate, and I don't want to hijack the thread.

 

[Zimri]

Actually BOED spells it out rather clearly. Casting an AoE spell (fireball was the example) that includes in it's targets women and children ( I prefer to use the term non-combatants) WILL cost you your exalted status, so will killing them on purpose in any other way.