BoED -- Vow of Poverty

[Coredump]

I appreciate the thought and civility you are putting into this discussion. But, I do think you are being inconsistent. I will try to explain.

Ghandi would not (in my opinion) accepted the house being built for him.

I agree. Because he is living a life of poverty...not a life of no ownership. Eventhough he did not 'own' it, he would not even borrow it for an indefinite amount of time.

If I can not ride on a horse when a party member has 2 extra unburdened horses and has offered to allow me to use one (though I could say yes to his ebony fly *see the text in BOED*) I certainly can not set foot on a ship that costs thousands of dollars more.

But this is not the same thing.
Taking a ride on a ship is a one time thing. (or maybe 2 if round trip) Letting the King send you on his ship, to rescue his daughter. It is similar to Mother Theresa letting someone fly her to Calcutta to help the poor.
This is easily comparable to riding a companions horse. *IF* it is equally short term. You need to be on the horse to get across the river, or speed is a requirement. (not a convenience.) As you *know* the Kings daughter is about to be sacrificed, and you have to get there before midnight.
But this is not comparable if it is a long term loan. In effect giving you 90% of the benefits of ownage.

I agree if you can borrow a donkey that was going unused you can borrow a warhorse that was going unused (and/or ride on the back of it).

But two items. One is 'unused'. There is a reason this character has two extra horses...why is that? He apparently thinks he needs them, can he still benefit from them if the VoPer is using one? If the Character really doesn't need those horses, isn't that wasteful? Wouldn't that be distatful to teh VoPer?
Second is...it is not living in poverty. Rich Guy says "I have 7 mansions, and most of them are unused. So Ghandi, go ahead and hang out in my mansion in India. You can use my 'unused' limo to ride to the slums and help the poor" Just doesn't sound right.
Stay at his mansion while visiting? Sure. Use it long term? Not living in poverty.

IN RL do I borrow the glass I am drinking from at my friends house from my friend for the duration I am using it ? that seems odd I think we need a different word.

Same with a PS2, you don't 'borrow' it at a friends house. But what if he said "I am not using it, take it home and keep it there. Play it whenever you want." Not very poverty stricken are you?

Same with the carriage if someone is sending you to do something that requires you to show up in a carriage (or he is silly/generous enough to loan the party the carriage for travel to something he wants them to do) you should be allowed to ride inside of it. not be dragged behind it.

To me, that is a maybe. If it is a necessity, fine. If it is a convenience, not fine. A 'hero's welcome' parade. He can walk. Needing to care for the sick youth while transporting him to another town. Fine.

The loans I speak of are not indefinite, there are some very real if not very quantifiable limits to them. Until I die, until you fall out of my favour, until I need/want the favour to enduntil your service to me ends.

Those are all indefinite amounts of time. (I took out 'till the end of the ball, that is definite)

I see no incongruity with Ghandi say accepting the use of a car, driver, and accomodations from the indian embassy or state department in whatever country he is visiting for the duration of his visit. If he were to take up residence in said country I would suspect he then would lose the privelleges of a "travelling dignitary"

My point exactly. Short term, usually okay. Long term, not okay. And even accepting accomodations, would likely be on the low end.

.

 

[Zimri]

But the text doesn't say "can ride a friends ebony fly only in matters of dire consequence" or any such thing.

I don't believe in my examples I said stay at the kings house while he wasn't there, or while it was empty. I said if you are providing him with services (counsellor, security, etcetera).

Perhaps the person with two horses couldn't decide between the two which one he liked better, or maybe one is usually a pack animal, or maybe because of the weight of himself, his armor, his weaponry, and the horses barding he needs to switch off if we ride hard or long. In the first and last case the VoP riding the second horse poses little problem as her weight on it (comparatively speaking) is insignificant ( a 100 pound half elf with no equipment riding bare back vs being a pack animal (assuming we have nothing to haul atm) or carrying a large human wearing full plate carrying a sword, a shield, a lance, and barding on the horse).

While The other character living a life of excess is not what she would choose for herself my VoP monk is not about to insist on everyone in the part being VoP or pretending she has the right to tell them how to spend their portion of the treasure.

"I am sorry my dear sweet companion I love you and would spend time alone with you in your suite however I can not. We can howver be intimate together in the common room."

 

[brehobit]

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

But it does seem possible to force someone to break a VoP. Again, just put them in a situation where someone will die if they don't use a wand. Either they break the VoP or they allow an innocient to die so they can keep their vow (which I'd certainly call an evil act.)

 

[Zimri]

If you are VoP and don't take the nimbus of light/stigmata feats you are going to run out of exalted feats to take even earlier.

Brehobit is right though, force them to use an object or someone dies. Although if they tried other ways to help but failed I don't know that I would strip them and if they did use it I would have them have a "dream talk" with their God.

Although please explain to me how anyone but a rogue, bard, wizard, sorceror, or cleric is using a magical device ?

 

[CyberSpyder]

Although please explain to me how anyone but a rogue, bard, wizard, sorceror, or cleric is using a magical device ?

Are rogues, bards, wizards, sorcerers, and clerics forbidden from taking the Vow of Poverty?

 

[Pax]

Well whose fault is that? The DM for setting that up as an available quest? Or the Player for picking the VoP feat?

The DM's fault, of course. THe vow would, in the hypothetical circumstances described, predate the GM's formulation of that quest, so ...

You forgot to add "in my campaign". In other people's campaign worlds, it very well could be.

We're discussing the Vow of Poverty, whichis in the book of Exalted Deeds. Inherently then, we must presume that the definitionof what is-or-isn't evil must be in line with the book of Exalted Deeds.

And the discussionof "Mercy, Prisoners, and Redemption", only mandates mercy for evil foes who actively surrender. Any other circumstance which leads to the death of an evil being is not only not evil, it is not [/i]un-Exalted[/i].

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.

Except when discussing the status of Exalted characters, which are themselves defined in a book which does speak - at great length - to the subject of what is,or is not, a "good" or an "evil" act.

Historically, not even every form of suicide was classified in Western culture as being evil. Three words: coup de grace. Yes, it could be asked for, without sin.

 

[Pax]

Although please explain to me how anyone but a rogue, bard, wizard, sorceror, or cleric is using a magical device ?

Simple: as a cross-class skill. Paladins often have a decent charisma, so diverting some skill points to UMD (if they alsohave a good Intelligence) canbe useful.

A fighter who has no especial plans to enter any prestige classes might send points UMD's way, to be able to bring thecleric back up to conscious status with a Wand of CLW, "just in case".

And so on.

Also, in the FR at least, there're (regional) feats that LET you activate wands and the like, without levels in the revalent class.

 

[Zimri]

My particular PHB (3.0 but the campaign is a hybrid) states that UMD is bard/rogue ONLY no cross classing it.

CyberSpyder. No those classes are not barred from using VoP but if you are stripping my monk of her abilities there had better have been a "right way out" for her.

Regarding "non combatants" please see page 10 of the BOED first new paragraph.

The third consideration is one of discrimination. Violence can not be considered good when it is directed against non combatants (including women and children of at least some races and cultures). Placing a fireball so that its area includes orc women and children as well as warriors and barbarians is evil, since the non combatant orcs are not a threat and are comparatively defenseless

 

[RigaMortus]

My particular PHB (3.0 but the campaign is a hybrid) states that UMD is bard/rogue ONLY no cross classing it.

In 3.0, UMD was an Exclusive skill. Exclusive to only Rogue/Bard. In 3.5, they got rid of Exclusive skills, and made them Cross-Class skills for other classes. Basically in 3.5, anyone can take any skill. They are just either Class skills or Cross-Class skills now...

 

[apsuman]

but what if you conjured an item up, like leomunds tiny hut or whateverit is called, could you use the hut? could you sleep there?

what if you cast dancing sword and a magical sword made of energy were formed in the air in front of you wielded it from afar. Are you then breaking the VOP?

what if you summon a mount and ride that mount?

what if you cast create food and water and then ate the food and drank the water?

what if you were made lord of the realm of Mithgaard by the King. As the land is still HIS could you take the title? What if in that title you were allotted a castle, could you use it?

Could you take a job if you spent all your money on charity? Or doe sth boss have to give your money to charity?

What if simply picking up an item grants you magical abilities/immunites? Are you prevented from carrying the orb of fiery might back to the king?