BoED -- Vow of Poverty

[Terwox]

Here's how to keep the mule:
Let it go. If it follows you and makes you ride it, you do not possess the mule. The mule is just your friend.
If the mule leaves, the mule leaves. If the mule doesn't want to be ridden one day, you can't ride him. If the mule is fussy, you have to obey the wishes of the mule, because it's a conscious entity and friend instead of a possession at this point.
Eh, if that doesn't mesh with the rules, who cares, it's a bloody mule. There's not much powergaming to be done with a mule! And it fits the image of being poor. It's a mule.

 

[rushlight]

I've run a game with VoP character, and I don't have any problems with them at all. The largest issue to get over was with the other players - they didn't want to give an equal share to the guy since he was just going to give it away. Eventually, their selfish greed was beaten into submission.

As for the mule, it's an easy call. The VoP cannot "own" the mule - he must let the mule go. However, the mule can follow whomever it likes. If I were your DM, I would let the mule choose. As long as you took excelent care of it, then the mule would follow you and allow you to ride it. If you were careless, then it would leave.

 

[Kershek]

I would think that it would be more "in the spirit" of Vow of Poverty for an ascetic cleric to have his holy symbol tatooed on the palm of his hand or another place that is easily seen.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

VoP = GM/Player work

The VoP, or any strong ability a character may gain requires some level of trimming to fit properly in a game. I currently run a game with a VoP Monk.. who recently has picked up a very powerful holy weapon, and being the only one in the group that can touch it has submitted to carrying it until they pass close enough to a Temple of Lathander in order to return it.
Does this violate the letter of the VoP? Yup. Am I going to penalize him? Not directly. The Sword is known on sight by higher level followers of Lathander.. and his enemies.

I will also state that the character agaonized over the choice, and the player checked OoC to make sure he would not lose his abilities

If I were your DM, I would allow you to maintain the Mule as Rushlight mentioned.

And I double echo the part about requiring a fair share of the treasure for donation.

 

[Pax]

... or have the holy symbol carved into the head of the walking stick the ascetic is allowed to have. ^_^

 

[Coredump]

I don't agree with this:

Give it away; sorry, but other than becoming a Druid, you're not going to be able to keepthe mule AND adhere to the Vow. OTOH, if it belongs to someone else, and you simply look after it in exchange for being able to still ride it (while it carries some more food for the whole party, maybe) - use is okay, it's ownership that matters.

Where does it end? I don't 'own' this trained warhorse, I just borrow it. I don't 'own' this set of full plate armor, I am just 'using' it. And don't mind the 5 sets of fine garments...they are on loan only.

Using a technicality to 'get away' with something is against the spirit of the Vow, and is quite a slippery slope. Soon it will be "Here, this is my wand, but I give it to you to use during this encounter. (ala a potion)"

No, if you can't have it, you can't have it...


OTOH, I am a firm believer in the spirit versus the letter, therefore I do agree with:

Eh, if that doesn't mesh with the rules, who cares, it's a bloody mule. There's not much powergaming to be done with a mule! And it fits the image of being poor. It's a mule.

I have no problem with you having the mule. Especially since it has been with you. Better that you riding someone elses horse... You may end up giving it away to someone that needs it more, who knows.

 

[Thanee]

@Pax:

To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possession, with the following exceptions: ...

BTW, I agree, that a simple wooden holy symbol would be very well within the spirit of the rules, it's funny enough, that it isn't listed, but the spell component pouch is.

They probably thought, that only druids and monks would pick up that feat, anyways.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Pax]

I don't agree with this:
Where does it end? I don't 'own' this trained warhorse, I just borrow it. I don't 'own' this set of full plate armor, I am just 'using' it. And don't mind the 5 sets of fine garments...they are on loan only.

Can't use it, no indeed. Not the armor, not the clothes. You could ride the warhorse, if you were offered the ride ("Brothr Coredump, while I know you cannot OWN a horse, I want you to ride one of MINE ... we'll reach our destination at least twice as swiftly, than if we must hold ourselves to yoru pace").

Using a technicality to 'get away' with something is against the spirit of the Vow, and is quite a slippery slope. Soon it will be "Here, this is my wand, but I give it to you to use during this encounter. (ala a potion)"

No, if you can't have it, you can't have it...

If I hand you a potion, and say "here, drink this", and you do ... youhave not voided the Vow of Poverty. That is explicitly covered in the Vow itself (BoED, page 48).

And I fail to see how "My good friend Pax lets me ride one of his pack animals rather than walk, so long as I look after them and see to their meager needs" is against the Vow of Poverty.

And there's no prohibition against carrying things on other people's behalf ("Good Coredump, I know you are on your way to the townof <insert name here>, where my sister resides; would you be so kind as to carry thisletter to her?" ... or "My good friend, I know you cannot OWN anything, but I wonder if you would do me a bit of a favor - carry this healing potion, and in the event I should fall in combat, but still be alive ... would you help me to drink it, that I might delay my death just a bit longer?" ... and so on).

You cannot borrow magic items, you cannot OWN anything except the few meager things listed in the Vow itself, and under no circumstances (even to benefit someone else) mayyou cast a spell from a wand, staff, or scroll (note the lack of prohibition against administering potions to fallen comrades).

I have no problem with you having the mule. Especially since it has been with you. Better that you riding someone elses horse... You may end up giving it away to someone that needs it more, who knows.

The instant the mule is "his" ina property-ownership sense, his Vow is broken - irevocably. Yes, owning a mere mule is MUCH worse than riding someone else's warhorse ... because of that one, wee little word ... "owning".

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Well-said Coredump, I was going to mention the same thing about "borrowing" someone else's equipment. It's a no-no, period.

Regarding the mule, I'd get him awakened and take him on as a cohort. Have him take the VoP as well, and take levels of barbarian.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

You could ride the warhorse, if you were offered the ride

I disagree. Borrowing the warhorse is the same as borrowing the +5 Holy Bane vs. Evil Outsiders Greatsword. You can't get use out of stuff by passing it off as merely being loaned or borrowed. 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. The Vow of Poverty isn't just the technicality of ownership. It's the spirit of having nothing.

"Good Father, I'm going to donate all of this treasure to the Church, but perhaps the Church might be willing to let me borrow it for the next ten levels or so, so that I may better protect the countryside from evil."

Not in my game.