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 If you don't own it, and have no say in wether or not the offer to ride is ever withdrawn, renewed, or anything else; if you know that, if and when you and the horse's owner ever part ways, you're back to using your own two legs; if you know that,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.
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.