Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 1671336" data-attributes="member: 707">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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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?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.This would be fine, unless he always rode in the wagon, getting the same use out of it he would if he owned it.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.</blockquote>

Verification