[Book of exalted deeds] Vow of Peace

[Psionicist]

Hello folks,

My character is planning to take the Vow of Peace feat from The Book of Exalted Deeds. It fits the character concept and personality entirely and should add some interesting role-playing opportunities to the whole party. My character is the supportive type, the bard, the healer, the diplomat, and the caster of buff-spells. (Every DM’s dream! ).

However, my DM is worried that if I take this feat I will transform into a non-violent militant fanatic who will by any means possible stop the other players from hurting/killing leaving beings if I think it’s unnecessarily. He believes that I will hinder the other players from role-playing their alignments. (For the record, the whole party is good aligned except for the neutral druid). Sure, some in-game moral discussions with the other characters may be necessarily at times but isn’t this what every DM wants?

I trust my DM. He knows more about Dungeons & Dragons than I ever will. But here, I don’t quite agree with him. If you are exalted good, you don’t force your friends to do anything they will probably not even consider to do. I am the non-violent type, not my friends.

To get to the point, I am not trying to prove my DM wrong. Heck, this little argument of ours took place 2:30 at night after a tiresome combat with an invisible glass-monster-thing that was a pain to get rid of. However, I’d really appreciate some comments on this feat, and your experience with it. Thanks in advance.

(This has nothing to do with role-playing at all, but please feel free to comment on any grammatical or compositional errors you find, my English is getting a bit rusty).

 

[jmucchiello]

Are you new to the group? The group as a whole may be more combat oriented than you expect and the DM is worried that the players who enjoy the combat aspects the most will be personally irritated by your character as he will get in the way of the "fun" part of the game.

Vow of Peace has that calming aura which you could use on the character of a player who's goal in coming to the gaming sessions is to whoop some a$$.

Your DM is probably worried about a gaming style clash more than anything else.

 

[gfunk]

You may wish to read Jollydoc's Shackled City Story Hour for some ideas. I have a sorcerer in this campaign who has taken both the Vow of Poverty and Vow of Peace.

His backstory can be found here (post #325):
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showt...0&page=13&pp=25

His most recent stats can be found here (post #544):
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showt...0&page=22&pp=25

And some further points:

1. I play Caine with the "guiding light" philosophy. I always advise on avoiding violent confrontations if possible. I will always accept surrender of opponents, generally encasing them with a resilient sphere to prevent others from harming them. I have asked my party members never to kill a defenseless creature and have turned one of them to the exalted path.

2. The weapon shattering thing (thus far) has not been overpowering for several reaons. (A) Since Caine is not an offensive threat, the big baddies tend to leave him alone, focusing their energies on the damage dealing characters, (B) the save is Fort based which is the best save of bruiser types, and (C) when foes approach me, they are usually pacified by my calming aura, rendering weapon strikes unecessary.

And from a personal perspective, I have never played a character that was so well liked by everybody. Virtually every NPC we run into likes Caine. The only exception are Celestials whom Caine despises. He hates their "holier than thou" attitude and "ends justify the means" philosophy.

 

[Elric]

I think that vow of peace is a really well done feat. I haven't seen it in play, so I am not sure of its power level, but it is really flavorful.

I was thinking of taking Vow of Peace for my exalted monk, but the rest of the party's attitude was "no way." I can see why- it would probably be a lot of fun to use the feat, but it might infringe on the rest of the party. We waste enough time debating silly things without needing to add several new debates per combat

gfunk- that sounds like a really cool character. I’m glad that the RPing is working out for you.

 

[Hypersmurf]

(This has nothing to do with role-playing at all, but please feel free to comment on any grammatical or compositional errors you find, my English is getting a bit rusty).

Only a couple of minor points - otherwise it's fine

However, my DM is worried that if I take this feat I will transform into a non-violent militant fanatic who will by any means possible stop the other players from hurting/killing leaving beings if I think it’s unnecessarily. Sure, some in-game moral discussions with the other characters may be necessarily at times but isn’t this what every DM wants?

These should be unnecessary and necessary respectively.

If you are exalted good, you don’t force your friends to do anything they will probably not even consider to do.

consider doing would be the English construction.

-Hyp.

 

[Psionicist]

Thanks for all the replies! ENWorld, is there anything it can't answer?

jmucchiello: We have gamed together for 6-7 years and get along very well. I have probably overanalyzed the situation, maybe my DM just pictured a worst case scenario?

gfunk: Caine, reminds me of Warcraft 3. Really interesting story hour, I have to read all 50 or so pages someday.

Hypersmurf: Thank you, I appreciate it.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

The Vow of Peace feat is one step above and beyond the Vow of Non-Violence. It borders upon the fanatical - note the mention of drinking water through a strainer so as not to harm small bugs. Such characters would most likely tread carefully - never running - until they could attain a permanent fly spell of some nature and thus float above the ground at a respectful speed so as not to harm flying bugs either.

Your DM thus has every legitimate concern that if you are going to play a character like this, you will try to stop violence wherever possible. Your character will either try and fix up the mess that your party causes or alternatively, he would prefer to not be around such violent individuals - and thus not be a party member anymore. I doubt such a character would want to "buff" other characters so as to assist them in being even more violent.

If the other characters want to be involved in numerous violent encounters, you will have a really difficult time either trying to stop them or as I mentioned above, giving up and leaving. In all honesty, while the roleplaying might be interesting to begin with, I think it will eventually grate to the point that people simply won't enjoy the game. Either that, or you are not playing a character with this feat as intended. It is just difficult to imagine someone as fanatical as this wanting to be around violent people unless it was to halt there violence. They would never just accept it.

All of this is just my opinion of course. Others obviously might not take the descriptions from the BoED quite as literally.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Saeviomagy]

However, my DM is worried that if I take this feat I will transform into a non-violent militant fanatic who will by any means possible stop the other players from hurting/killing leaving beings if I think it’s unnecessarily. He believes that I will hinder the other players from role-playing their alignments. (For the record, the whole party is good aligned except for the neutral druid). Sure, some in-game moral discussions with the other characters may be necessarily at times but isn’t this what every DM wants?

Isn't the vow of peace the one which has direct semi-magical effects on other members of the party? I don't think calming aura works only on enemies, and that "-1 per incident to the class level of the VoP character to all rolls for messing with prisoners" thing will also affect them. Am I right or am I thinking of something else from BoED?

 

[Psionicist]

The Vow of Peace feat is one step above and beyond the Vow of Non-Violence. It borders upon the fanatical - note the mention of drinking water through a strainer so as not to harm small bugs. Such characters would most likely tread carefully - never running - until they could attain a permanent fly spell of some nature and thus float above the ground at a respectful speed so as not to harm flying bugs either.

Your DM thus has every legitimate concern that if you are going to play a character like this, you will try to stop violence wherever possible. Your character will either try and fix up the mess that your party causes or alternatively, he would prefer to not be around such violent individuals - and thus not be a party member anymore. I doubt such a character would want to "buff" other characters so as to assist them in being even more violent.

If the other characters want to be involved in numerous violent encounters, you will have a really difficult time either trying to stop them or as I mentioned above, giving up and leaving. In all honesty, while the roleplaying might be interesting to begin with, I think it will eventually grate to the point that people simply won't enjoy the game. Either that, or you are not playing a character with this feat as intended. It is just difficult to imagine someone as fanatical as this wanting to be around violent people unless it was to halt there violence. They would never just accept it.

All of this is just my opinion of course. Others obviously might not take the descriptions from the BoED quite as literally.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Wow, you surely analyzed this way better than I did. My first thought was "my character is already non-violent and exceptionally peaceful, and he has never harmed a human being, maybe I will prove this technically by taking this feat".

However, to quote the feat:

Special: To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm to any living creature (constructs and undead are not included in this prohobition). You may not deal real damage or ability damage to such creatures through spells or weapos, though you may deal nonlethal damage.
...
You also may not use nondamaging spells to incapacitate or weaking living foes so that your allies can kill them.

My take on this is that while the character cannot hurt or kill living creatures himself, it doesn't matter if his allies does?

 

[Hypersmurf]

My take on this is that while the character cannot hurt or kill living creatures himself, it doesn't matter if his allies does?

If his allies do, plural form.

As long as you're not causing detrimental effects to them.

During a fight-to-the-death, you can cast Bless to give your allies an advantage; you could not cast Bane to give your enemies a disadvantage, since this would be considered weakening them so your allies could kill them.

If the party is trying to capture a prisoner, you could cast Hold Person or throw a tanglefoot bag. If they're trying to clear out a dungeon, you couldn't, since this would be incapacitating an enemy so your allies can kill him.

-Hyp.