lukelightning
First Post
I too feel sadness for anyone who reads a rulebook and for some bizarre reason comes to the conclusion that it has rules in it that are meant to be followed. :\
Moon-Lancer said:
Is Vow of Poverty broken?
- Thread starter reveal
- Start date
Moon-Lancer
First Post
lol. Let me clarify. I mean that looking at the words with no intention can but not always will lead to undermining the intent of what the words might be trying to say. I didn’t see that someone had posted about reading raw right above my post, i did not mean it as a personal attack in anyway. basically i was blanketing my idea with simple words because I had to get to class.
I realize that one must understand language but not understanding the intention of that language can lead to abuse of the rules (intention can do this as well), but i see to often people who use rules to undermine intent. I also see this alot in d&d. take pun pun. when the game designers were thinking of some of the abilities pun pun uses, i am sure they were not thinking that the intention of the abilities used to could be combined to create pun pun, but exploitation of the raw as permitted it.
A campaign played with just raw will find many soft spots in the rules. How does one continue to play a game strictly by the rules if the rules have holes in them. Something must be used to fill theses holes. One must look at the rules and analyze how it applies to the rest of the game, and then try to figure out how it was intended to fit.
Other times the rules have oversights. Like karmatic strike. You get an attack of opportunity when you are hit, but attacks of opportunity come before the hit, but to get the attack of opportunity you must first be hit. how does one decide if the rules are inherently flawed. adding trip with the attack of opportunity can prevent the attack of opportunity from even happening. Its a basic time paradox. You go back in time to kill your mom before you were born. What happens? Do you inherently fail no matter what you do because time and destiny are the same river? or can you actually kill your mom altering time, or creating a parallel universe?
The raw can only go so far. intention can be used to fill the gaps. A campaign that relies only on raw will have greater problems then just the current rules that are creating problems. So I stand by statement, but i should have been more clear.
One could also argue that raw doesn’t exist, that no matter how you write something, someone will read it differently and its intention will change from person to person.
The sun is yellow.
Do I mean
1: the sun happens to create a interpretation of a collection of radiation that hits the retina of our eyes and gets processed by our visual cortex?
or do i mean
2: the sun is a incarnation of yellow, and in a Socratics sense. the sun is a foundation by which we deprive and pervert the idea into a crayon called yellow?
The statement is shallow, but if i add to this statement ...
Socrates is coloring a picture using crayons
the sky is blue and the sun is yellow
This still can be ambiguous, but I can more safely assume that we are talking about #1. The sun is yellow in the sense of color.
Raw is limited in understanding, but likewise Rai (rules as indented) can be equally devastating if one is not understanding the language of which the intention was written in. the problem with Rai is that sometimes personal agendas can be mixed with the intention as it can be different from person to person. I think a small part of intention is clear to everyone (in some cases), some people just have their eyes closed or don’t care about the intention because the raw is in their favor. It has blinded me more then just once in the name of power and greed.
Now you ask ... what’s the point? well in terms of vop we can read over and over what a vop character can and cant have. Even in raw their are arguments to what this may entail. The intention of vop i believe is to create a true carnation of someone who forgives the material in favor of immaterial. it is also intended to give up and forsake the ownership and use of magic items.
I think that vop was based off monks of the monasteries of erup and the temples of tidbit. I believe this tidbit of history needs to be added to the purpose of vop. I think their is allot of good to vop, but as written it has lots of holes and a complete misunderstand of the real vows of poverty that history has shown us.
When dm with vop you should ask yourself, is allowing a vop character to do X breaking the intent of vop (see real life monks as part of vops balance and restrictions is the role-play aspect) and is X unbalancing the game in terms of pure numbers and mechanics.
I was going to write about vop and clerics and druids, and the absurdity of a druid not being able to carry holly. I think other arguments have stated this argument. But let me say that I think vop should be based off allowing x item and limiting any iteam to 5 gold peaces of value. This fits the intentions of not owning something very valuable (like a cross bow). Crossbows are simple weapons to use but are complex in creation. I think a vop should even perhaps create everything they use via craft. If they can find the martial though foregoing they should be able to create it and own it (not magic items though for balance).
What made me stop my long argument was this line its alittle to raw for me, but perhaps it will satisfy thoughs who feel raw is the letter and is the balance.
It says a vop character can sacrifice xp for expensive components (under ramifications of poverty). A wooden divine focus is one gold peace. It is 1xp for 5 gold peaces. This by the raw… hahah… might mean that a vop character would have no need for a df because he would sacrifice the 0 xp for the 1 gold peace of a df.
As for the druid… well I think that its silly to think that druid that picks a df off a plant and uses it, he is violating the intent of vop. Perhaps it is not in the rules, but boed is for mature audiences, and vop is sacrificing a lot, but how does one answer questions like if a vop character gets dirt on their feat? Do the break their vow? Its not on the list… but one has to look outside of these lists and use commune sense or logic. However uncommon it may be.
If anyone is offended don’t be, its not my intent. haha get it?
I realize that one must understand language but not understanding the intention of that language can lead to abuse of the rules (intention can do this as well), but i see to often people who use rules to undermine intent. I also see this alot in d&d. take pun pun. when the game designers were thinking of some of the abilities pun pun uses, i am sure they were not thinking that the intention of the abilities used to could be combined to create pun pun, but exploitation of the raw as permitted it.
A campaign played with just raw will find many soft spots in the rules. How does one continue to play a game strictly by the rules if the rules have holes in them. Something must be used to fill theses holes. One must look at the rules and analyze how it applies to the rest of the game, and then try to figure out how it was intended to fit.
Other times the rules have oversights. Like karmatic strike. You get an attack of opportunity when you are hit, but attacks of opportunity come before the hit, but to get the attack of opportunity you must first be hit. how does one decide if the rules are inherently flawed. adding trip with the attack of opportunity can prevent the attack of opportunity from even happening. Its a basic time paradox. You go back in time to kill your mom before you were born. What happens? Do you inherently fail no matter what you do because time and destiny are the same river? or can you actually kill your mom altering time, or creating a parallel universe?
The raw can only go so far. intention can be used to fill the gaps. A campaign that relies only on raw will have greater problems then just the current rules that are creating problems. So I stand by statement, but i should have been more clear.
One could also argue that raw doesn’t exist, that no matter how you write something, someone will read it differently and its intention will change from person to person.
The sun is yellow.
Do I mean
1: the sun happens to create a interpretation of a collection of radiation that hits the retina of our eyes and gets processed by our visual cortex?
or do i mean
2: the sun is a incarnation of yellow, and in a Socratics sense. the sun is a foundation by which we deprive and pervert the idea into a crayon called yellow?
The statement is shallow, but if i add to this statement ...
Socrates is coloring a picture using crayons
the sky is blue and the sun is yellow
This still can be ambiguous, but I can more safely assume that we are talking about #1. The sun is yellow in the sense of color.
Raw is limited in understanding, but likewise Rai (rules as indented) can be equally devastating if one is not understanding the language of which the intention was written in. the problem with Rai is that sometimes personal agendas can be mixed with the intention as it can be different from person to person. I think a small part of intention is clear to everyone (in some cases), some people just have their eyes closed or don’t care about the intention because the raw is in their favor. It has blinded me more then just once in the name of power and greed.
Now you ask ... what’s the point? well in terms of vop we can read over and over what a vop character can and cant have. Even in raw their are arguments to what this may entail. The intention of vop i believe is to create a true carnation of someone who forgives the material in favor of immaterial. it is also intended to give up and forsake the ownership and use of magic items.
I think that vop was based off monks of the monasteries of erup and the temples of tidbit. I believe this tidbit of history needs to be added to the purpose of vop. I think their is allot of good to vop, but as written it has lots of holes and a complete misunderstand of the real vows of poverty that history has shown us.
When dm with vop you should ask yourself, is allowing a vop character to do X breaking the intent of vop (see real life monks as part of vops balance and restrictions is the role-play aspect) and is X unbalancing the game in terms of pure numbers and mechanics.
I was going to write about vop and clerics and druids, and the absurdity of a druid not being able to carry holly. I think other arguments have stated this argument. But let me say that I think vop should be based off allowing x item and limiting any iteam to 5 gold peaces of value. This fits the intentions of not owning something very valuable (like a cross bow). Crossbows are simple weapons to use but are complex in creation. I think a vop should even perhaps create everything they use via craft. If they can find the martial though foregoing they should be able to create it and own it (not magic items though for balance).
What made me stop my long argument was this line its alittle to raw for me, but perhaps it will satisfy thoughs who feel raw is the letter and is the balance.
It says a vop character can sacrifice xp for expensive components (under ramifications of poverty). A wooden divine focus is one gold peace. It is 1xp for 5 gold peaces. This by the raw… hahah… might mean that a vop character would have no need for a df because he would sacrifice the 0 xp for the 1 gold peace of a df.
As for the druid… well I think that its silly to think that druid that picks a df off a plant and uses it, he is violating the intent of vop. Perhaps it is not in the rules, but boed is for mature audiences, and vop is sacrificing a lot, but how does one answer questions like if a vop character gets dirt on their feat? Do the break their vow? Its not on the list… but one has to look outside of these lists and use commune sense or logic. However uncommon it may be.
If anyone is offended don’t be, its not my intent. haha get it?
Last edited:
Rystil Arden
First Post
What if a VoP druid finds the rare Blood Lotus, a valuable flower (5,000 gp value) that can be used in a powerful druidic ritual. Is it okay to take it with her and then use it in the ritual?
If so, is it okay for a VoP Wizard who goes mining for jewels to keep that 10,000 gp black sapphire he found as a spell component? Or diving for pearls to cast spells that require those?
What if he finds a magic item lying around on the ground?
Where do you draw th line?
If so, is it okay for a VoP Wizard who goes mining for jewels to keep that 10,000 gp black sapphire he found as a spell component? Or diving for pearls to cast spells that require those?
What if he finds a magic item lying around on the ground?
Where do you draw th line?
With roleplaying elements- ask what is the intent.
If he just found the lotus by happenstance, sure. If he went questing for it in order to make himself a complete badass? No.
If the mining is done by him in order to find material spell components for a spell that will permanently banish all of the evil in the world for 1 year (or some similarly other-oriented reason), especially if its at the direction of his Church or Deity, sure.
If he's just doing it to increase his personal power, no.
And if he encounters someone who could make better use of the wealth those items represent than the use for which he intended them, like a farmer about to lose his land because his crop failed, he should surrender that material component to that person.
I also want to point out that I feel that its a cop-out to let the VoP PC use material components others are carrying- its a tactic to circumvent the spirit of the VoP as surely as having someone carry extra stuff for a Paladin to use against specific opponents.
Either the ascetic can obtain and carry the material component, or he can't use it at all.
If he just found the lotus by happenstance, sure. If he went questing for it in order to make himself a complete badass? No.
If the mining is done by him in order to find material spell components for a spell that will permanently banish all of the evil in the world for 1 year (or some similarly other-oriented reason), especially if its at the direction of his Church or Deity, sure.
If he's just doing it to increase his personal power, no.
And if he encounters someone who could make better use of the wealth those items represent than the use for which he intended them, like a farmer about to lose his land because his crop failed, he should surrender that material component to that person.
I also want to point out that I feel that its a cop-out to let the VoP PC use material components others are carrying- its a tactic to circumvent the spirit of the VoP as surely as having someone carry extra stuff for a Paladin to use against specific opponents.
Either the ascetic can obtain and carry the material component, or he can't use it at all.
Artoomis
First Post
Rystil Arden said:
The line is pretty bright: both of these cases are not acceptable.
On the other hand, finding an item and using it immediately MIGHT be permissible. Certainly, if someone gives it to you to use you may do so - but you cannot keep it for even one round.
Clearly, the VoP does NOT work for all classes - at least not as written.
I'd like to see this vow re-written for non-exalted characters. Requiring two feats is still okay, but I'd like to see the role-playing restriction of being "exalted" removed.
If I were to re-write it I'd allow a spell component pouch, ONE spell book (no backup copies), one no-value divine focus and maybe even one set of low-value thieves tools (no masterwork allowed).
So then how would donating a share of treasure work in general, if the VoPper cannot even hold on to his share of teh treasure until he reaches civilization?Artoomis said:
Does he need to ask one of his party members to hold on to the loot until he reaches an appropriate charity?
Artoomis
First Post
Dimwhit said:
Right. Holding on to expensive spell components so you can use them later is clearly not within the intent - however, you may use magic items given from another player if you use them in the same round they are given (that's in the feat description), so I applied that to expensive spell components as being pretty similar and within the intent that you can use something that you have if you use it right away. Otherwise - it's a violation of the vow.
I do think the vow should not only be re-written to be available for non-exalted characters, but also a mechanism put in place for atoning for breaking the vow - at least for violations that are not deliberate and/or are unintentional.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
While it is true that both confession and the atonement spell have similarities, they're hardly the same thing. Neither of the two individuals you list carried holy symbols for the purpose of producing miracles - they carried them to brand themselves members of a faith. Flinging miracles around has never been in the list of "things that a christian priest does".Dannyalcatraz said:
He may well have been less powerful. Religion in the real world has nothing to do with |_||+1|\/|@+3 |*0\X/3|2. It's generally about who's the most enlightened, and often not even that.
Who never once dropped a flamestrike on anyone's butt.
These guys gave up all their material wealth because they thought it was the right thing to do, not to get boons from their god.
Real world religion!=D&D religion
Saint != D&D style Vow of Poverty feat.
Rystil Arden
First Post
DannyAlcatraz said:
Okay, following that line of thought, if a VoP Paladin's church asks him to quest for Evilsbane, a mighty Artefact Holy Avenger sword that in the hands of a paladin of his faith is the only hope to defeat the marauding demon army that is destroying the kingdom, he can use the sword to attack the demons without violating his vow?
