Is Vow of Poverty broken?

[billd91]

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?

I think in a case like this, the unique situation and role-playing concerns should trump a strict reading of the rules. It's clear that the VoP Paladin doesn't own the sword but it's also clear that the order wouldn't mind him using it as needed, at least for the duration of the quest and until they can reassign it to another member of the order who hasn't taken the vow of poverty.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I think in a case like this, the unique situation and role-playing concerns should trump a strict reading of the rules. It's clear that the VoP Paladin doesn't own the sword but it's also clear that the order wouldn't mind him using it as needed, at least for the duration of the quest and until they can reassign it to another member of the order who hasn't taken the vow of poverty.

But then what's the point of the Vow of Poverty? What if I'm the player of a VoP Paladin and I take all my quests directly from the church and they're all like this, so the church always winds up lending me powerful magic items for each quest?

 

[Moon-Lancer]

i would think that vop paladin couldn’t use the sword and he would have to quest for someone that could. I think this because if vop may be broken only when it counts, then vop is not really the role-play restriction it was meant to be. I remember a wrote post that was long and far away compared vop to Galahads chastity. Basically a girl wanted him, and he had made a vow to stay pure. When he denied her, she said she would kill herself. He Denied her again, and she killed herself. He kept his vow even if it might have been the wrong thing to do at the time. To him, his vow was more important then her life. He was forced with chooseing between two wrongs, … and yada yda yada.. well you get the picture.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

But then what's the point of the Vow of Poverty? What if I'm the player of a VoP Paladin and I take all my quests directly from the church and they're all like this, so the church always winds up lending me powerful magic items for each quest?

As one would presume the church is roleplayed by the DM, I am not sure how this could ever be a real problem. The church should only be lending out magic items for the most exceptional situations. If not, the DM has already kissed goodbye any normal sense of balance as implied by the ruleset.

Under the logic of the mechanics, the VoP abilities is a compensation for the items the PC does not possess. Is it a "problem" if a normal (non-VoP) Paladin is handed a superpowerful item for a special occasion? Of course not. Ditto for the VoP Paladin.

If a DM wants to make an exception for a good campaign reason, I do not see a problem with fudging mechanics so that certain items are neither wealth nor possessions. How about a sentient weapon that contains the soul of a saint or angel? Can such an item be possessed? That is really a DM call.

 

[Particle_Man]

Except that these are player characters - the exact people who go on those one in a million quests, nine times out of ten. Hence they will spend a disproportionate amount of time precisely with those "rare" cases. Hence while VoP would still be meaningful to NPCs, it would be much less so to to PCs.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Except that these are player characters - the exact people who go on those one in a million quests, nine times out of ten. Hence they will spend a disproportionate amount of time precisely with those "rare" cases. Hence while VoP would still be meaningful to NPCs, it would be much less so to to PCs.

Exactly.

 

[Artoomis]

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?

No. Period.

Not the way the vow was written - this violates both the letter and spirit of the feat as presented in BoED.

This is a way for a player to get all the advantages of the feat for her character and then side-step a key restriction.

Now, if one were to re-write the feat so that, for example, using a weapon in a case like this would impose negative levels (maybe 2) for, say, during the time the weapon was carried plus one month, than maybe this would work better. The month of negative levels would represent atonement time for violating the vow for the greater good.

The point, I think, is to find a way to allow certain violations of the vow without opening it up for abuse.

Hmmm.... How about 1 negative level per week, cumulative, maximum 4, resets after 1 month. Reminder: For each negative level: -1 on all skill and ability checks, -1 attacks and saves, -5 hit points, 1 fewer spell of the highest level. I think that would keep abuse this in check, perhaps.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Okay, now to those who have been following my line of examples--if we head back to the Blood Lotus, worth 5,000 GP, that the PC found in the forest, or the sapphire, worth 10,000 GP, that the PC mined in the ground (and I completely agree that they should not get to keep these), assuming you also think that the VoP character should get to have the 'pretty flower in the hair' , what distinguishes the other cases from the pretty flower to make it so. Is it raw value? In which case, what if the PC picks the Blood Lotus and puts it in her hair without knowing the cost?

 

[Cheiromancer]

A lot of real life stuff gets transmuted into material for DnD. Although real life religion != DnD religion, there is a bit of simulationist in most games, and you are definitely going to see things based on real life sources. For instance, Elisha drops flame strikes on some soldiers in II Kings 1:10. (There are lots of cool druid/cleric effects in I and II Kings, btw). While I am doubtful of the historicity of the passage, it is certainly a real life text.

Acts 3:6 has Peter saying to a crippled beggar: "Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk." And the beggar is healed. Or maybe healed.

The story goes that Thomas Aquinas surprised Pope Innocent II as he was counting stacks of money. The pope said, “Brother you see that Peter can no longer say ‘Silver and gold have I none.’”

“Quite true,” replied Aquinas, “But Peter can also no longer say to the lame man, ‘Rise up and walk.’”

Sometimes it's St. Dominic being given a tour of the Vatican. In other versions of the story it is St. Francis. The pope is usually unnamed, but I've seen Innocent II and Innocent IV. The details don't really matter; it's a cool story.

And, without gettng sidetracked with real life religion, it illustrates how people might want to associate poverty (lack of silver and gold) with divine gifts. So if for some reason you are modeling miracle workers (especially saints or apostles) in D20, you might link clerical spellcasting with taking (and living) the appropriate vows.

That said, I suspect it might be a good idea not to have the VoP be quite so black and white. To borrow from real life rules you might have a "mitigated vow of poverty". Or a "simple vow" as opposed to a "solemn vow." Maybe you could compare the character's wealth to the wealth by level guidelines, and give him the difference in vow related powers.

For instance, if a 10th level character with the vow has 6th level wealth, he has the VoP benefits of a 4th level character. They would also need permission from their superiors to use particular items, and the use would have to be justified. A holy sword to slay the BBEG, etc.. Not just any bunch of loot. The character would not actually own the item; he couldn't sell it or give it away, and he would have to return it at his superior's request.

I don't know if this would be balanced, or even makes sense (I gave away my copy of BoED) but something like this might work in some cases. But not in others: if you are running a D20 modern game with low magic, you'd probably want to require the full vow, and give nothing for mitigated or simple vows. Lots of people in real life take a vow of poverty (I'm one of them), but it almost never applies as strictly as the BoED describes it (I have access to a computer, for instance, which I am using right now). And almost none of these people have magical powers (at least, I don't! )

 

[billd91]

Except that these are player characters - the exact people who go on those one in a million quests, nine times out of ten. Hence they will spend a disproportionate amount of time precisely with those "rare" cases. Hence while VoP would still be meaningful to NPCs, it would be much less so to to PCs.

But these quests are also designed by the DM. If he's fine with the VoP character using a quest item in certain circumstances, then that's fine. If he's not, he'll design questions where this question won't even come up.