Is Vow of Poverty broken?

[Rystil Arden]

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.

What if he doesn't have the time and picks up a module, like say The Temple of Elemental Evil with that ridiculous holy sword?

 

[billd91]

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?

WRT not knowing the cost:
Is it possible to break the VoP without knowing it? I don't see how it can be. If your character or the player honestly doesn't know that the vow is being broken, I don't see how a DM can enforce it. I'd include in this the player knowing the item's value but honestly saying that the PC would not and having the credibility to back that up.

If the player is metagaming it in order to have an expensive item, then I'd say the vow is broken.

If the vow can be broken unknowingly, with both the PC and the player not knowing and without there being a reasonably easy way to tell if the vow would be broken, then I think there would be too much room for shameless DM entrapment. And that's not fair.

 

[Scion]

What if he doesn't have the time and picks up a module, like say The Temple of Elemental Evil with that ridiculous holy sword?

If there is absolutely no other option other than for the vop character to violate his vow then that is railroading of the worst kind.

There should always be options. I dont know much about that module but maybe they could go to a church nearby and grab someone who can weild that weapon or maybe one of the characters could commission some gloves that would allow them to weild weapon type X or something.

But, there should 'always' be options, even if they are difficult. Keeping the vow doesnt have to be easy, but violating it should never be mandatory. Especially since that basically means it is time to roll up a new character.

 

[billd91]

What if he doesn't have the time and picks up a module, like say The Temple of Elemental Evil with that ridiculous holy sword?

From a realistic standpoint, what religious organization is going to send their minions on a quest for a powerful holy item and then not expect them to use any powers at their disposal to bring the item back? Rules be buggered, it would be silly to expect a VoP character to not use the quest item if the situation is dire enough.
And even if the DM doesn't have a lot of time and uses modules, the quest for Temple of Elemental Evil, for example, doesn't have to be the retrieval of a holy sword. It could be bringing back proof of the banishment of the demon lord entrapped there.

Even in modules, there's usually plenty of wiggle room to pick one aspect of the adventure to be the quest rather than some item or other filthy lucre.

 

[Artoomis]

...Rules be buggered, it would be silly to expect a VoP character to not use the quest item if the situation is dire enough...

Could you give me your opinion of post #137?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

As I see it, making an exception is a way for the DM to get all the advantages of a PC having the feat and then side-step a key restriction.

In general a good DM should not be including major quests in his campaign that would absolutely require a PC to break such a vow without clearly warning the player ahead of time. That would be very sloppy DMing.

If a DM chooses to take the campaign outside the bounds of the general assumptions on which the rules were built, a perfectly valid choice, then some elements of the RAW will inevitably break. The VoP feat only makes sense as written within certain general assumptions about the power balance in the campaign. If the DM shifts the balance by introducing extremely powerful factors not anticipated by the RAW, adjustments needs to be made to the RAW.

BTW, Rystil Arden earlier in the thread made the general comment that the VoP is too powerful in a magic poor world, too weak in a magic rich one. Throwing in major artifacts suggests a campaign which is very magic rich. VoP is the a sucker's play in such a campaign. The DM should either adjust the VoP or dissuade the PC from taking the VoP in the first place.

 

[Conaill]

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?

In-game, I would say that any paladin worth his salt would gladly give up whatever personal vow he made, and all the benefits that come with it, in order to "defeat the marauding demon army that is destroying the kingdom" at the request of his own church.

Personal sacrifice should pale in comparison to the greater good, and the paladin shouldn't even think twice to make that choice. Just like he shouldn't think twice to give his own *life* (let alone some ability bonuses) for the same goal.

As for breaking a promise he made to his god... if his god asks him to break that promise, who is he to refuse? Unless he believes the orders of his church contradict his gods wishes (e.g. a corrupt church hierarchy), he should follow them regardless of personal loss or prior arrangements. It would be supreme arrogance to claim that a paladin's word to his god outranks that gods wishes...


Out of game, I think it's probably not the best idea for a DM to put his paladin player into a situation like that. Although the paladin player should be able to figure out what to to quite easily (see above). It may lead to some cool roleplaying to strip the paladin from his VoP powers while he's in posession of the sword (which probably gives him some additional powers anyway). But it would be cruel and unfair of the DM not to restore those powers after the quest has been completed...

 

[Particle_Man]

From a realistic standpoint, what religious organization is going to send their minions on a quest for a powerful holy item and then not expect them to use any powers at their disposal to bring the item back? Rules be buggered, it would be silly to expect a VoP character to not use the quest item if the situation is dire enough.

Would it be equally silly to expect a paladin to refrain from torturing people to get information on where that item is, assuming that that is the "only" way to get the item?

The biggest point that BoED makes is that the ends NEVER justify the means. To use evil to further a good cause is explicitly disallowed. By analogy, to use that magic item breaks VoP and one loses those benefits. Period.

If you argue from a more utilitarian framework for your gameworld, you will have to change a lot more about the rules than VoP.

 

[billd91]

Could you give me your opinion of post #137?

I think it's a little too fiddly. I think a better alternative would be to assign some kind of atonement task to the PC once the quest is successfully completed and then consider the vow broken if the PC does nothing to advance that atonement task in good faith.
Note that this also requires the DM to come up with the task and give the PC the chance to actually make good on it. I think a period of dedicated penance at the church or some other god-indulgent austerity would be fine, as well as embarking on a short program of good works.
Basically, since the quest had been assigned by the church in the first place, the atonement should fit in with the church and its ethics, and be interesting to role-play out as appropriate.

In general, I'm more in favor of appripriate, in character atonement to be done after the infractions are committed whether they are vow-breaking (by the rules) or paladin code-breaking.

 

[Artoomis]

...The biggest point that BoED makes is that the ends NEVER justify the means. To use evil to further a good cause is explicitly disallowed. By analogy, to use that magic item breaks VoP and one loses those benefits. Period...

Correct. That's the way it is written. Exalted characters live to different standards than the rest of the world.

The concept of VoP is great, but the implementation is rather... harsh. The biggest problem I see is the failure to include a mechanic for allowing for some sort of oath violation and atonement.

Again, I think the solution is to pull it out of the Exalted book and make it an ordinary feat chain with some mechanic that allows for penalties for violations of teh oath wihtou losing all benefits permanently.

This is where I think negative levels could be used very effectively. There is some precedent for this type of use of negative levels, after all, of not an exact parallel. Anyway, maybe something with negative levels and maybe even atonement on top of that - something along those lines, anyway.

No matter how it is handled, it is very clear that, as written, no owning or use of equipment is allowed except as specifically laid out in the feat.