Is Vow of Poverty broken?

[Nonlethal Force]

Here here ... if only there was a DM out there who enjoyed working with the players rather than always trying to screw them over! Now ... where does one find one of those ...

Anyway, back on topic: I tend to take a hard line on the VoP and use of non-mundane items or spending of money. Its never allowed. Sorry. That's just the way I DM. [I do not consider outright donation to the poor/needy/church be a part of "spending."]

But, I also never put my players in a situation where it is "Keep your vow and forget the quest OR Break the vow and finish the quest." To me that is just bad planning on the DM.

In My Homebrew World (Key words being My and Homebrew) the church would be smart enough not to send in said VoP person alone to rescue the famed Glorious Holy Artifact of Vow of Poverty Breaking. The VoP player might be sent in as an assistant to someone who could bring forth the item ... but give organized religion some credit, please. Deities are supposed to have it all figured out. Churches have many followers - even the secretive ones. Find a companion (or six) for the VoP character so that the VoP character can have fun with their vow and someone else can stand in the limelight and actually tote the thing home.

VoP characters seldom get the glory for the BBEG, but they earn the respect of the commonfolk. Seriously, if you were starving out on the street and someone came by toting the huge sword and someone else came by and gave you enough money or food so that you could eat for the rest of the week ... who would you remember? That is the kind of glory that an exhalted character taking the VoP seeks.

And lets not forget, people. VoP characters are not just good, they are infact exhalted. That is significant. Your ordinary good paladin and a VoP character need not be the same mindset at all.

 

[Darmanicus]

In answer to your question VoP isn't broken at all. If anything I'd say it was slightly underpowered.

A fully equipped character according to DMG guidelines will WOP the VoP.....anyday IMHO.

And just remember, an AM field will negate a lot of those abilities as well.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm a big fan of the VoP, but let's look a bit smaller. A VoP character is ambushed along with one other. The other is bleeding to death and further more baddies are on the way. His buddy has a potion of cure moderate wounds. What does he do?

The BoED would argue either
a) Don't put PCs in this situation.
b) Try to stabilize the friend and pray for help

I'd lean more toward a than b. Bit I don't really like either one. Letting him use the potion and keeping VoP leads to a slippery slope.

This is a bit of an oddity...after all, the VoP specifically allows the Ascetic to recieve the benefits of "a potion of cure serious wounds a friend gives (him)." (BoED p48).

(And, lets be honest- that is clearly an example of the Ascetic using a magic item.)

So, if he can use it on himself...he should be able to use it for another, especially since it is the buddy's potion being used for the buddy's well being.

Screw that! Sure, he can *ask*, but if he turns down a direct request from his god, he may as well kiss all his god-given powers goodbye.

That was kinda my point. The DM is basically not playing fair if he has the Ascetic's deity make the choice between losing his VoP-based abilities and his deity's direct demands. (I'll even go so far as to say that this is even more the case when a VoP PC is sworn to an ideal or cause rather than a specific deity because a cause is non-sentient, and cannot make exceptions.)

His choices become:

1) Keep the Vow and lose his other abilities until he Atones (assuming he survives the encounter or his deity's wrath), or

2) Break the Vow, do as his deity demands, and lose all of his VoP abilities, or

3) Break the Vow, do as his deity demands, and keep his VoP abilities because breaking the Vow serves the greater purposes of the deity to whom he made the Vow.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I agree with alot of the posters on page five. If a dm puts a character in a position whare in both cases, he is going to loose his vop, then that’s not very mature, and the dm shouldn’t be using vop.

(unless the dm is testing the player to see if he would break his vow. the corrent responce is that a vop charicter should uphold his vow now matter what. like aberham and god, or ghalahad and the girl, the vop charicter breaks his vow... then oops. a god that asks a vop charicter to break his vop, and takes away his vow if he doesent, then its really not a good god afterall, and shouldent be worshiped.. If he falls out of favor of a god, why couldent he just atone or find a new god?)

if vop is followed by the dm and the player, its a balanced feat. Its unbalanced when many exceptions are made (like the holy sword).

Vop can be hard or easy depending on the dm. I like the feat. Its not far from raw to let a cleric use a wooden holy symbol, a wizard to get only 2 spells a level and only have one book, a druid use holly or to allow for craftable weapons that would have to be made without the proper faculties, tools, and the materials would have to be scrounged up or foraged.

My dm has said that using wood shape would be ok to use a bow and arrow, as long as its not a composite. She took away crossbows because although they are simple to use, they are not simple to make and they are expensive.

She also has allowed key mundane items (like pc's mothers neckless) to be worn or use a wizards spell book to help with scrying (one could say its using the magic items, but not as its intended to be used).

She also has allowed the vop character to gain benefit of key story items (nothing like swords) but say there is a mirror that the pc's travel through to get to plane to plane. the vop character can use things like that (in her campain), but she would never allow the character to use a wand for any reason, or use a magic iteam that is directly effecting the vop charicter, that isent just a story mechanic that is used outside of combat.

A sword can be a story mechanic, but its also combat based, so its unbalanceing for a vop charicter to get to use relecis or swords or things to fight bbeg. Now if a dm wants to have things like this, and have the vop charicter able to use final battle eq, it should not be a real iteam. Maybe allow the player (if a caster) to get a sudden use of a near epic spell, or maybe have a sword like soul reaver for a fighter, (like a mindblade) so it could never really be sold, or used persay but comes from the pc in question and goes away after the fight.

Its really the same thing, so a dm should be weary of doing things like this.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

She also has allowed key mundane items (like pc's mothers neckless) to be worn or use a wizards spell book to help with scrying (one could say its using the magic items, but not as its intended to be used).

Well, that's not really using the book as anything but as a wizard's personal property to help focus a scrying attempt...not really using the item as an item.

 

[Conaill]

I'm a big fan of the VoP, but let's look a bit smaller. A VoP character is ambushed along with one other. The other is bleeding to death and further more baddies are on the way. His buddy has a potion of cure moderate wounds. What does he do?

The BoED would argue either
a) Don't put PCs in this situation.
b) Try to stabilize the friend and pray for help.

I'd lean more toward a than b. Bit I don't really like either one. Letting him use the potion and keeping VoP leads to a slippery slope.

(Humm, could a VoP character summon a creature and have the creature give his friend the potion? That may actually work by the rules but I dislike it a lot.)

Well that case at least is easy. Administering a potion to someone else strictly speaking is only helping the *other* person use it. So the VoP character never goes against his own vow.

A trickier situation would be if the other person had a *wand* of CMW. In that case, the VoP character would have to use it himself.

Potions work on the user, wands work on a designated target...

 

[Conaill]

the corrent responce is that a vop charicter should uphold his vow now matter what.

Even against his own gods wishes? I don't think so...

It's not a sacrifice if you get so many powers in return that you don't want to give them up. The real test of faith should be whether the PC is willing to give up those powers to answer his god's call.

Of course, out-of-game, such choice by the player to give up the VoP should be *rewarded*, not punished. In the example way up above, the PC gets to carry some artifact sword to defeat the demon army. The DM might attach enough special powers to the sword itself to make up for the loss of VoP abilities. Or he might judge that placing the PC in the central of attention for several sessions is sufficient reward for the player. Or he might decide that the god is generous enough to let the PC keep his VoP powers while he is on this mission. In either case, the PC should not be *worse* off after fulfilling the quest, so the VoP powers should simply be reinstated, or replaced by some other benefits to make up for it.

 

[Nifft]

Even against his own gods wishes? I don't think so...

If your god is telling you to do something that would violate your Paladin's Code of Honor, or your Vow of Whatever, your god is being roleplayed poorly. Your DM should be smacked. It's not a useful situation to consider.

So, let's drop it.

-- N

 

[Nail]

Is someone claiming the Vow of Poverty restrictions are independent of their god's wishes?

(shrug) Could be, I suppose, given a polytheistic universe.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Is someone claiming the Vow of Poverty restrictions are independent of their god's wishes?

(shrug) Could be, I suppose, given a polytheistic universe.

It depends on who the vow is to, I suppose. One could have an exalted character even in an atheistic universe, and the vow would be only to himself. If a VoP character has had an expereince with his specific god in making the vow, then certainly I'd consider that god to be responsible for the restrictions and benefits and able to made adjustments in either. But every exalted character does not have to be in the service of a single god, or any god.