Is Vow of Poverty broken?

[Nail]

But every exalted character does not have to be in the service of a single god, or any god.

Exactly.

YMMV, IMC, etc.

 

[Rystil Arden]

At least according to the rules, the vow does not need to be to a god. And for a polytheistic or irreligious exalted character, that would be rather clear-cut. But what about the guy who makes the vow to the cause of good itself, not Pelor, but he does choose Pelor as his patron deity (though he's a Monk, so it's not like he's getting divine spells from Pelor). Then it could indeed come up that Pelor's church conflicts with his vow. More interesting would be someone who made the vow to the cause of good first and then impressed Pelor, becoming a Paladin of Pelor. Pelor's Neutral Good dogma could put the player between an interesting rock and hard place--stuck between his Vow of Poverty and his Paladin's duty to follow Pelor.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I still believe a vop character should uphold his vop under any other circumstance. it balances the feat somewhat. If my characters god told me to use a sword to smite bbeg, I would tell that god, that it would violate my vow. If the god gets angry at being declined because she (ehlona) wanted my character to do something that would violate the vow, well that god is just going to have to grow up.

It says exaltedness shouldn’t be used as a commodity or sacrifice to stop evil. I think that some mentality should be used on sacred vow feats. Vop is not something to throw away or sacrifice for the greater good. By breaking your vow you are helping evil in the long run (even if you kill the bbeg who might have distoryed the world)

Exaltedness isn’t so much like the human condition that we face everyday, so if one trys to understand good and evil in conventional methods, one is only going to upset themselves. This is why boed is mature.

Read the book if you don’t understand. Its explanation of good and evil may differ from yours but it really sets things into perspective for vop.

It’s quite interesting in the campaign I am in though. We are playing with a freer alignment system then vop should have, where nothing has a predestined alignment (except for undead) so i can’t just kill orcs because i know that all or orcs are evil in the monster manual. Also detect evil spells detect evil from your perspective (clear cutters might be evil from a druids point of view) (more like real life) its quite fun. This is probably going to add fun role play situations of moral and ethics. It’s going to get challenging trying to keep exaltedness when none is truly good or evil, or right and wrong, but its going to be fun. It’s a more exiteing challenge then trying to beat the dm. I still try to adhear to the code in boed's though.

I hope everyone has fun with vop and exalted play. It has brought up many political and social sciences and addressed many issues of thought. yay Socrates… my hero!!!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I still believe a vop character should uphold his vop under any other circumstance. it balances the feat somewhat. If my characters god told me to use a sword to smite bbeg, I would tell that god, that it would violate my vow.

My overall position on Vow vs Religion is this:

If the Sacred Vow and VoP are to a cause or philosophy, and the PC is devoted to a god (or vice versa), then there is a conflict that is (possibly) resolvable through roleplay. That is permissible. There may even be an establishable heirarchy within the game world to help resolve such a conflict.

The real problem comes when any of the below is true:

If the Sacred Vow and VoP are to a god, the same god the PC is devoted to, then the SV & VoP are subordinate to the PCs overall duty to his god- the god has the final say as to what the PC can get away with. The DM really has no business in putting a player in the position of having to decide between the relative importance of 2 divine orders from the same divine being, the Ultimately Supreme source of rules within his clergy. Presumably, if the god is asking you to do something that is outside the bounds of your normal scope of abilities (as in, it is circumscribed by your vows to the deity), that god has a good reason, and shouldn't penalize you for doing what he asked you to do. This is especially the case if we are dealing with a good god, as we are in this specific case.

If the Sacred Vow and VoP are to a cause or philosophy, the same cause or philosophy the PC is devoted to, then the SV & VoP are usually subordinate to, but possibly co-equal to, the PCs overall duty to his cause or philosophy. There may be an in-campaign process for resolving this conflict, but its not likely. This is the most problematic of the situations because a cause of philosophy is not, by itself, sentient, so it cannot aid in the decision making process. If, as has been suggested, that a Cleric or Paladin devoted to a cause/philosophy is granted his abilities by any/all gods of like viewpoints, the SV & VoP may be in conflict with more than one god's desires...a recipe for a minor holy war. Once again, it is unfair of the DM to put the player in such a situation.

 

[Conaill]

Once again, it is unfair of the DM to put the player in such a situation.

Keep in mind that "unfair" may not even come into play. It's pretty easy to come up with a scenario where in-game circumstances beyond the DM's control may put the player in such a situation.

For example, what if the party is heading for a TPK, and the only one left standing is the VoP character. Should he let the hordes of hell be unleashed upon the world? Or should he pick up the Sacred Key (which had been carried by another party member) and close the portal? In a situation such as this, it's essentially up to the VoP character to judge what the will of his god would be.

If something like that came up in a game I was running, and the player chose to give up his VoP in exchange for saving the world, I would make damn sure his character would be rewarded for that action. (I would probably consult with the player and see whether he wants the VoP to be reinstated, or whether he'd want the character to take a different direction.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's pretty easy to come up with a scenario where in-game circumstances beyond the DM's control may put the player in such a situation.

I'm sorry, but that is a bit of a cop-out. By definition, in-game situations are ALWAYS within the DM's control.

For example, the scenario you outlined is very similar to the Evilsbane scenario discussed previously.

Simply put, IMHO, if the Ascetic is put in a situation of VoP vs World destruction, he should not lose the benefits of his VoP because he chose the greater good. Assuming the Ascetic is the devotee of a sentient being or beings rather than a mere philosophy, there is no logical reason why a good god would put the VoP before the good of the world and his worshipers he purports to care about, except pure spite and pettiness.

(If the VoP is to a philosophy, and this situation arose, I'd probably HR to allow Atonement to be effective.)

But regardless, its still a situation in the control of the DM. Its up to him to consider the possibility that the Ascetic in his campaign may be the last man standing if he's designing an adventure that requries doing something an Ascetic cannot do.

 

[Rystil Arden]

But regardless, its still a situation in the control of the DM. Its up to him to consider the possibility that the Ascetic in his campaign may be the last man standing if he's designing an adventure that requries doing something an Ascetic cannot do.

That's hardly fair, though--doing that would basically be allowing the player to metagame force the GM's hand away from a large number of perfectly valid possibilities that anyone but the ascetic could do and there is no in-game reason it needs to be the ascetic rather than another normal party member (unless everybody else dies).

That said, I allow Atonement due to the note on page 39 that says you can regain Exalted feat benefits with an Atonement, even after committing a truly evil act. So if you can kill babies, atone, and get back your power, then why not get them back after saving the world by using an item and atoning?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That said, I allow Atonement due to the note on page 39 that says you can regain Exalted feat benefits with an Atonement, even after committing a truly evil act.

Except that the BoED expressly states:

Vow of Poverty...If you break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. (BoED p48)

unlike other vows that specifically allow Atonement as penance, like the Vows of Abstinance, Chastity, Nonviolence, Obedience, Peace & Purity.

VoP is the exception. No Atonement allowed, RAW.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Except that the BoED expressly states:



unlike other vows that specifically allow Atonement as penance, like the Vows of Abstinance, Chastity, Nonviolence, Obedience, Peace & Purity.

VoP is the exception. No Atonement allowed, RAW.

Which is why I said I allow it, not that it is RAW. I'm well aware of that particular clause.

 

[Rystil Arden]

It's still pretty silly though:

"Okay next Atonement. Brother Evilor, what did you do this time?"

"I raped virgins and sacrificed them to Grazz't. But I realised the errors of my ways. Can I have my Exalted feats back? I can't do it again without my Exalted feats."

"Why certainly. May you be atoned under the light. There. Next? Brother Penurio?"

"Uhh...my companions and I tracked down a holy artefact of goodness, but they all died battling the demons to get it, so I activated it and destroyed the demon army of Grazz't that somebody seems to have summoned to our kingdom...but it broke my Vow of Poverty, though I only did it to save the defenseless folk of the land. I am truly repentant and shall flagellate myself mightily. Can I have my Exalted feat back?"

"Of course not! Defendor, god of saving defenseless folk of the land despises your foul acts of inquity! Get out of my sight!"