Vile Poverty

[Thia Halmades]

No argument, wuyanei, you're absolutely right, and there's a few threads floating around where I say exactly that.

However (who didn't see that coming?)

However, I'd like to point out that the BoVD, which I drew inspiration from for that, is really clear on what their Feats and abilities are like; we're talking about the ugly, nasty, dirty evil. We're talking more about an absolute evil than a relative evil. This conversation can go on eternally, trading examples ad infinitum, so I'll keep myself in some measure of check. Simply:

- I wanted to offer a variant that had a cost for a return, while maintaining the flavor of evil. My version could apply to either NE or CE (but not LE).

- Your point, that an LE would do it differently, is well taken. I submit, however, that evil people as a rule prefer to be paid. I will agree, though, that if you're running a more sublime reality (as I do) then your evil NPCs can most certainly be evil for the sake of promoting their/their God's objectives, but the loyalty of these people is tenuous at best, by definition.

- Hence, you have to have a return for the Feat. They have to receive something that effectively rewards them for being evil, even if that reward is ultimately bad for them (which, let's be frank, having 8 nipples and demons sucking on you all night is pretty freaking bad, but you have a demon army at your disposal. Evil is twisted like that).

So that was what I was trying to invoke. Argument acknowledged & Point Yielded (well done), explanation included for clarification of exactly what I was doing & why.

 

[Aus_Snow]

*snip*

Actually, I agree with Django on this one. I just don't buy it. A Vow of Poverty is meant to strengthen you; evil doesn't do the whole inner strength thing. You'd be more likely to take "Vow of Debauchery" - to consume everything you can get your hands on as quickly as possible. A person with Vow of Debauchery can never retain any items beyond (Vow of Poverty) beyond (X period of time) at which point they go on an insane spree of lies, sex, drinking and blood.

*shrug* In either of your cases, you're the GM yeah? If so, it's your call for your campaigns!

I really wasn't after a philosophical debate or suchlike, but I should've mentioned that, eh? I was only interested in potential game problems with it, not personal issues any given player or GM out there could hypothetically have with using it. Still. . . what the heck. . .

So. . . "evil doesn't do the whole inner strength thing"? Really? I'm not quite sure what to say, other than that I disagree wholeheartedly. In each of your cases, are you claiming that evil beings are unable, unwilling, both, or something else entirely? Whichever it is, then for what reason(s) is that so? (i.e., please back your statements up!)

Personally, I don't feel that there's any need - at this stage - to defend the position wherein a vile Vow of Poverty makes as much sense as an exalted one. I can see though that if the 'naysayers' can provide any kind of rational basis for um, saying nay, then I might have to.

Please, continue.



edit --- this post was written before I had chance to see your more recent post, Thia. My apologies for any overlap/redundancy etc.

 

[wuyanei]

Thia Halmades: No worries, Thia Halmades. As shown in the first line of my post #10, I'm actually in agreement with what you said. When I posted post #3, I didn't mention a NE version because I could not think of a convincing reason for a NE 'everyone for himself' god to award poverty in its followers. For CE and LE, dogma could be the motivation, but what would make a NE god request its followers to abandon wealth?

So. Vow of Debauchery. Not to abandon wealth, but to dissipate it in the most destructive (to yourself AND to others) ways possible, while indulging fully in all the joys of the flesh. I easily can see a god of twisted Lust or selfish Greed or other types of depraved pleasures encouraging such behavior in its followers.

The Good, LE and CE versions VoP make great religious demands on its wielder, above and beyond the simple 'thou shalt have no gold'. The Good version must use all her wealth to promote good, the LE & CE versions serve the purpose of their gods. Placing a role-playing requirement on the NE (as they don't actually serve their gods, just live according to Their ideals) is not an unresonable burden. As long as the 'game-mechanics' (ie pure numbers) are equal to that VoP, I believe this would work quite well indeed.

 

[Thia Halmades]

Hey y'all.

Aus_Snow: My defense is merely the nature of evil. We aren't talking about people who give things up for the mere purpose of an ideal; by being evil, they're into it for themselves. I'm arguing, philosophically, that an evil person cannot selflessly and altruistically pursue a higher agenda; that's why thugs get paid, and High Priests are building power bases. Being evil means, in part, getting a return on your investment, preferably at the cost of others - Quick & Easy.

So when we discuss a Vow of Poverty, by the nature of Evil, I don't buy it, because Poverty means more than "not having money" it means "not having things." Evil isn't a big "not having things" sort of philosophy. However.

I will yield and accept that it would be very easy to write up a draft of a CE bestial God that forces its followers to take a VoP in order to reflect its nature and further its objectives, but the return for that must be extremely high. What exactly counts as a possession? Are these a slave keeping people? Are those slaves possessions? The nature of the problem is simply this:

- Good is defined. We know what constitutes Good; we have a clear idea of it what it takes to qualify Good, and the morals and standards we hold Good to. Therefore, enforcing a series of rules becomes a simple matter, because there are set barriers.

- Evil is far less defined; they can get away with more, and do more. They can do something which appears good but is, in point, evil. They spin, twist, manipulate and modify the situation based on need. That's my major problem here.

A Vow of Poverty keeps you poor to keep you focused, and aim towards your ultimate objective. It's a sacrifice you're making to make yourself stronger. Can evil do that? Sure. An evil monk, absolutely. No problem. But it's far less likely, and much harder to grasp against the backdrop of what we call "evil."

 

[Aus_Snow]

My defense is merely the nature of evil.

No. It's your interpretation of it, nothing more.

We aren't talking about people who give things up for the mere purpose of an ideal; by being evil, they're into it for themselves.

According to who or what? Back it up!

I'm arguing, philosophically, that an evil person cannot selflessly and altruistically pursue a higher agenda; that's why thugs get paid, and High Priests are building power bases. Being evil means, in part, getting a return on your investment, preferably at the cost of others - Quick & Easy.

No. Being evil means being evil. There are as many ways to do that as there are to be good, most likely.

So when we discuss a Vow of Poverty, by the nature of Evil, I don't buy it, because Poverty means more than "not having money" it means "not having things." Evil isn't a big "not having things" sort of philosophy.

You still haven't given a single reason why. Please do.

Good is defined. We know what constitutes Good; we have a clear idea of it what it takes to qualify Good, and the morals and standards we hold Good to. Therefore, enforcing a series of rules becomes a simple matter, because there are set barriers.

Since when is 'good' better defined than 'evil'?

Evil is far less defined; they can get away with more, and do more. They can do something which appears good but is, in point, evil. They spin, twist, manipulate and modify the situation based on need. That's my major problem here.

Why can they "do more"? Please explain this. Because while I *might* be able to see an argument for chaotic beings being able to "do more", in the case of evil? No. There's just no reason why.

A Vow of Poverty keeps you poor to keep you focused, and aim towards your ultimate objective. It's a sacrifice you're making to make yourself stronger. Can evil do that? Sure. An evil monk, absolutely. No problem. But it's far less likely, and much harder to grasp against the backdrop of what we call "evil."

I don't see it as less likely. Why would it be? And when you say "what 'we' call evil", to whom are you referring?


Again, if you can back any of these concerns up, there might be something to them. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[Eloi]

I was fiddling with something that an Evil person might accept as a limitation that is as severe as a Vow of Poverty, as far as what the person in question can keep that's wealth-related. Please let me know what you think, and if you have suggestions that turn these unfinished ideas into more practical ones.


Enablement: The character is constantly thinking about how his ends might best be served, and thereby his worshipped Power might gain in some respect. When he is made aware of another's plans to further the ends of wickedness, violence, and depravity, he makes sure that person feels some kind of indebtedness to him, so that he may in the future have another pawn or catspaw for his plans.

The Enabler character can only retain funds equal to the minimum necessary to survive and loosely monitor the status of his schemes as they unfold. All other funds or spoils, goods or slaves are earmarked for one project or another, and leave the control of the character at the earliest convenient moment that can be discreetly arranged. The net effect, the majority of the time, is that the character lives a threadbare life while funding grand machinations. Other evil folks with aspiring henchmen may arrange a "meeting of the minds", whereby the henchman is entrusted with a certain amount of resources, a plan, a timetable, a map, a fast horse, and a whip, and is expected to skillfully manage time and extra resources as they arrive in the process of establishing a small, flourishing evil franchise.

The Enabler will, in time, amass a larger and more capable organization of folks that owe him their careers, and power (in terms of ability to cause evil to occur) at the expense of wealth. *See Table Blah-Blah* This allows him to create an empire.

The Enabler is most frightening because he is nearly indistinguishable from hard working, penny-pinching folks of all walks of life. He may have even hired some of them to work for him, when times were tight. He never flaunts his wealth, because it is already invested into horrible plans, and out of his hands. He may very well own a treasure chest, or deep, locked vault with a fiendish poison trap to "keep up appearances".. but it will be empty.

The Enabler is not vowing to abandon the trappings of civilization, but it simply would not occur to them to reduce the funding of any of their "long term investments" for their own personal comfort - the sickness runs too deep for that. The character will not retain more wealth than is absolutely necessary to retain a barely respectable front, and certainly no magic items.

 

[Kisanji Arael]

The problem with this is that therer are so many ways that you could decide to go about it.

So we've got these ... character traits. Seven of 'em. Lets see if I can remember them all. They are: Lust, Sloth, Wrath, Envy,, Gluttony, Greed, and, Pride. If you commit yourself to one of them, then you commit yourself to evil. But you CAN'T commit yourself to all of them. I could see a person commiting himself to Greed and refusing to risk any of his wealth, even to get more. An example of this would be the dragon from Beowulf. Alternatively, you could be gluttonous, like Thia was talking about. A person could give up everything they have because of pride in their own abilities, or in the case of wrath, they might give up everything except for one weapon. If you do one of these, then you have to do them all. But they are all vile. You need a different feat, and different benefits, for all of them.

 

[Thia Halmades]

Aus_Snow: I have the distinct impression of talking to a wall about this with you. We're talking about (WE, all of us in this thread, in this case) morality. So I'll back it up, as you say:

Originally Posted by Dictionary.Com
The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
An evil force, power, or personification.
Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.

That seems pretty clear cut to me; this is what I've been saying the whole time. I don't know what you would consider "backing it up." In fact, rereading my posts, it's remarkably clear to me (the author) that I'm talking about adherence to a code. You can't tell me to "back it up" without being clear about what you're challenging.

Originally Posted by Aus Snow
Why can they "do more"? Please explain this. Because while I *might* be able to see an argument for chaotic beings being able to "do more", in the case of evil? No. There's just no reason why.

There is a clearly and plainly defined reason why. Because good, by definition:

Originally Posted by Dictionary.Com
Of moral excellence; upright: a good person.
Benevolent; kind: a good soul; a good heart.
Loyal; staunch: a good Republican.

We can also look at the SRD in regards to this question:

Originally Posted by SRD
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

So when I say "What we call evil" I'm referring to the collective subconcious definition we (you, me, anyone who's read a book, watched a movie, what we learn from merely being alive) use every day as a measure of Good (doing right) and Evil (doing wrong). If you insist (as you are) on tying me down and screaming "HA!" when you think you've pinned me into a corner in order to support your point, you're going to be running around quite a bit. This is largely because we're talking about my opinion based on experience and understanding of the storytelling and moralistic qualities of Good vs. Evil, combined with the definitions I've cited above.

People with no qualms - with no moral obligation to uphold a higher law - are capable of more varied actions and patterns because they aren't adhering to any sort of moral limitation. To not harm, to not interfere, to not cause damage to the innocent. When you remove society, its laws and your need to follow those laws to be considered a good citizen, you have a whole new world of options open up for you. And that's what I was saying before, and that's supported by the SRD.

It's extremely easy for you to merely reject out of hand any "evidence" that I have; but these are moralistic variances. From a storytelling standpoint, Evil doesn't make personal sacrifices to aid others. You seem to be saying "Yes it can." And as I mentioned, I yield that point under the correct circumstances (which you seem to have edited out of your rebuttal; I've already acknowledged this). So before you continually insist that I "back it up" you need to be far more clear what will qualify, for you, as evidence.

I've cited the dictionary and the SRD; so we are discussing simple definitions. If you choose to disagree with me, by all means, you're invited to do so. But don't disagree and put up a straw man argument claiming that I haven't supported my point.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Aus_Snow: I have the distinct impression of talking to a wall about this with you.

Then we do have experience in common here!

it's remarkably clear to me (the author) that I'm talking about adherence to a code.

That is certainly unequivocal now, whereas it was not previously. Adherence to a code sounds a lot like *Lawful* behaviour to me, you see, rather than *Good*. Differences in perspective abound, it seems.

[...]

I thank you for posting something by way of 'evidence'.


On the other hand. . .

These are the definitions of the adjective 'evil', from the actual dictionary off the shelf:

1. Morally bad, wicked.
2. Harmful or intending to harm, esp. intentionally or characteristically.
3. Disagreeable or unpleasant (has an evil temper).
4. Unlucky; causing misfortune (evil days).

For the noun 'evil':

1. An evil thing; an instance of something evil.
2. Evil quality; wickedness, harm.


Nothing here prevents an evil person from adhering to a code of behaviour, provided that code of behaviour doesn't run counter to any of the conditions upon which evil is dependent (naturally).

So when I say "What we call evil" I'm referring to the collective subconcious definition we (you, me, anyone who's read a book, watched a movie, what we learn from merely being alive) use every day as a measure of Good (doing right) and Evil (doing wrong).

You might believe that to be so, but objective reality is something else again. If you would simply admit that your beliefs are exactly that, I wouldn't take issue with your assertions. It's that simple. Definitions vary from culture to culture, era to era, person to person, year to year in some people's cases. . .

If you insist (as you are) on tying me down and screaming "HA!" when you think you've pinned me into a corner in order to support your point, you're going to be running around quite a bit.

No. You've misread things significantly, I'm sorry. What you are suggesting to be my motive was (and is) the farthest thing from my mind, in all honesty.

we're talking about my opinion based on experience and understanding of the storytelling and moralistic qualities of Good vs. Evil, combined with the definitions I've cited above.

I have supplied a succinct definition of the word 'evil' to support my rebuttal (which I hope helps), and yes, I agree at least that you are talking about your opinion based on. . . (etc.) As am I!

People with no qualms - with no moral obligation to uphold a higher law - are capable of more varied actions and patterns because they aren't adhering to any sort of moral limitation.

Evil brings with it other limitations, restrictions etc. For example, an evil person cannot as easily create and sustain supportive networks and relationships (for various reasons). Therefore, no.

Also, all morality is an obligation? It can't simply be natural, and healthy? And need it be a higher law, or could it be (in some cases) common sense or something else again?

To not harm, to not interfere, to not cause damage to the innocent. When you remove society, its laws and your need to follow those laws to be considered a good citizen, you have a whole new world of options open up for you. And that's what I was saying before, and that's supported by the SRD.

The SRD is, as far as I'm concerned, a load of bollocks when it comes to defining alignments, or anything else not strictly to do with number-crunching. For the said number-crunching though? It's the bees' knees. Er, until you get into house-ruling. . . oh wait. . . Hm.

It's extremely easy for you to merely reject out of hand any "evidence" that I have;

It was only so easy because you hadn't provided anything conclusive, to date.

From a storytelling standpoint, Evil doesn't make personal sacrifices to aid others. You seem to be saying "Yes it can."

No, I wasn't saying that at all. When you write "seem to be saying", it implies that you're unsure what I'm meaning. Well, let me just state now for the record that I wasn't and am not saying that. . . except in cases where the noted, and possibly other exceptions occur.

before you continually insist that I "back it up" you need to be far more clear what will qualify, for you, as evidence.

I suspect that there might not be any conclusive evidence available, but I am open to the possibility. If some is provided, I will acknowledge it without complaint.



edit --- If you insist on bringing D&D's definitions of alignment into it, these snippets from the D&D 3.5 PHB might be helpful in distinguishing Lawful from Good and Chaotic from Evil, in terms of D&D anyway:

(A Chaotic Good character) "acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him", and "believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations".

(A Lawful Evil character) "cares about tradition, loyalty and order but not about freedom, dignity or life", and is "comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve".

(etc.)

Contrast, if you will, with this statement of yours:

When you remove society, its laws and your need to follow those laws to be considered a good citizen, you have a whole new world of options open up for you. And that's what I was saying before, and that's supported by the SRD.

I hope you can see now that it might pay to: a) thoroughly investigate something before presenting it as evidence; and b) always at least humour the notion that a claim that you make might not be the incontrovertible truth.

. . . also c) do these things before attempting to insult someone you don't even know.

 

[Thia Halmades]

Aus_Snow:

To be clear.

- You took my counter personally because I felt, as you clearly do, personally attacked. I have been, and am, discussing my opinion, nothing more or less.

- I've stated that there is no "evidence" for this, hence (again, as you edited out) the idea of a Straw Man, which is what we have here.

- And I invited you to disagree, which you are doing, but with far more verve than necessary. The information I compiled was sufficient for me to prove my point; your point is different, and as happens in these situations, I no longer know what your point is.

Hence.

You have your position. I have mine, and ne'er the twain shall meet. The argument is circular, and unresolvable. The original post asked if a Vow of Poverty can be taken by an evil character. I said no. A few other points were posted. I changed my position from "no" to "maybe." You went on a quote rant about how I hadn't supported anything I said. I replied it was a moral argument and any support was questionable, and my position remains, on the original question, a solid maybe. Since this discussion is no longer forwarding the thread, I'm good, and as this is the House Rule board, everyone can do with it as they please.

For me, and my part, I'm content to say "No, I wouldn't allow it."

Salut.