Vow of Nonviolence Beguiler build question.

[RUMBLETiGER]

Beguiler is designed around non-damage dealing spells.

Vow of Nonviolence provides a wonderful DC boost for spells.

I'm hung up on one particular line in the Vow of Nonviolence, "To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm or suffering to humanoid or monstrous humanoid foes." It goes on to provide more detail about real damage and ability damage, but it's the word "Suffering" I get hung up on.

Most any in-battle magical inconvenience can be construed as causing Suffering. To me, an extreme interpretation of this word makes the feat itself null and void, and therefore it can be limited to interpreting "Suffering" under the sentence that follows, referring to real and ability damage. Not too confusing there.

But what about the Dominate Person spell? To take control of a humanoid or monstrous humanoid and command it to attack, does this break the vow? What if instead of the wording "Attack", you command the individual to "Defend me and my party as well as you are able"?

How about the PHBII spells Friend to Foe and Legion of Sentinels? The former is purely an illusion that forces opponents to attack each other, while the latter is an illusion that can actually deal damage, but only A.. damage.

 

[anest1s]

Beguiler is designed around non-damage dealing spells.

Vow of Nonviolence provides a wonderful DC boost for spells.

I'm hung up on one particular line in the Vow of Nonviolence, "To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm or suffering to humanoid or monstrous humanoid foes." It goes on to provide more detail about real damage and ability damage, but it's the word "Suffering" I get hung up on.

Most any in-battle magical inconvenience can be construed as causing Suffering. To me, an extreme interpretation of this word makes the feat itself null and void, and therefore it can be limited to interpreting "Suffering" under the sentence that follows, referring to real and ability damage. Not too confusing there.

But what about the Dominate Person spell? To take control of a humanoid or monstrous humanoid and command it to attack, does this break the vow? What if instead of the wording "Attack", you command the individual to "Defend me and my party as well as you are able"?

How about the PHBII spells Friend to Foe and Legion of Sentinels? The former is purely an illusion that forces opponents to attack each other, while the latter is an illusion that can actually deal damage, but only A.. damage.

If I was DMing:
-Dominating is alright, except if you order something harmful on purpose
-Defend wouldn't be accepted, except if you think that the creature defending you isn't about to get harmed. (Dominating a dragon to protect you against a tribe of orcs is ok, dominating an orc to protect you against a flock of dragons wouldn't be.) If I felt generous I would have the NPC play total defence, or have him cheer for the party ''to make them fight better'' ....and if you get even a little upset because they didn't fight or because they weren't harmed then I would say vow is broken.
-Friend to Foe and Legion harm the opponent, so its not ok. Also summoning monsters and having them attack, or asking someone else to do your dirty work while you are miles away, would still count. Its the intention that powers the vow...If you tried to find ways around it I would offer one free retraining, and a warning about what would happen though.

 

[Pergentile]

suf·fer
1. to undergo or feel pain or distress.
2. to sustain injury, disadvantage, or loss.
3. to undergo a penalty, as of death.

I would restrict "to cause suffering" in this case to be actions that cause unnecessary pain/anguish, etc. within reason.

I doubt any decent DM would tell you that you lose the benefits of your vow because you cast a spell to reduce an enemies AC, or won and encounter...

When the RAI are obvious, but the RAW are debatable, the RAI is as good as RAW.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

If I was DMing:
-Dominating is alright, except if you order something harmful on purpose
-Defend wouldn't be accepted, except if you think that the creature defending you isn't about to get harmed. (Dominating a dragon to protect you against a tribe of orcs is ok, dominating an orc to protect you against a flock of dragons wouldn't be.) If I felt generous I would have the NPC play total defence, or have him cheer for the party ''to make them fight better'' ....and if you get even a little upset because they didn't fight or because they weren't harmed then I would say vow is broken.
-Friend to Foe and Legion harm the opponent, so its not ok. Also summoning monsters and having them attack, or asking someone else to do your dirty work while you are miles away, would still count. Its the intention that powers the vow...If you tried to find ways around it I would offer one free retraining, and a warning about what would happen though.

So dominating a humanoid would be ok, if ordering it to sit out the fight? I could be ok with that, would still be a great battlefield control spell, and within the flavor of the Vow. I also like the detail about defending if the defender wouldn't be in danger.
Legion of Sentinels is completely damage dealing. Dispite being an ilusion school, it reads like a summons, and I figured summons were out. But Friend to Foe is simply overlapping an illusion over your opponents and then they decide to attack each other. Now, mechanically, it works like a mind effect where they must hit each other in combat, but text reads more as they choose to attack each other because of suddenly being confronted with their bitter enemy. Arguing that NPC's choose to attack one another (although you're giving them the reason) is not the same as making them do so, even though you really are from a meta-gaming perspective.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

suf·fer
1. to undergo or feel pain or distress.
2. to sustain injury, disadvantage, or loss.
3. to undergo a penalty, as of death.

I would restrict "to cause suffering" in this case to be actions that cause unnecessary pain/anguish, etc. within reason.

I doubt any decent DM would tell you that you lose the benefits of your vow because you cast a spell to reduce an enemies AC, or won and encounter...

When the RAI are obvious, but the RAW are debatable, the RAI is as good as RAW.

Thanks Pergentile, this breakdown of the definition is helpful!

 

[Visigani]

Great use of dominate for Vow of peace is to have the dominated foe provide "Aid Another" to your allies, particularly for the AC bonus. Attack bonus likely wouldn't be acceptable, but using that dominated creature to act as a distraction to PREVENT harm to a living creature likely would be.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Great use of dominate for Vow of peace is to have the dominated foe provide "Aid Another" to your allies, particularly for the AC bonus. Attack bonus likely wouldn't be acceptable, but using that dominated creature to act as a distraction to PREVENT harm to a living creature likely would be.

Vow of Peace is incredibly powerful, but I'll admit, I don't think I could play with that level of restriction and enjoy a game. Vow of Nonviolence is tough enough, and the Beguiler is the only build I can imagine pulling it off with and still having fun. Or perhaps I Healer, but in that case I'd not need the DC boost.
Anywho, I like the Aid Another suggestion. Definitely a useful application of the Dominate spell while not risking breaking the Vow.