Vow of Poverty and a 'party' Cure wand

[irdeggman]

Me, in those situations, I'd say the benefits of VoP are lost until the character has Atonement cast upon him.

And, if it was breaking a vow for a really really good reason, the Atonement would be something pretty simple:

And that is how I think it should be done too.

It was a role-playing decision and it was a player deciding not to be selfish (I've played with players who chosse to let the entire pary die just so they would not lose xp in the old 2nd ed dula classing rules - talk about hard-feeling with the remaining players).

I don't think a player should be "penalized" for being a good team mate.

But I think it should be along the lines of the player "thinks" his is giving up is VoP benefits by doing this act and then the DM allows an easy atonement for said choice. I would not allow it if the player "knew" that it wasn't really a sacrifice.

An example of having a player make a hard choice but still have it work out:

I was running a game with a player running a paladin (2nd ed with a campaign specific CG paladin - Birthright setting). We were running his paladin's quest for his mount (a solo mini-adventure).

His "sister" was in dnager and his "leige" was also in danger. He could either save hsi sister, which would cause the "rightful heir to the kingdom" to perish and allow the "evil" ursurper to remain in power as ruler or he could he save the leige and allow his sister to die.

If he had chosen to save is sister he would have gained a normal war horse as his mount, and the the ruler would have died. But he chose to make the personal sacrifice by sacrificing family for the greater good. This ended up yieldiing him a griffon mount, which subsequently allowed him to "save" both. The player did not know this when he made his choice so it was truely dramatic and a lot of tension.

 

[frankthedm]

Thankfully none of this atonement silliness is allowed for a broken VOP. Atonement for an act that costs one their Exalted status is allowed for. But breaking the Vow itself can never be undone.

 

[irdeggman]

Thankfully none of this atonement silliness is allowed for a broken VOP. Atonement for an act that costs one their Exalted status is allowed for. But breaking the Vow itself can never be undone.

Yup. Unlike the the other vows there is not exception, even for "magical compulsion".

Now that doesn't exclude the DM "rewarding" the player for making such a sacrifice (giving up his vow and all of its benefits) to save the party via other 'Things", say suitabel magic items, etc. that can help "make up" for this.

But this is not to say the vow's benefits itself should be given back.

But in reality, the DM should find some way to save the party without costing the PC his vow if the player makes the decision to give up his vow to save the party, world, etc. So in effect the PC wouldn't actually be doing anything to forfeit his vow, only be willing to do it if necessary. This is one of those cases where perhaps the deity himself steps in via avatar to do the "goodness".

 

[Nifft]

But breaking the Vow itself can never be undone.

... and this is the other reason why a lot of people hate the feat.

Cheers, -- N

PS: I have one PC's Cohort in my game using VoP. It works fairly well -- the Cohort is an extension of a PC, so that PC carries all the spell components, etc., which limits the Cohort's mobility in combat, or limits his access to spells. All XP component costs come from the PC, too. So far it's working pretty well. The PCs know he can't use wands, so they each carry some potions now.

 

[frankthedm]

Yup. Unlike the the other vows there is not exception, even for "magical compulsion".

You have to make sure a VOP does not let themself be dominated by a party member so the VOP can use an item under dominate, and then atone.

Also IMHO Trying to get a VOP chracter to break his vow through charm or dominate falls under;

An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.

Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out

.

And if I, as a DM make something that completely overides's the victim's will, then I count the person calling the shots as the one who is Doing said actions, not the victim.

 

[Nifft]

Yup. Unlike the the other vows there is not exception, even for "magical compulsion".

I'm with Frank on this one.

While you dominate someone, all their actions weigh on your alignment, not theirs.

The alternative is very silly...
"Woah, that dagger has a strong evil aura!"
"Yeah I used it to murder some orphans. Lucky I didn't use my unarmed strike, huh!"

Cheers, -- N

 

[irdeggman]

I'm with Frank on this one.

While you dominate someone, all their actions weigh on your alignment, not theirs.

That would make sense except the VoP is the only vow that does not list being magically manipulated as something that would allow you to break the vow.


And each of them also talks about using the atonement spell as part of the means of regaining your "benefits".

So since Frank also said you couldn't use atonement to get back the benefits of the vow there is a logic break in the two issues.

The text for every vow except the VoP is:

If you intentionally break your vow, yo immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it. If you break your vow as a result of magical compulsion, you lose the benefit of this feat until yo perform a suitable penance and receive an atonement spell.

VoP text:

If you break your vow, you imediately and irrevocably lsoe the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it.

And under teh atonment section it has (after all of the very good descriptive text:

With alll these criteria met, the powers of good joyfully welcome straying sheep who return to the fold, and an atonement spell subsequently cast can have its full effect restoring a paladin's class, restoring a cleric's or druid's spell powers, or restoring the benefits of exalted feats to any character.

So either a "fallen" VoP and use the criteria under the atonement section (all the time) or a VoP who violates her vow can never atone.

Which are the "rules text" here? The general information under "atonement" or the specific information under each vow itself?

If it is the latter then a "fallen VoP can never "atone" if it is the former then they can.

 

[frankthedm]

So either a "fallen" VoP and use the criteria under the atonement section (all the time) or a VoP who violates her vow can never atone.

Which are the "rules text" here? The general information under "atonement" or the specific information under each vow itself?

If it is the latter then a "fallen VoP can never "atone" if it is the former then they can.

That BoED section on atonement you posted only deals with acts that remove exalted status due to evil acts. An evil deed can be atoned for by an Exalted character.

Violating the terms of the exalted vow, notably VOP here, ruins it irrevocably.

 

[Pagan priest]

Can a person really be dominated into actually owning an item? Using it, yes I can see that with no problem, but ownership is a state of mind as much as it is a matter of possesion. The other vow feats are about actions (never do this, always do that), the VoP is about a concept (don't "own"...) and that really seems to be the difference. A person may be compeled to pick up and use a wand, or put on a gem encrusted robe, but does that person accept ownership of the item?

 

[irdeggman]

That BoED section on atonement you posted only deals with acts that remove exalted status due to evil acts. An evil deed can be atoned for by an Exalted character.

Violating the terms of the exalted vow, notably VOP here, ruins it irrevocably.

But all of the vows, except VoP have the following:

If you intentionally break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it. If you break your vow as a result of magical compulsion, you lose the benefit of this feat until you perform a suitable penance and receive an atonement spell.

Earlier you you said:

Thankfully none of this atonement silliness is allowed for a broken VOP. Atonement for an act that costs one their Exalted status is allowed for. But breaking the Vow itself can never be undone.

Which by strict reading o f the text is true.

And later you said:

You have to make sure a VOP does not let themself be dominated by a party member so the VOP can use an item under dominate, and then atone.

Which implies that when dominated a character who breaks his vow of poverty can atone. Which "rules" apply?

Strict reading says that you can atone for breaking any vow, except Vow of poverty, when under magical compulsion and breaking a Vow of Poverty cannot be atoned for.