Callista
First Post
The wording is, "If you break your vow." Circumstances which are not under your control and which you can neither predict nor prevent don't count as YOU breaking the vow. I'd say it's a job for an Atonement, since I imagine the kind of character who had made a vow of poverty would probably also be the kind of character to want to atone for even involuntarily breaking a vow. Exalted characters tend to be pretty scrupulous like that.
Vow of Peace says it explicitly: If you intentionally break the vow, you lose it forever; if you unintentionally break it, you atone. I think the writers of the Vow of Poverty feat simply didn't think about the possibility that the vow could be broken unintentionally, such as if a character were knocked out (or otherwise restrained) and given something of value.
Vow of Poverty should be much the same way, really. Plus, it would be a really nasty way for an evil-mastermind type to torture an ascetic character--force him to use a magical item and break his vow (which, most likely, is deeply important to him). It's nearly as bad as killing hostages in front of someone who's vowed to protect the innocent. But it wouldn't be viable if you lost the benefits of the feat permanently instead of just until you could get an atonement spell (and possibly do the accompanying quest), because if you lost it permanently against your will that would just mean the DM was a bit of a jerk.
Vow of Peace says it explicitly: If you intentionally break the vow, you lose it forever; if you unintentionally break it, you atone. I think the writers of the Vow of Poverty feat simply didn't think about the possibility that the vow could be broken unintentionally, such as if a character were knocked out (or otherwise restrained) and given something of value.
Vow of Poverty should be much the same way, really. Plus, it would be a really nasty way for an evil-mastermind type to torture an ascetic character--force him to use a magical item and break his vow (which, most likely, is deeply important to him). It's nearly as bad as killing hostages in front of someone who's vowed to protect the innocent. But it wouldn't be viable if you lost the benefits of the feat permanently instead of just until you could get an atonement spell (and possibly do the accompanying quest), because if you lost it permanently against your will that would just mean the DM was a bit of a jerk.
Last edited: