Vow of Poverty

[ThirdWizard]

Ahem...perhaps you should read the item again. It SPECIFICALLY mentions that the item can in fact be priced for fewer beads. That is the whole purpose of the formula they provide to begin with.

Hmm... I always interprieted it to mean they always have two or more. Thus, you can subract away as long as you have two or more remaining. I can see why you disagree, though. Your way does, in fact, make more sense.

I didn't say I *know* what the author of the vow of poverty meant...I said I *know* what the author of the prayer beads meant.

Then what did that whole bit about "common sense" have to do with VoP...? You seemed to be supporting that "common sense" can be used with VoP.

 

[Mistwell]

Actually, a lot of people are on both sides Mistwell. Don't try to make yourself out to be on the highground or something.

Naw, I am on the high ground on this one. There are 3 people who are supporting the strictest intepretation, and I strongly suspect 2 of them are doing it just to support the underdog and be the devils advocate. They have not really weighed in like you have...just basically made a comment or two here and there to further the discussion.

You, on the other hand, have declared your opinion to be the only possible correct opinion...and that is where I think the whole high and mighty thing becomes a meaningful critique.

As for the begging spell components, you'll notice that it is an optional exception suggested by the author in a different place from the feat itself to account for the problem of expensive components.

It's in a place where the actual benefits of the feat come from, and specifcally mentioned by page and title in the feat itself. All rules are optional. The author gives an example of something that IS allowed by the feat. There is no indication at all that the author is giving you an example of something he thinks is NOT allowed by the feat as written. Are you arguing differently?

For DMs who think that this optional exception is too much of a violation of the rules, the author goes on to suggest that you could instead replace the GP cost with an XP cost.

Again, all rules are optional. There is nothing more or less optional about what the author writes there. The author clearly thinks BOTH are within the spirit and letter of the feat, and leaves it to the DM to choose which they prefer. At the point where YOU claim that something the author wrote is somehow a house rule when used to interpret other parts of the very feat in question is where I say you have intpreted things too extremely.

There is a difference between a situation where two DMs are interpreting a rule in two different and reasonable ways based on some vagueness in the rule, and a situation where one DM intprets the rule as written and another uses a house rule. In the first situation, you can in fact interpret a rule two different ways without one of them having to be a house rule. Until the author makes their intent known by publushing errata or something in the FAQ, both should be considered the rule itself, and not a house rule. My problem was that you've made it pretty clear in this thread that you think anyone who interprets the rule in any way that varies from your personal interpretation must by definition be making a house rule.

 

[focallength]

thats where your splitting hairs, carrying is ownership your not the party pack mule.(possesion is 9/10 of the law, if you have crack on you and a cop stops you, you cant say "gee officer its not mine its my friends im just carrying it for him") If you have it on your body for more than one round and it isnt a permitted item (very specific about what you can have/carry) then you are in violation. its simple, why would a character with VOP want to be a pack mule (for the sake of argument that carrying isnt posession), it just dosent make good roleplaying sense.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Just for the record, I'm not taking a position on this because my book is being borrowed by a friend, sadly leaving me without any reference point. I'm just interjecting what I can without having any real knowlege of the feat in question.

 

[smootrk]

thats where your splitting hairs, carrying is ownership your not the party pack mule.(possesion is 9/10 of the law, if you have crack on you and a cop stops you, you cant say "gee officer its not mine its my friends im just carrying it for him") If you have it on your body for more than one round and it isnt a permitted item (very specific about what you can have/carry) then you are in violation. its simple, why would a character with VOP want to be a pack mule (for the sake of argument that carrying isnt posession), it just dosent make good roleplaying sense.

I would call that splitting hairs. The VoP character has a vow with some lofty powers, who would obviously know whether carrying an object for a short time means ownership. There is no Vow Police to speak of.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Naw, I am on the high ground on this one. There are 3 people who are supporting the strictest intepretation, and I strongly suspect 2 of them are doing it just to support the underdog and be the devils advocate. They have not really weighed in like you have...just basically made a comment or two here and there to further the discussion.

You, on the other hand, have declared your opinion to be the only possible correct opinion...and that is where I think the whole high and mighty thing becomes a meaningful critique.



It's in a place where the actual benefits of the feat come from, and specifcally mentioned by page and title in the feat itself. All rules are optional. The author gives an example of something that IS allowed by the feat. There is no indication at all that the author is giving you an example of something he thinks is NOT allowed by the feat as written. Are you arguing differently?



Again, all rules are optional. There is nothing more or less optional about what the author writes there. The author clearly thinks BOTH are within the spirit and letter of the feat, and leaves it to the DM to choose which they prefer. At the point where YOU claim that something the author wrote is somehow a house rule when used to interpret other parts of the very feat in question is where I say you have intpreted things too extremely.

There is a difference between a situation where two DMs are interpreting a rule in two different and reasonable ways based on some vagueness in the rule, and a situation where one DM intprets the rule as written and another uses a house rule. In the first situation, you can in fact interpret a rule two different ways without one of them having to be a house rule. Until the author makes their intent known by publushing errata or something in the FAQ, both should be considered the rule itself, and not a house rule. My problem was that you've made it pretty clear in this thread that you think anyone who interprets the rule in any way that varies from your personal interpretation must by definition be making a house rule.

No, I think that anyone who decides that the feat allows things that it specifically states it does not allow are making a house rule. Unfortunately, whereas the rule itself (not my interpretation, it is the rule) is completely against you, you are grasping at the straws of what the author admits is an optional variant that you can apply to the feat "one option..." It is ludicrous to think that you can redefine the feat however you like because of an optional variant that the author considers as one of the feat's ramifications and then call it the original feat. Fortunately, now that you understand my point, there is no need for me to debate this, as there is nothing to debate. I think I'll move on to a thread that has an interesting discussion, rather than a series of sententious ad hominems against me. Feel free to have the last word on this, though, as this seems to be something you like.

 

[Thanee]

So technically Nodwick could have a VoP?

Who is Nodwick?

Anyways, this question would have to be answered by each individual DM.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Mistwell]

thats where your splitting hairs, carrying is ownership your not the party pack mule.(possesion is 9/10 of the law, if you have crack on you and a cop stops you, you cant say "gee officer its not mine its my friends im just carrying it for him") If you have it on your body for more than one round and it isnt a permitted item (very specific about what you can have/carry) then you are in violation. its simple, why would a character with VOP want to be a pack mule (for the sake of argument that carrying isnt posession), it just dosent make good roleplaying sense.

The "it's not my drugs" is actually a perfectly valid defense. If you can prove it, then the charge becomes drastically different (dropping the "intent to sell" portion, which is the felony portion often).

Posession is 9/10ths of the law is a saying more about the strong surving and being able to take and hold things from others, rather than it actually being about the definition of ownership. UPS, DHL, the USPS, and FedEx do not own the packages they are delivering to me. It's just something temporarily in their safe keeping until it can be delivered to the true owner.

I know you think it is a very simple situation, but I honestly do not think your interpretation is supported necessarily by the rules or even the intent of the rules. The entire feat is based on the traditional ascetic, often that described by St. Jerome. It's a concept that has nothing to do with not holding objects on your body...it was all about denying yourself the BENEFIT of objects. An ascetic would not burden another person with the task of carrying your items until you got to the charity of your choosing so that you could donate those items...that would go against the entire concept of the ascetic. An ascetic would carry them himself, with no intent to gain any personal benefit from them. Indeed, the task of carrying the burden without the material benefit is the heart of the concept itself...that you spiritually benefit from accepting burdens. They would want to be a pack mule because it is THEIR burden which they have undertaken. It's their task to deliver the treasure to the poor...and NOT their task to make someone else do it for them. That is why, in a role playing sense, the ascetic would carry their own share of the treasure.

It doesn't say posession is banned by the way. It says ownership and use. If I take posession of treasure in the name of the poor people of the City of Overland, with intent to deliver that treasure to those poor people and without the intent to benefit from the treasure myself (except in a spiritual manner), I neither own nor use such treasure. In fact, if someone tried to take the treasure from me, I might very well (if I were an ascetic) defend that treasure by claiming that you are trying to steal from the poor people of the City of Overland, whose treasure is in your safe keeping until it can be delivered.

 

[Corlon]

Who is Nodwick?

Anyways, this question would have to be answered by each individual DM.

Bye
Thanee

http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/nodwick/gamespyarchive/newnodwick.html

 

[moritheil]

Unfortunately, whereas the rule itself (not my interpretation, it is the rule) is completely against you, you are grasping at the straws of what the author admits is an optional variant that you can apply to the feat "one option..."

So, you do not interpret rules? How do you know what they mean, then?

In many cultures and belief systems, the height of purity is embodied in an ascetic lifestyle that involves forswearing all material possessions. Such a life is hard for most D&D characters to imagine, since their possessions . . . are such an important part of their capabilities. A character who swears a vow of poverty and takes the appropriate feats . . . cannot own magic items, but he gains certain spiritual benefits that can help outweigh the lack of those items.

It then goes on to talk about how regardless of what level you VoP at, you gain all the VoP benefits from 1st level up. Which is something that someone swore wasn't true in another thread, but there it is, spelled out, p. 29 of BoED.

All the stuff that mentions extra limitations comes later, with "may" attatched to much of it.