Why is Vow of Poverty considered extremely 'uber'?

[Tavar]

Well, from what I remember, Vow Of Abstinence also prohibits potions.

[Stycotl]

@ Stycotl - you seem to be misunderstanding my perspective. When I speak of "getting angry" I'm not referring to myself as a player; I'm referring to my character's emotions

i have no issue with IC conflict, supposing that it comes from a collaborative table, not one riddled with resentment and spite. if that is truly what you are arguing, than there is no conflict between our gaming styles.


And so many IC justifications start from OOC ones that I find it strange you take issue at this one. If I roll up a Beguiler, it's because I, the player, want to be tricky and engage in some espionage. If I roll up a barbarian, it's because I, the player, want a much more straightforward bash-fest. I'm not in character when I make either of those decisions, because I have no character yet.

this isn't even in the realm of the rest of the discussion. we are not talking about creating IC strife because of a desire for intrigue and IC strife. we are talking about telling a player that you resent the choices that they made in character creation because it negatively affects the outcome of your own game.

that, in and of itself, is fine. that, coupled with the intention to therefore cause IC strife, is not ok. that is passive-aggressive and of bad sportsmanship, and is something that ought to be hashed out in an OOC setting, rather than stabbing the other player in the back by killing/robbing/mindraping his character.


Similarly, Lycan's statement was an expression of his, the player's, desire to make a character that could take an Exalted VoP character for a ride.

this is where i disagree. lycan was not the only one to espouse this philosophy, but his was the most condemning, as far as i was concerned. with phrases like, "any player that [plays a certain build] ought to feel bad," i tend to doubt his OOC motivations.


You're opposing that idea on its face without even taking the time to see whether it could actually work in a gaming sense.

no i am not. that is an assumption made by you that is not supported in fact. i am opposed to the idea that lycan would enact IC sabotage because of OOC resentment.

as i stated in my second to last post, if lycan went to the trouble to collaborate IC sabotage with the intended victim, it would be fine, but i suspect that it would take any sense of OOC retribution or punishment away from him, because the intended victim would be involved in the planning of the incident.


I don't think that assumption - that none of the players at that table, including the ones most involved with the conflict, have the maturity to roleplay it properly - is fair to anyone involved.

good. again though, you are assuming that i am making that assumption, and your assumption is incorrect.

what i am stating is that those kinds of roleplays generally need to be hashed out OOC first, and that all parties need to be aware of the expectations and eventualities. the only roleplays that i have been involved in with completely ad libbed, successful character conflicts, with no OOC discussion first, were between well established groups that knew the playing styles of the others at the table and trusted each other. generally, we were friends before we were gaming buddies, and the relationships were already cemented before we sat down at the table together.

obviously, in a setting where one of us would be getting mad at another for unoptimized builds and planning retribution accordingly, that kind of relationship is generally absent.


{Scrubbed}

first, i'll second the idea that this needs to be taken up with the mods, not us.

second, the post is scrubbed, so i don't know which one it was. but i don't recall any where i thought you were trolling, just that i thought you were being judgmental and inflexible.

[Tavar]

If you like, the post right below contains his post in a quote.

[Stycotl]

The above text is condescending at best.

i have already explained this in my last post. if you want to read condescending tones into it, be my guest. but there were none there when it was written, so you'd be making them up in your head as you go along.

EDIT:

If you like, the post right below contains his post in a quote.

who is this to?

[Tavar]

You: post 122 quotes his post, so you could see what he wrote.

[Randalor]

Well, from what I remember, Vow Of Abstinence also prohibits potions.

Nope. And if it did, why does it matter when you should just be buying wands instead of potions?


To fulfill your vow, you must not consume intoxicating, stimulating, depressant, or hallucinogenic substances, including alcohol, caffeine, and other drugs.

Which raises some questions about what kind of potions your party has been drinking :P

[Stycotl]

You: post 122 quotes his post, so you could see what he wrote.

ah. thanks; i sometimes forget when i ask questions or say things...

so, that was the post that i was guessing it was. no, i still don't think it was trolling––just rather inflexible and in poor taste. in fact, i even hypothesized that the original comments along this line had been merely in hyperbole and jest, and that he'd not really meant them, but then had stubbornly supported his original claims when called on them.

but whatever.

either way, i find it funny that this whole conversation started with the laughable idea that vow of poverty could be overpowered...

[Tavar]

You should see the thread when I asked a simple question about spiked chains. The strangest things spark the most interesting discussions.

[Optimystik]

Well, from what I remember, Vow Of Abstinence also prohibits potions.

Thankfully it is up to the DM. The wording of the Vow prohibits "intoxicating, stimulating, depressant or hallucinogenic substances." A healing potion would be all right, but a Potion of Haste or Heroism might not (stimulating.) Even innocuous things, like Incense for a Legend Lore spell, might make you fall under a harsh enough interpretation. But a lenient DM would (and should) merely rule out coffee and booze.

I was pointing out the silliness of the vows as written - hopefully nobody would actually play them as written.


i have no issue with IC conflict, supposing that it comes from a collaborative table, not one riddled with resentment and spite. if that is truly what you are arguing, than there is no conflict between our gaming styles.

Great!


this isn't even in the realm of the rest of the discussion. we are not talking about creating IC strife because of a desire for intrigue and IC strife. we are talking about telling a player that you resent the choices that they made in character creation because it negatively affects the outcome of your own game.

that, in and of itself, is fine. that, coupled with the intention to therefore cause IC strife, is not ok. that is passive-aggressive and of bad sportsmanship, and is something that ought to be hashed out in an OOC setting, rather than stabbing the other player in the back by killing/robbing/mindraping his character.

I'm not sure where you got "killing" and "mindraping" from. :smallconfused:

Or "robbing," for that matter, since the hypothetical VoP player voluntarily gave up his share of the goods.

Finally, I've never once insinuated that the Exalted player be left in the dark as to the plans for his character. That would be bad form, I agree.


this is where i disagree. lycan was not the only one to espouse this philosophy, but his was the most condemning, as far as i was concerned. with phrases like, "any player that [plays a certain build] ought to feel bad," i tend to doubt his OOC motivations.

Seriously?

"X is bad and you should feel bad" is a humorous quote/meme taken from Futurama, said by Dr. Zoidberg. Aren't you going out of your way to get offended on the internet here?


no i am not. that is an assumption made by you that is not supported in fact. i am opposed to the idea that lycan would enact IC sabotage because of OOC resentment.

as i stated in my second to last post, if lycan went to the trouble to collaborate IC sabotage with the intended victim, it would be fine, but i suspect that it would take any sense of OOC retribution or punishment away from him, because the intended victim would be involved in the planning of the incident.

You're wrong; the players being involved in a plan does not automatically mean they all start metagaming. You're still assuming bad roleplay habits.

Consider the following exchange.

Player A: "I'm telling you, Vow of Poverty is nonsense. You're just asking to be taken advantage of."
Player B: "I can't see how. I get powerful benefits, and my character is perceptive enough to know if his Exalted feats would be misused by anyone else."
Player A: "Oh yeah? I bet I can make a character that can pull the wool over his eyes, and everybody else's too."
Player B: "You're on!"
DM: "I'll roll secretly, and as soon as you make your check you'll know if something's up."


what i am stating is that those kinds of roleplays generally need to be hashed out OOC first, and that all parties need to be aware of the expectations and eventualities. the only roleplays that i have been involved in with completely ad libbed, successful character conflicts, with no OOC discussion first, were between well established groups that knew the playing styles of the others at the table and trusted each other. generally, we were friends before we were gaming buddies, and the relationships were already cemented before we sat down at the table together.

Where did I ever say you'd ad-lib anything like this? Or Lycan, for that matter?

From the beginning, I've presumed that you'd approach this from a collaborative OOC stance first - preferably with the DM involved, so he can plan the Factotum's comeuppance appropriately.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Locked. This thread has pretty much run its course (and by "its course" I mean "into the ground").