[3.5]Wacky Vow of Peace/Nonviolence Question

[CockroachTeaParty]

As those of us who've read through the Book of Exalted Deeds know, the Vows of Peace and Nonviolence require a character to never inflict lethal damage on living creatures (Nonviolence humanoids and monstrous humanoids specifically, Peace any living creature).

Would a character with these vows violate them if they made a heal check to remove a dangerous parasite or other danger, such as a rot grub, worm of Kyuss, or slaad pellet?

On the one hand, these Heal checks often inflict damage on the host, and if the parasite or what have you is removed, it often dies.

This would seem to violate the Vow of Peace, and perhaps the Vow of Nonviolence if done to a humanoid or monstrous humanoid subject.

That strikes me as rather odd.

"Sorry, even though I'm a skilled healer, my vows dictate that I must stand here and watch as a chaos toad explodes out of your body/a worm eats your heart and turns you into a zombie/the tadpole in your brain turns you into a mind flayer."

Oh, those wacky vows.

[Divide by Zero]

Like much of BoED, the Vow of Peace is poorly thought out.

Let the DM decide. If you're the DM, do what makes more sense to you. Better yet, don't use the stupid feat in the first place.

[TheMadLinguist]

Sorry, you just cast "cure disease" and killed sooooo many bacteria. Goodbye, vows.

[The Rabbler]

the whole book was supposed to be used for NPCs originally, so I think the idea was that in these kinds of situations, the DM would simply ignore it. imagine how rare these kinds of problems would be if the BoED was actually kept strictly to the NPCs.

[Gan The Grey]

The only problem with the book was they forgot to include the 'Common Sense' clause. Or rather, maybe they just assumed people would use some. Maybe that was the mistake.

[hamishspence]

It does say that a DM should not do stupid things like:

"A fly got into your tea despite your tea strainer. You broke your Vow and need to atone"

[Gan The Grey]

It does say that a DM should not do stupid things like:

"A fly got into your tea despite your tea strainer. You broke your Vow and need to atone"

Well then.
/thread

[Soranar]

{Scrubbed}

[Chen]

Removing a parasite (and killing it) SHOULD break a Vow of Peace. You don't get to make exceptions about things like this. You are INTENTIONALLY killing another being by removing said parasite. That breaks the vow. If killing something that is about to chop a peasant's head off will break the vow, so will killing something that is going to burst from said peasant's chest killing it.

[Kami2awa]

Besides, your immune system is always killing microorganism. Even Buddhist monks, who see all life as sacred, can't help that either. It doesn't stop them from trying.


Just out of interest, what do they try and do to stop their immune system working?

[Coplantor]

Sorry, you just cast "cure disease" and killed sooooo many bacteria. Goodbye, vows.

But think of the XP! It would reach the millions!

[Tinydwarfman]

{scrubbed}

We probably shouldn't argue about religion on here, but many religious people believe that even if the pregnancy is a product of incest or rape, abortion should not be allowed. And only sometimes if the pregnancy threatens the mother's life. It differs from church to church, but many don't have this "common sense clause" as you put it, and actively say abortion is NOT ok in cases of rape. I think it's up to the GM to talk to the players about how seriously the vows are to be taken before the game, an how flexible they are. Because there's certainly IRL evidence that they could be just that inflexible.

[2xMachina]

Just out of interest, what do they try and do to stop their immune system working?

I think he means they try not to kill OTHER lifeforms. Bacteria killed by immune system? Too bad, you can't do anything about it. Shouldn't stop you from trying not to kill other stuff though.

(Else, it's: I kill bacteria every second anyway. I might as well start a genocide.)

[Optimystik]

It does say that a DM should not do stupid things like:

"A fly got into your tea despite your tea strainer. You broke your Vow and need to atone"

Indeed - here's the full quote:


The DM should never set out to punish a character for taking the Vow of Peace feat. For the DM to pronounce one session, “A gnat got through the strainer in your drinking water this morning, you swallowed it, and now you need an atonement,” is simply capricious and unnecessarily antagonistic to the player. The DM and the players should all work together to ensure that a character with Vow of Peace contributes something to the game so that everyone can enjoy it more. It is okay to put a pacifist character in a situation where refusing to fight is a difficult (but still viable) option, but not to take away the choice entirely.

Emphasis mine.

[hamishspence]

Yup.

Maybe something like this should apply to the paladin:


The DM should never set out to punish a character for playing a paladin. The DM and the players should all work together to ensure that a paladin character contributes something to the game so that everyone can enjoy it more. It is okay to put a paladin character in a situation where refusing to commit an evil act is a difficult (but still viable) option, but not to take away the choice entirely.

[Yora]

The way the paladin is written, it doesn't even need such a note if the gm and players use a little bit of common sense.

But common sense is violating RAW.

[Chen]

The "being reasonable" clause about a gnat getting into drinking water isn't the same as the original parasite question. In the original question the person is making a willing choice to kill something else as opposed to accidentally killing something after having taken precautions not to. If the person in the gnat example hadn't used a strainer (and wasn't say alone with no gear or some other such circumstance) I could see a DM requiring atonement, though maybe not the first time. Definitely if it was continually done though.

Just like a Paladin cannot do evil for the "greater good" someone with Vow of Peace cannot harm something for the "greater good" either.

[Soranar]

For the parasite thing

just break the vow for the greater good and atone

it's roleplay compliant and not nearly as hard as regaining a paladin's status

[hamishspence]

yes- a Good character, when faced with the choice between "do the good thing" and "obey the vow" should choose Good over Vow.

[Yora]

{scrubbed}

[Douglas]

The "being reasonable" clause about a gnat getting into drinking water isn't the same as the original parasite question. In the original question the person is making a willing choice to kill something else as opposed to accidentally killing something after having taken precautions not to. If the person in the gnat example hadn't used a strainer (and wasn't say alone with no gear or some other such circumstance) I could see a DM requiring atonement, though maybe not the first time. Definitely if it was continually done though.

Just like a Paladin cannot do evil for the "greater good" someone with Vow of Peace cannot harm something for the "greater good" either.
The gnat situation is also different in that not harming the gnat has little or no direct consequences for harm suffered by any other creature. Leaving the parasite alone would directly result in obvious great harm to the host. Exactly what the "greater good" is in this situation and how strongly it is tied to the "evil" act are a LOT clearer and more certain than in most "for the greater good" scenarios. I'd rule that both intervening and leaving it alone are acceptable choices for the Vow character, though I would encourage valuing the sentient being's life more.

[Escheton]

right...just paralyze the parasite or use other forms of stasis or whatever.
then remove it and throw it in a shrub to thaw out or something.
Prolly wont kill him if he is too stunned to leave his head sticking in the wound or whatever that specific parasite does.

[Chen]

For the parasite thing

just break the vow for the greater good and atone

it's roleplay compliant and not nearly as hard as regaining a paladin's status

Don't have my BoED here but doesn't intentionally breaking the Vows irrevocably make you lose the benefits of them?

[Jarawara]

{scrubbed}


When presented with such questions, they simply replied:

"Let the dice decide. 1-3, fast for a week and atone. 4-5, you're good to go."

"What if I roll a 6?"

"Reroll on a 6... but if you roll three 6's in a row, auto-kill, go straight to hell, do not collect $200!"

[Optimystik]

Don't have my BoED here but doesn't intentionally breaking the Vows irrevocably make you lose the benefits of them?

Yes. However, BoED says that curing disease is a fundamental part of a good character's "respect for life." So I'd say that purging bacteria gets a pass anyway.

[2xMachina]

I'd say no one gives a damn about bacteria.

VoNV: You can kill any non-humanoids as brutally as you want.
VoP: You can kill any non-living. Undead/Construct? Torture as you want.

[hamishspence]

VoP: You can kill any non-living. Undead/Construct? Torture as you want.

I'd say the "torture is always evil" rule overrides that.

FC2 emphasises torture is always a corrupt act.

The "constructs don't count" thing does have precedent- Superman also says things like "my code against killing doesn't apply to machines" when dealing with Brainiac.

[Mongoose87]

So, using IRL Physics in DnD kills catgirls - what does using IRL Microbiology in DnD kill?

[BadJuJu]

I absolutly hate the Vows. They completly **** up a party and kind of make it a pain in the ass to play. Especially Peace/Nonviolence. We kicked a guy out of a party cause he had all the Vows and wouldn't scrap his guy when we had problems with cohesion. Makes a game un-fun.

[Haven]

Technically, making a Heal check to remove it doesn't deal any hit point damage to the parasite, so by RAW it doesn't violate the code.

But playing Vows (or D&D at large, but especially Vows) by strict RAW is doin' it wrong, I think. The answer to your question should be "yes". That's part and parcel of Vows--you take an extreme stance and follow it through to the end in exchange for its benefits, even when it's inconvenient or unintuitive. The Vow of Peace in particular seems to have the point that you can't value one creature's life over another's.

[FishAreWet]

the whole book was supposed to be used for NPCs originallysource please? the book repeatedly mentions how DMs should handle situations for players...

[Morithias]

No...just no..

When you start getting punished for saving your partner's life, you need to get a new DM.

Let's say you were tied to a train tracks and the train was coming and the cross things were down. Legally you're not suppose to cross them at that point.

Are you saying that if I illegally crossed them to pull you off the tracks and save your life, that I should be arrested and punished?

No..no one would argue that except for a LN extremist. Or a LE who has some kind of outside reason to hate me.

The reason you can destroy undead and constructs as I see it is mainly for 2 reasons.

The creation of undead is well, an evil act.

And most constructs are well...not sentient.

I know everyone is now thinking "but what about warforged?!" Note that the warforged is cleverly consisted a LIVING construct. I would probably consider an awaken construct with the same reasoning.

[Chen]

No...just no..

When you start getting punished for saving your partner's life, you need to get a new DM.

No you need to not have taken that Vow. The Vow (like a Paladin's code) is an EXTREME position. You don't get to adhere to the Vow when you feel like it. You ALWAYS adhere to it. The problem is the Vows don't work in reality because reality throw NO WIN situations at you. The same can go for Paladins in particularly gritty/real campaigns. There are sometimes situations where you do need to do Evil for the greater good. But guess what? That means Mr. Paladin falls because he is not allowed to do Evil.

Before playing a Paladin/taking a Vow you need to realize what kind of game it is. If the DM is known for making players make the best of a bad situation (ie two bad choices, but one "better" than another) you might get screwed with this type of Vow/Class because these classes DO NOT compromise their morality in these situations. Its supposed to be like that for any exalted character actually. You do not compromise your exaltedness just because things would be easier. You're the one who's supposed to go out in a blaze of glory because the only other options were ones your moral code did not allow.

[Morithias]

No you need to not have taken that Vow. The Vow (like a Paladin's code) is an EXTREME position. You don't get to adhere to the Vow when you feel like it. You ALWAYS adhere to it. The problem is the Vows don't work in reality because reality throw NO WIN situations at you. The same can go for Paladins in particularly gritty/real campaigns. There are sometimes situations where you do need to do Evil for the greater good. But guess what? That means Mr. Paladin falls because he is not allowed to do Evil.

Before playing a Paladin/taking a Vow you need to realize what kind of game it is. If the DM is known for making players make the best of a bad situation (ie two bad choices, but one "better" than another) you might get screwed with this type of Vow/Class because these classes DO NOT compromise their morality in these situations. Its supposed to be like that for any exalted character actually. You do not compromise your exaltedness just because things would be easier. You're the one who's supposed to go out in a blaze of glory because the only other options were ones your moral code did not allow.

And no one ever considers to take a third option? I believe there was an example in one of the old champion books, about a paladin who was honor bound to bring "the head of my enemy" to an evil noble....he brought the head, on his living body, with his guards behind him.

I am just saying, when people start arguing that your person can't have an active immune system cause it kills living viruses, because you took that feat you're doing it wrong.

It would be like if a teacher said that he always wore condom while teaching, strictly speaking it's better than the alternative, YET SOMEONE IS CLEARLY DOING THEIR JOB HORRIBLY WRONG.

[2xMachina]

Undead campaign! Whee! Abuse the vows! All the power without the drawbacks!

[Morithias]

Undead campaign! Whee! Abuse the vows! All the power without the drawbacks!

Except there would be almost no bonuses, the aura of calm emotions doesn't work against monsters immune to mind effects, and the shatter effect doesn't work against natural weapons...

[hamishspence]

Before playing a Paladin/taking a Vow you need to realize what kind of game it is. If the DM is known for making players make the best of a bad situation (ie two bad choices, but one "better" than another) you might get screwed with this type of Vow/Class because these classes DO NOT compromise their morality in these situations. Its supposed to be like that for any exalted character actually. You do not compromise your exaltedness just because things would be easier. You're the one who's supposed to go out in a blaze of glory because the only other options were ones your moral code did not allow.

The difference is, that breaking the Vow doesn't necessarily compromise Exaltedness. It's not too hard to think of examples where breaking it might be a Good act- and keeping it might compromise the rest of the character's morality.

[Kris Strife]

It would be like if a teacher said that he always wore condom while teaching, strictly speaking it's better than the alternative, YET SOMEONE IS CLEARLY DOING THEIR JOB HORRIBLY WRONG.

Depends what he's teaching, now doesn't it?

[SaintRidley]

Except there would be almost no bonuses, the aura of calm emotions doesn't work against monsters immune to mind effects, and the shatter effect doesn't work against natural weapons...

Use it against the demilich...

[Chen]

The difference is, that breaking the Vow doesn't necessarily compromise Exaltedness. It's not too hard to think of examples where breaking it might be a Good act- and keeping it might compromise the rest of the character's morality.

I agree with this, all it does is compromise the Vow. In which case, well you've lost that Vow by remaining exalted. Course the other way you lose the Vow because you don't remain exalted. Lose-lose, which is something that can occur in a realistic situation. Which is why you wouldn't be taking said things in that situation, because the rules say you don't compromise for anything. The real alternative would be to somehow find an exalted way of removing the parasite without harming it. I'm sure you could research a spell for that (magic solves all problems) :P

[hamishspence]

Researching spells is slow though.

[Optimystik]

1) Miracle it out.

2) Take the infested character to a reputable healer you don't personally know to have it removed. If the person is not an acquaintance of yours, he doesn't count as an "ally" and therefore you keep the Vow.

[TheMadLinguist]

So, using IRL Physics in DnD kills catgirls - what does using IRL Microbiology in DnD kill?

Cancer mage implies that it's being used.

Curse those VileDark characters for screwing up exalted guys just by existing.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Here's something no one seems to ever mention in these discussion and which pacifists should pay attention to.

If you, through inaction, allow one to come to harm then you are partially to blame for their harm.

You yourself in fact come under that. If you do not defend yourself you are allowing pain and harm to come to you.

Thus in my mind, if you just stand there, kept to inaction through your vow and stand still in your purity thus do much evil, and your purity becomes poison. You are unclean and would thus lose the feat. To protect another should not defy the feat, nor yourself.

This should answer the question of killing bacteria and such. It's out to harm you, so you defend yourself.

And for nitpickers, giving your life to save another, and thus allow harm to come to you, is not the same as just sitting there and taking a beating til you die.

[hamishspence]

Here's something no one seems to ever mention in these discussion and which pacifists should pay attention to.

If you, through inaction, allow one to come to harm then you are partially to blame for their harm.

You yourself in fact come under that. If you do not defend yourself you are allowing pain and harm to come to you.

And for nitpickers, giving your life to save another, and thus allow harm to come to you, is not the same as just sitting there and taking a beating til you die.

This might depend on how much responsibility you have for other people in the given circumstances, but sometimes, inaction can be morally dubious.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Apparently, this topic is inextricably bound up with real world religious discussion. Thread locked.