Problem with VoP

[danzibr]

Suppose I have a guy with a vow of poverty that wants to help the poor. He only owns a robe and a pair of sandals and somehow kills a dragon. The dragon has a load of wealth that he knows will be stolen if he leaves it for any amount of time. With VoP RAW he can't carry the wealth to distribute to the poor. That seems kind of messed up to me.

[Vladislav]

Special: To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possessions ...
Do you "own" the treasure? No. Do you "use" it? No. Seems like your vow remains unbroken.

[Fox Box Socks]

And yet, somehow, this is still only the second biggest problem with Vow of Poverty.

[Waker]

Having a character in the party who has taken a vow of poverty should not necessarily mean that the other party members get bigger shares of treasure! An ascetic character must be as extreme in works of charity as she is in self-denial. The majority of her share of party treasure (or the profits from the sale thereof ) should be donated to the needy, either directly (equipping rescued captives with gear taken from their fallen captors) or indirectly (making a large donation to a temple noted for its work among the poor). While taking upon herself the burden of poverty voluntarily, an ascetic recognizes that many people do not have the freedom to choose poverty, but instead have it forced upon them, and seeks to better those unfortunates as much as possible.
Quoted from the BoED. Characters who take the feat are not prohibited from touching items or money, they are simply prohibited from making use of it. Thus they could carry a bag of gold but they could not spend it, unless everything that was spent was donated to the less fortunate (buying food and giving it out for example).

[Daftendirekt]

It talks about how to deal with your VoPed character's share of the loot right there in BoED. Instead of dividing it up amongst your party and getting nothing yourself, it does say how you can simply give it away to the poor. To quote:

"Having a character in the party who has taken the vow of poverty should not necessarily mean that the other party members get bigger shares of treasure! An ascetic character must be as extreme in works of charity as she is in self-denial. The majority of her share of party treasure (or the profits from the sale thereof) should be donated to the needy, either directly (equipping rescued captives with gear taken from their fallen captors) or indirectly (making a large donation to a temple noted for its work among the poor)..."

What I take from that is: Your character can carry their share of wealth from the dragon's hoard and it won't count as breaking your vow if your intent is to give it to the poor and you spend none of it.

EDIT: ninja'd D:

[Jair Barik]

Alernatively the GM could give dragons the VoP feat! Then the characters need never worry about divying up the loot from the dragon's horde again.

[danzibr]

Ahh, thanks all. I didn't do my homework, it seems. Sorry about that.

[Coidzor]

And yet, somehow, this is still only the second biggest problem with Vow of Poverty.

3rd or 4th, more like it. But two of the things ahead of it aren't unique to VoP.

[Daftendirekt]

Alernatively the GM could give dragons the VoP feat! Then the characters need never worry about divying up the loot from the dragon's horde again.

Hoards are the only reason people put up with the trouble of fighting something so difficult...

[VirOath]

Actually, the feat works the other way around. With VoP, you cannot give up your share of the treasure, you have to take an equal share and spend it on the less fortunate. If you give up your share of the wealth so your party has more gold to spend at magicmart, you should lose the feat by raw.

[Keld Denar]

I dunno, I kinda like the idea of pelting someone with a handful of copper coins to make them fall.

The real question is...if there is a Bag of Holding in the treasure hoard, would you be able to stuff the gold into it so that you could take it back to the temple/charity/whatever. You are technically using the bag, and benefitting from its use (as it reduces the number of trips you'd have to take to move a sizeable amount of cash). This violates the Special: tag on VoP...

[Tyndmyr]

Actually, the feat works the other way around. With VoP, you cannot give up your share of the treasure, you have to take an equal share and spend it on the less fortunate. If you give up your share of the wealth so your party has more gold to spend at magicmart, you should lose the feat by raw.

Well, technically, you only have to donate the majority of your share to charity. So, you can let your teammates have 49% of it.

[GeminiVeil]

Yeah, I had something sorta similar in one of my games happen. Group of 4, 1 had VoP. The other 3 wanted to give the VoP like 1% of the treasure, and I pointed out in the book the quote that has already been used in this thread. The reply? "We never discussed his pay, so we are giving him more than we need to."
Nearly tore my hair out there.
Then when I wouldn't budge, they said something like "Then we will negotiate with him so that he will accept 1%."
After calmly explaining to them that this is not a 'share' of the treasure by any lawful or good definition (since the entire party was either L or G) they would be taking alignment points away from their alignments, the game kinda devolved after that.
Anyway, long story short, carrying isn't a big deal. Benifiting in some way is. :)

[aquaticrna]

we had a game with someone using VoP, the evil rogue would occasionally follow him around and rob everyone he gave money to.. with his absurd hide and sight of hand in game no one had a chance of being able to see it... so, in the end everyone was happy

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, I had something sorta similar in one of my games happen.

Yeah. I hate how that feat turns the game into Accountants and Thieves.

[Coidzor]

Yeah, I had something sorta similar in one of my games happen. Group of 4, 1 had VoP. The other 3 wanted to give the VoP like 1% of the treasure, and I pointed out in the book the quote that has already been used in this thread. The reply? "We never discussed his pay, so we are giving him more than we need to."
Nearly tore my hair out there.
Then when I wouldn't budge, they said something like "Then we will negotiate with him so that he will accept 1%."
After calmly explaining to them that this is not a 'share' of the treasure by any lawful or good definition (since the entire party was either L or G) they would be taking alignment points away from their alignments, the game kinda devolved after that.
Anyway, long story short, carrying isn't a big deal. Benifiting in some way is. :)

You realize you could have avoided that by simply cutting their treasure by a quarter, right?

[GeminiVeil]

Yeah. I hate how that feat turns the game into Accountants and Thieves.

It's one of the reasons that after that game, I just banned it. So much easier than the players trying (laughably) to 'get one over on me' by somehow trying to be able to make use of magic or gold and still keep the vow. (which that same player tried on me later, but that is another story) :smallamused:


You realize you could have avoided that by simply cutting their treasure by a quarter, right?

I'm not sure exactly how that would have helped the VoP mess. The VoP character still needs to get a share, and even if he does agree to take a 1% (which, if he is helping the less fortunate like the fluff says he basically HAS to, then I kinda doubt it) then them shortening him on it would still cause alignment points to shift around. Or, if you are referring to the rest of the party getting to much wealth, then I do agree that would have solved it. I'm just saying still wouldn't have helped the VoP issue. :smallsmile:

[KillianHawkeye]

Alernatively the GM could give dragons the VoP feat! Then the characters need never worry about divying up the loot from the dragon's horde again.

Dragons don't acquire wealth because they need to. They do it because they like shineys! :smallamused:

A dragon who devoted himself to poverty would be a truly unique creature indeed.

[Jack_Simth]

Dragons don't acquire wealth because they need to. They do it because they like shineys! :smallamused:

A dragon who devoted himself to poverty would be a truly unique creature indeed.
Giving the Vow of Poverty to PC opponents is mean. For at least two reasons.
1) For critters, anything referencing 'level' is based on their hit dice, and most critters have more hit dice than CR - which means that CR 10 Juvinile Silver Dragon is getting effects designed to replace WBL for a 16th level character... which makes the critter a little over the top.
2) Vow of Poverty on a critter pretty much means you've changed their "Treasure" line to "None", so the players get much reduced rewards for defeating them.

[Blackfang108]

Giving the Vow of Poverty to PC opponents is mean. For at least two reasons.
1) For critters, anything referencing 'level' is based on their hit dice, and most critters have more hit dice than CR - which means that CR 10 Juvinile Silver Dragon is getting effects designed to replace WBL for a 16th level character... which makes the critter a little over the top.
2) Vow of Poverty on a critter pretty much means you've changed their "Treasure" line to "None", so the players get much reduced rewards for defeating them.

Of course, how many Good monsters are your PCs going to fight, too?

Because the character has to be not just Good, but Exalted Good. *:smallcool:

[Volthawk]

Alernatively the GM could give dragons the VoP feat! Then the characters need never worry about divying up the loot from the dragon's horde again.

There's a PrC for that. Dragon Ascendant requires the dragon to consume its hoard, in exchange for becoming a quasi-deity.

[Asheram]

There's a PrC for that. Dragon Ascendant requires the dragon to consume its hoard, in exchange for becoming a quasi-deity.

... that sounds so wrong ...
For a dragon that must approach the equivalent of eating ones own child.

[Coidzor]

I'm not sure exactly how that would have helped the VoP mess. The VoP character still needs to get a share.

Why? He's taken a vow of poverty, he doesn't need a share personally because he has no use for such things and indeed is forbidden mechanically from having one. Unless it's crucial that you roleplay out the process of him going out and finding orphans to sponsor so they don't get made into cheap meat pies, it's background stuff that can easily be ignored and altered out of the picture since the important thing of VoP is being a broke adventurer rather than helping the needy instead of adventuring.

Since they just weren't getting it in the first place, rather than having a tiff over it, quietly changing treasure values to render their exercise meaningless would've been simpler than having the argument cause the game to self-destruct.


Dragons don't acquire wealth because they need to. They do it because they like shineys! :smallamused:

A dragon who devoted himself to poverty would be a truly unique creature indeed.

I'm thinking it'd be its very own form of Dragon Psychosis myself.

[Blackfang108]

Why?


Because the rules for VoP specifically state that a VoP character cannot forgo his share of treasure.

[Jack_Simth]

Of course, how many Good monsters are your PCs going to fight, too?

Because the character has to be not just Good, but Exalted Good. *:smallcool:
1) There's a lot of homebrewed alignment-free adaptations.
2) Not all PC's are good aligned.
3) The good guys *don't* always get along - there can be mutually exclusive goals, contradictory information, and other ways to get Good guys at each other's throats.

[Coidzor]

Because the rules for VoP specifically state that a VoP character cannot forgo his share of treasure.

I find a certain mental flexibility is useful for DMing, and under this, he wouldn't forgo his share of treasure, rather it wouldn't exist.

Hell. Just say that a quarter of their loot winks out of existence as soon as they secure it. Beats a long drawn out argument over share sizes before the game even starts.

[JamesonCourage]

I find a certain mental flexibility is useful for DMing, and under this, he wouldn't forgo his share of treasure, rather it wouldn't exist.

Hell. Just say that a quarter of their loot winks out of existence as soon as they secure it. Beats a long drawn out argument over share sizes before the game even starts.

For wargaming, sure. For roleplaying, not so much.

If the character with VoP is roleplaying, he'll most likely want an equal share of the treasure, even if it's only 4 gold coins, so that he might be able to donate it to the less fortunate.

Do what works for your group, sure, but from the roleplay perspective, your solution is rather absurd.

[Claudius Maximus]

keep in mind that we're talking about a situation in which the VoP character is agreeing to a 1% cut for purely metagame reasons, so the other players can break WBL.

The obvious solution is that the VoP character get an equal share, but if people are being jerks about it like this, Coizor's solution is better than nothing.

[Coidzor]

If the character with VoP is roleplaying, he'll most likely want an equal share of the treasure, even if it's only 4 gold coins, so that he might be able to donate it to the less fortunate.

Yes, I covered that. But if that were the case, it doesn't seem like he'd be on board for the whole having nothing to give to the orphanariums to roleplay with.

Hell, having it disappear into the ether could just be the Exalted Good fairies distributing it to the poor so that Mr. VoP doesn't have to sully his hands with filthy lucre. :smalltongue:


Do what works for your group, sure, but from the roleplay perspective, your solution is rather absurd.

And what kind of problem was my solution proposed to solve? :smalltongue:

[ShriekingDrake]

Don't play with BoED or BoVD if you are not prepared to play with the restrictions and substantive role-playing requirements those books call for. They are not ordinary rule books; they call for mature players not so much for the subject matter, but for the ability to play the game maturely under some tighter constraints.

To ease some of the difficulties associated with BoED, PGtF proffered Gift of Discernment. This is a feat that will enable the DM to admonish characters who have more exalted requirements that their actions are about to cross the line.

[Theodoxus]

I don't think it's any more absurd for the god the VoP dude gets his power from to simply whisk his share of loot away and place it in the collection plate of the nearest temple dedicated to him than it is for the deity to grant him the VoP powers in the first place.

It's patently absurd that simply foregoing any but the barest necessities would elicit the kind of response from a god as to grant AC, Stat and misc. bonuses just because you sat down and vowed a Vow of Poverty to him. I mean, Ilmater, maybe - but any other god's gonna laugh at you - realistically.

So, in this game where the impossible happens to be the norm, you have an issue with making the simplest answer the most absurd? ok... I recommend no VoP for you :)

[Coidzor]

To ease some of the difficulties associated with BoED, PGtF proffered Gift of Discernment. This is a feat that will enable the DM to admonish characters who have more exalted requirements that their actions are about to cross the line.

Oh. Great. Like we weren't already wasting enough feats as it is by taking Exalted feats. :smallsigh:

[Douglas]

Oh. Great. Like we weren't already wasting enough feats as it is by taking Exalted feats. :smallsigh:
Hey, it's not like you have that much else to spend your 1 per 2 levels bonus Exalted feats on.

[JamesonCourage]

I don't think it's any more absurd for the god the VoP dude gets his power from to simply whisk his share of loot away and place it in the collection plate of the nearest temple dedicated to him than it is for the deity to grant him the VoP powers in the first place.

It's patently absurd that simply foregoing any but the barest necessities would elicit the kind of response from a god as to grant AC, Stat and misc. bonuses just because you sat down and vowed a Vow of Poverty to him. I mean, Ilmater, maybe - but any other god's gonna laugh at you - realistically.

So, in this game where the impossible happens to be the norm, you have an issue with making the simplest answer the most absurd? ok... I recommend no VoP for you :)

From the sounds of it, you're looking at it mechanically and proposing a fluff reason to justify it. From a mechanical view, that makes sense. From a roleplay viewpoint, it does not.

Yes, a god could whisk it away. Sure. I mean, a god could just grant him 20 levels of cleric spellcasting. I mean, the guy is exalted, after all. Who can you trust more?

Here's the thing, though. You can easily accept that there are certain benefits to certain actions, like taking vows. And just like any class, feat, etc., if you don't like the fluff, you don't have to use the class. If there's a problem with it realistically manifesting itself in your world, it makes sense for you not to use it. However, if it does make sense in your world, why should it be taken off the table?

The problem here is the players attempting to bypass wealth by level for mechanical game, even going against the spirit of their characters. According to the poster that sparked this debate, the players were all good and lawful, and they tried to bone the VoP character of all but 1%. This isn't exactly honest dealings with someone who is most likely a friend in-game:


Group of 4, 1 had VoP. The other 3 wanted to give the VoP like 1% of the treasure, and I pointed out in the book the quote that has already been used in this thread. The reply? "We never discussed his pay, so we are giving him more than we need to."
Nearly tore my hair out there.
Then when I wouldn't budge, they said something like "Then we will negotiate with him so that he will accept 1%."
After calmly explaining to them that this is not a 'share' of the treasure by any lawful or good definition (since the entire party was either L or G) they would be taking alignment points away from their alignments, the game kinda devolved after that.

The original poster goes on to state that the VoP character attempted to use wealth or magical item(s) of some form, attempting to bypass the feat and gain a mechanical advantage:


It's one of the reasons that after that game, I just banned it. So much easier than the players trying (laughably) to 'get one over on me' by somehow trying to be able to make use of magic or gold and still keep the vow. (which that same player tried on me later, but that is another story) :smallamused:

This is a player problem. It shouldn't be resolved in-game by reducing treasure. It's something that should have been discussed with the players. It's no longer a current issue, from the sounds of it, but to say that simply having treasure vanish after you kill something is completely fine is -as I said- absurd from a roleplay perspective.

[Coidzor]

Hey, it's not like you have that much else to spend your 1 per 2 levels bonus Exalted feats on.

Indeed, but coming up with more crappy feats is one of the worse ways to "fix" that.


From the sounds of it, you're looking at it mechanically and proposing a fluff reason to justify it. From a mechanical view, that makes sense. From a roleplay viewpoint, it does not.

Sure it does. All you need is to have your player not have his intended play predicated on personally giving out gold to orphans so that they get mugged.


Here's the thing, though. You can easily accept that there are certain benefits to certain actions, like taking vows. Dictating what I can or can not personally accept is dangerous territory. Even more so when you're actually referring to the general populace.


And just like any class, feat, etc., if you don't like the fluff, you don't have to use the class. can negotiate with the DM to work out a solution or if you are the DM just change it and tell your players.

Fixed that for you. Fluff is mutable. Especially if you're the ******* batman! I mean, DM!


According to the poster that sparked this debate, the players were all good and lawful, and they tried to bone the VoP character of all but 1%. Who we didn't hear about actually objecting to this arrangement, so it's less about the characters and more about the players, hence my proposed solution.


This is a player problem. It shouldn't be resolved in-game by reducing treasure. It's something that should have been discussed with the players. It's no longer a current issue, from the sounds of it, but to say that simply having treasure vanish after you kill something is completely fine is -as I said- absurd from a roleplay perspective.

It's an in-game solution to their proposed gaming of the system. A player problem, yes, but an in-game, hypothetical player problem that had yet to actually have any loot divvying. By not fighting over them out of game and destroying the game before it really starts as happened, they get to think they're getting their cake and eating it too, but really the DM is balancing the system to their stated request. And actually they're weaker because they're losing 25% and then an additional 1%. So they're only getting 74.25% the treasure that the party would be getting.

And as has been implied by other similar statements, not universally. Your personal problem with it does not necessarily extend to others or beyond that to anything approaching a majority and even then does not make you objectively, absolutely correct.

tl;dr: VoP is a crappy feat that's not worth the time to argue with one's players about. Either fix it so that mechanically it works out or ban them from using it.

[ShriekingDrake]

Indeed, but coming up with more crappy feats is one of the worse ways to "fix" that.

Actually, it turns out to be an exceptionally clever feat. It is a feat that, admittedly, has little in the way of game mechanics. But it actually affects the meta-game and let's the DM manage role-playing in a manner that enables the player to keep his role-playing in synch with the spirit of the abilities, restrictions, and requirements associated with BoED. It's a very clever approach (and a rare one in the pantheon of DnD mechanics). And, as others have already mentioned, in the case of VoP, you've got exalted feats to burn. This is an elegant solution to a problem exemplified by the OP and many of the comments in this thread.

[Coidzor]

Actually, it turns out to be an exceptionally clever feat. It is a feat that, admittedly, has little in the way of game mechanics. But it actually affects the meta-game and let's the DM manage role-playing in a manner that enables the player to keep his role-playing in synch with the spirit of the abilities, restrictions, and requirements associated with BoED. It's a very clever approach (and a rare one in the pantheon of DnD mechanics). And, as others have already mentioned, in the case of VoP, you've got exalted feats to burn. This is an elegant solution to a problem exemplified by the OP and many of the comments in this thread.

Sure, clever and elegant for the DM to have a way to make the player pay for being more easily manageable with something that's supposed to actually expand character abilities. :smallyuk:

Should be an optional rule or inherent part of Sacred Vow in the first place.

[Douglas]

Sure, clever and elegant for the DM to have a way to make the player pay for being more easily manageable with something that's supposed to actually expand character abilities. :smallyuk:

Should be an optional rule or inherent part of Sacred Vow in the first place.
I think it's more a way for a player to handle an overly adversarial DM - the kind that treats something like Exalted status as a challenge to make the player lose it. If you have a good and reasonable DM who works with you and you're not trying to abuse things, it's utterly and completely superfluous. If you don't, it gives the player something blatantly clear cut in the written rules that he can point to and say "see? You have to warn me first! I even paid for the privilege!"

Yes, it would be nice if they built something like that into Sacred Vow or even the Exalted status right off the bat for free, but it probably just didn't occur to them immediately that it might be necessary, and fixing something like that through errata is going to be missed by a lot of people.

[Coidzor]

I think it's more a way for a player to handle an overly adversarial DM - the kind that treats something like Exalted status as a challenge to make the player lose it. If you have a good and reasonable DM who works with you and you're not trying to abuse things, it's utterly and completely superfluous. If you don't, it gives the player something blatantly clear cut in the written rules that he can point to and say "see? You have to warn me first! I even paid for the privilege!"

That just brings up the question of what kind of masochist would go into a situation like that. :smallconfused:


Yes, it would be nice if they built something like that into Sacred Vow or even the Exalted status right off the bat for free, but it probably just didn't occur to them immediately that it might be necessary, and fixing something like that through errata is going to be missed by a lot of people.

They invented Exalted to make every character into Paladins. By that point they had to have known about how much of a fetish making Paladins fall was, they gave them a cheap magical item to help, somewhat, with it.

Them not thinking of it would merely underscore how little thought went into BoED.

[GeminiVeil]

Wow, many many comments from my innocent little statement. Didn't expect that. I will try and clear up some things, though.
The game had already existed for about 6-7 sessions by the time the VoP character had joined. He was kind of assigned to them by a Wiz they were working for. (not actually a wiz, they just called him that) The character happened to be related to a character that was already in the game.
They were in a dungeon to retrieve one of the Wiz's spare spell books, not his main one, but he wanted it back anyway. So, they kill the first creature down there, and everyone but Mr. VoP starts dividing loot 3 ways. I pause the game, asking basically WTF?
At this point, Mr. VoP has no problem with what is going on, until explained that he STILL needs to aquire money so that he can donate/give away/help needy with it. Apparently he was not aware of this, having not really READ the feat. :smallsigh: The other players are also unhappy, having now realized they are basically flushing 25% of all loot down the drain. I feel I should state that I only allowed the VoP in the first place if he played out any fluff in it, which was agreed to.
So the other 3 players decide amongst themselves that a 'share' of the loot should constitute 1% (or less) and that why VoP can be appeased and they can still get most of the loot. The first argument I bring up is that according to the fluff, the VoP would not agree to this because he wants to help the needy. I also include the part I said about the Lawful or Good parts of alignment being affected by trying to convince Mr. VoP that this is a good idea. Mr. VoP doesn't mind their approach, but is informed that for his Exalted Good character, this would be something that he would not allow.
Game breaks down into unhappy players not liking the flushing of 'phat lewtz', and Mr. VoP just shaking his head at what is going on.

[Waker]

Game breaks down into unhappy players not liking the flushing of 'phat lewtz', and Mr. VoP just shaking his head at what is going on.
They aren't flushing their loot anymore than if they had any other character join their party. The treasure would still be divided 4 ways. The only arguable way they are "flushing" the loot is that they cannot benefit from equipment that could have otherwise been purchased by the new character (ie potions, wands and the like.)
As you pointed out before, they are supposed to be Good aligned characters. If they feel like trying to shortchange the VoPer, they should start drifting to Neutral.

[JamesonCourage]

Wow, many many comments from my innocent little statement. Didn't expect that. I will try and clear up some things, though.
The game had already existed for about 6-7 sessions by the time the VoP character had joined. He was kind of assigned to them by a Wiz they were working for. (not actually a wiz, they just called him that) The character happened to be related to a character that was already in the game.
They were in a dungeon to retrieve one of the Wiz's spare spell books, not his main one, but he wanted it back anyway. So, they kill the first creature down there, and everyone but Mr. VoP starts dividing loot 3 ways. I pause the game, asking basically WTF?
At this point, Mr. VoP has no problem with what is going on, until explained that he STILL needs to aquire money so that he can donate/give away/help needy with it. Apparently he was not aware of this, having not really READ the feat. :smallsigh: The other players are also unhappy, having now realized they are basically flushing 25% of all loot down the drain. I feel I should state that I only allowed the VoP in the first place if he played out any fluff in it, which was agreed to.
So the other 3 players decide amongst themselves that a 'share' of the loot should constitute 1% (or less) and that why VoP can be appeased and they can still get most of the loot. The first argument I bring up is that according to the fluff, the VoP would not agree to this because he wants to help the needy. I also include the part I said about the Lawful or Good parts of alignment being affected by trying to convince Mr. VoP that this is a good idea. Mr. VoP doesn't mind their approach, but is informed that for his Exalted Good character, this would be something that he would not allow.
Game breaks down into unhappy players not liking the flushing of 'phat lewtz', and Mr. VoP just shaking his head at what is going on.

Which is about what I thought. It's a player problem, not something an in-game solution like "25% of the treasure disappears" will fix.



They invented Exalted to make every character into Paladins. By that point they had to have known about how much of a fetish making Paladins fall was, they gave them a cheap magical item to help, somewhat, with it.

Them not thinking of it would merely underscore how little thought went into BoED.

If you think all exalted characters are like paladins, you're doing it wrong.

[GeminiVeil]

They aren't flushing their loot anymore than if they had any other character join their party. The treasure would still be divided 4 ways. The only arguable way they are "flushing" the loot is that they cannot benefit from equipment that could have otherwise been purchased by the new character (ie potions, wands and the like.)
As you pointed out before, they are supposed to be Good aligned characters. If they feel like trying to shortchange the VoPer, they should start drifting to Neutral.

The players felt that the loot was getting flushed because no character was benifiting from the loot. Much like Coidzor and the 'disappearing loot'. If I was a player in a game where the loot just goes *poof* in front of me, I would probably be an unhappy player, too.

[Coidzor]

The game had already existed for about 6-7 sessions by the time the VoP character had joined. He was kind of assigned to them by a Wiz they were working for.

Irrelevant, really, since the character was attached to a player.


They were in a dungeon to retrieve one of the Wiz's spare spell books, not his main one, but he wanted it back anyway. So, they kill the first creature down there, and everyone but Mr. VoP starts dividing loot 3 ways.

:smallconfused:This is a curious and potentially bad habit to divvy up the loot that often unless it's something that's immediately useful and usable, since it risks bogging down the game.


Game breaks down into unhappy players not liking the flushing of 'phat lewtz', and Mr. VoP just shaking his head at what is going on.

It does seem like my initial proposal would have worked quite handily, since aside from that particular encounter they couldn't know what loot to expect to find other than the spellbook.


The players felt that the loot was getting flushed because no character was benifiting from the loot. Much like Coidzor and the 'disappearing loot'. If I was a player in a game where the loot just goes *poof* in front of me, I would probably be an unhappy player, too.

Well, then, you also have the option of not having that treasure exist in the first place. :smallwink: The loot disappearing in front of their eyes was a throwaway suggestion.


If you think all exalted characters are like paladins, you're doing it wrong.

They have the ability to fall. They're designed to be paragons of good and virtue. Therefore, bringing paladinhood to non-paladin classed characters.

Edit: And the important thing here is their ability to lose Exalted status and be screwed over by the DM just like a Paladin.

And I don't play Exalted or Paladins precisely because I can't stand alignment debates derailing or destroying my games.

[VirOath]

Well then, set it in stone. 'Party Loot' is something that is set by you, and that you are measuring wealth by players rather than a lump sum (Which is how it should be handled. Some random treasure is fun, but only random treasure makes for a boring, penny pinching game.

So you can tell them that they can either give the VoP player a fair share so he has the resources to roleplay his feat, or you'll just cut the total amount of loot that hits the field in half overall.

If they want to be 'phat lewt' whores, they can go back to WoW and play with their guild manipulation tactics.

Edit: This needs to be added. If the players can't trust the DM at all, or the DM not trust the players at all, then there shouldn't be gaming around the table. It only causes whine fests and drags down everyone's enjoyment.

[Coidzor]

This needs to be added. If the players can't trust the DM at all, or the DM not trust the players at all, then there shouldn't be gaming around the table. It only causes whine fests and drags down everyone's enjoyment.

Sadly, about as often as not from what I've seen on the boards, it seems like there was trust between dm and players before the temptation and the heat of the moment proved too much and they came to loggerheads over the Paladin Question.

[GeminiVeil]

Irrelevant, really, since the character was attached to a player.

Again, giving the backstory. Wanted to be thorough.


:smallconfused:This is a curious and potentially bad habit to divvy up the loot that often unless it's something that's immediately useful and usable, since it risks bogging down the game.

The dungeon (affectionaly called the Catacombs) plot was basically that the book was in one of the rooms with a guard of some kind, and the hallways between rooms were empty. They were told this by their employer, who I can't remember if he used Divination magic to figure out or if he just owned the dungeon and lost control of the creatures. This was about 2 years ago, some memories are fuzzy.


It does seem like my initial proposal would have worked quite handily, since aside from that particular encounter they couldn't know what loot to expect to find other than the spellbook.

While I agree that the WBL issue would have been solved with the suggestion you provided, I still fail to see how the VoP issue was even touched on. The characters (and 2 of the players) issue was that, say, they get 1500gp. (just picking a number) Instead of being able to divvy that up 3 ways for 500gp apiece, they now have to divide it up to 375 each, with a 375share being thrown into some wishing well, basically. Their response in character, after being miffed OoC, was "we'll just make him take the smallest amount we can." Even if I had adjusted WBL to make up for this, Mr. VoP STILL should have argued for a share of the treasure to donate.

EDIT: I think I've stated my case enough, and derailed the thread unintentionally. I am respectfully dropping out of this discussion, since apparently the only response to "Mr VoP would, by the vow he took, demand his share of the treasure" is "Give less treasure", and being told that there are trust issues with friends I've had for nearly 20 years, I think I'm done. :smallsmile: Thanks anways.

[Coidzor]

While I agree that the WBL issue would have been solved with the suggestion you provided, I still fail to see how the VoP issue was even touched on. The characters (and 2 of the players) issue was that, say, they get 1500gp. (just picking a number) Instead of being able to divvy that up 3 ways for 500gp apiece, they now have to divide it up to 375 each, with a 375share being thrown into some wishing well, basically. Their response in character, after being miffed OoC, was "we'll just make him take the smallest amount we can." Even if I had adjusted WBL to make up for this, Mr. VoP STILL should have argued for a share of the treasure to donate.

But he didn't want to. You seem to be missing the point here about obviating the whole donation thing by thinking I'm saying give them less treasure and still have the VoP guy have a share.

The important thing, after all, is not so much the "helping" of the poor (unless that's actually going to be a big focus in the game) but the poverty itself and the abilities gained from it.

[GeminiVeil]

But he didn't want to. You seem to be missing the point here about obviating the whole donation thing by thinking I'm saying give them less treasure and still have the VoP guy have a share.

The important thing, after all, is not so much the "helping" of the poor (unless that's actually going to be a big focus in the game) but the poverty itself and the abilities gained from it.

Because the feat description says he must get a share. It's like allowing a LG druid, RAW say you can't.
Anyway, please see edit above. :smallcool: Good night.