What’s so bad about the Vow of Peace?

[TheRinni]

Lately, I’ve been playing a character with 6 levels in Favored Soul, and 1 level in Apostle of Peace (a house rule states that the max rank in any given skill can be 4 + your level, instead of 3, which allows me to qualify for the PrC a bit early).

Anyways, I’m in a party with a Grey Guard, a Ninja, and a wizard; not the usual “agreed” upon peaceful party a VoPe character would normally play in. But things have been working very well so far. The Ninja has taken the Merciless flaw, and the DM has ruled that he is immune to the negative effects his guilt would normally enforce upon him when killing a helpless or defenseless target around me. The Grey Guard has a very interesting dynamic with my character; he pities and envies her naivety.

I spend combat healing, and preaching the ways of pacifism. Everyone ignores me and combat goes as per usual. In some ways, I’m also the perfect tank. I also absorb a LOT of damage, and a lot of enemies just find me too annoying to avoid completely. My AC is absolutely ridiculous; nothing can hit me – in addition, they have to make a Will save to beat through my Sanctuary, and their weapons have to make a Fort save or shatter. In other words, I am perfectly useful in combat with the VoPe.

I’ve heard so many terrible things about this feat. The primary thing being that it enforces too many restrictions on characters who like to kill things. According to the BoED:

“Your purity is so great that any ally of yours who slays a helpless or defenseless foe within 120 feet of you feels great remorse. Your ally takes a –1 morale penalty on his attack rolls for 1 hour per your character level.”
That doesn’t seem too bad. I think any goodly character would be against killing someone in their sleep, or while they're unarmed.

[Qwertystop]

Yeah, I agree. The main problem I can see is that in many cases, the easiest way to end an encounter is with some method of partial or complete incapacitation. Depending on whether the Blindness from Glitterdust counts as making an enemy helpless or defenseless, the Vow could essentially eliminate that very useful option from any party that had an Arcane caster. Hold Person would definitely count, and maybe even Suggestion, Charm, or Dominate.

If you wanted to play a pragmatic Vower of Peace, of course, you could just walk away when killing seemed absolutely necessary. Fluff it as your god imposing a restriction on the powers granted by the vow, when you only swore not to kill/injure, not to stop others from ever doing so, and that you recognize that sometimes it is unavoidable.

[Prime32]

I spend combat healing, and preaching the ways of pacifism. Everyone ignores me and combat goes as per usual. In some ways, I’m also the perfect tank. I also absorb a LOT of damage, and a lot of enemies just find me too annoying to avoid completely. My AC is absolutely ridiculous; nothing can hit me – in addition, they have to make a Will save to beat through my Sanctuary, and their weapons have to make a Fort save or shatter. In other words, I am perfectly useful in combat with the VoPe.
Well, this is the bigger problem:

To fulfill your vow, you must nor cause harm to any living creature (constructs and undead are not included in this prohibition). You may not deal real damage or ability damage to such creatures through spells or weapons, though you may deal nonlethal damage. You may not target them with death effects, disintegrate, or other spells that have the immediate potential to cause death or great harm. You also may not use nondamaging spells to incapacitate or weaken living foes so that your allies can kill them - if you incapacitate a foe, you must take him prisoner.
You are not allowed to use your aura to disable enemies so that your allies can kill them.

Also, the "great remorse" penalty kicks in whenever you fight anything with regeneration. And warforged don't count as people for the purposes of the vow.

[Divide by Zero]

The problem I always saw with it is that it places restrictions on what your party is allowed to do. There is a similar problem with the paladin - by playing that character, you are restricting the actions of other players. It can work perfectly well in some parties, of course, but it's definitely something you'd want to clear with the group beforehand.

[Doc Roc]

Well, this is the bigger problem:

You are not allowed to use your aura to disable enemies so that your allies can kill them.

Also, the "great remorse" penalty kicks in when you kill trolls but not warforged, which is strange.

You can however use turn to stone, imprison them in quintessence, and generally just be a terrible person. You might even technically be able to use PaO to turn them into a brick.

"This house is built on and of peace. Wonderful peace. Bricks of it, really."

[TheRinni]

You are not allowed to use your aura to disable enemies so that your allies can kill them.

The Calm Emotions Aura acts as a Calm Emotions Spell, which dictates:

Any aggressive action against or damage dealt to a calmed creature immediately breaks the spell on all calmed creatures.
So, as soon as combat is initiated, the effects of the aura are broken. I've never been in a position where any of my party members have 1. Beaten the Will Save to prematurely start combat - and 2. one-shotted someone before combat even stated, so that's never been a problem.

Definitely something to watch out for, though.

[MammonAzrael]

You can however use turn to stone, imprison them in quintessence, and generally just be a terrible person. You might even technically be able to use PaO to turn them into a brick.

"This house is built on and of peace. Wonderful peace. Bricks of it, really."

This sounds like a fantastically twisted villain.

[Prime32]

The Calm Emotions Aura acts as a Calm Emotions Spell, which dictates:

So, as soon as combat is initiated, the effects of the aura are broken. I've never been in a position where any of my party members have 1. Beaten the Will Save to prematurely start combat - and 2. one-shotted someone before combat even stated, so that's never been a problem.However, if your allies attack anyone after they hit you and break their weapon, it violates your vow.

[erikun]

You are not allowed to use your aura to disable enemies so that your allies can kill them.
The aura isn't a spell, and even if it was, there is no way to use it against an enemy. You could be annoying and stand in their way, but there is still no way to force them to attack you so that their weapon shatters. (Any spells that would do so, such as charm/dominate, would probably be a violation of the Vow.)

Besides that, I haven't heard much about Vow of Peace. Most of the talk is around Vow of Poverty, which prevents you from possessing any items of value - including such basics as a means of flight or food production.

[TheRinni]

However, if your allies attack anyone after they hit you and break their weapon, it violates your vow.

Hrm... that's a very interesting take on:
"You also may not use nondamaging spells to incapacitate or weaken living foes so that your allies can kill them"

However, at the risk of being nitpicky, I'm going to argue that
If a creature strikes you with a manufactured weapon, the weapon must immediately make a successful Fortitude save (DC 10 + one-half your character level + your Con modifier) or shatter against your skin, leaving you unharmed.
is not a spell. It's a benefit granted from a feat and, at best, is a spell like ability.

[TheRinni]

The aura isn't a spell, and even if it was, there is no way to use it against an enemy. You could be annoying and stand in their way, but there is still no way to force them to attack you so that their weapon shatters. (Any spells that would do so, such as charm/dominate, would probably be a violation of the Vow.)

Besides that, I haven't heard much about Vow of Peace. Most of the talk is around Vow of Poverty, which prevents you from possessing any items of value - including such basics as a means of flight or food production.

I took the Vow of Poverty as well, as it is a requirement for the Apostle of Peace class. I compensate for the means of flight, by riding on the Grey Guard's summoned mount (I am very light weight, and have no possessions to weigh me down). And after having 5 levels with the Vow, I no longer need food to survive.


EDIT:

And warforged don't count as people for the purposes of the vow.

I thought that was a bit strange too. But, after discussing it with the DM, we decided that warforged are living constructs, and therefore not considered under the exception:
To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm to any living creature (constructs and undead are not included in this prohibition).

[Qwertystop]

This sounds like a fantastically twisted villain.

If anyone wants to DM a game with that villain, I'm up for it. That tiny bit of knowledge is unlikely to influence anything.

[Doc Roc]

If anyone wants to DM a game with that villain, I'm up for it. That tiny bit of knowledge is unlikely to influence anything.

It'll be showing up in my Legend IRC game. I'll have to add a couple feats to make it work, but.. :)

[Lateral]

I took the Vow of Poverty as well, as it is a requirement for the Apostle of Peace class. I compensate for the means of flight, by riding on the Grey Guard's summoned mount (I am very light weight, and have no possessions to weigh me down). And after having 5 levels with the Vow, I no longer need food to survive.

Plus, doesn't Apostle of Peace mitigate some of the negative effects of VoP?

[Qwertystop]

Plus, doesn't Apostle of Peace mitigate some of the negative effects of VoP?

It lets you use magic items as long as they are for your own protection. Doesn't allow a holy symbol, though.

[Psyren]

The downsides are:

- You become the party nanny. If your group is going for exalted status, then great, but this should be discussed beforehand.

- It invites DM screw for cheap drama. ("Little did you know, there was a fly in your tea!")

The mechanics themselves are not terrible (other than the generic suck of Sacred Vow), just watch for the above.


I prefer Nonviolence because it doesn't penalize you for what your party does.

[Keld Denar]

I had a PC in a game I ran who would "flash" his aura on people. He would walk back and forth, imposing his aura on people until they failed their saves or he ran out of movement speed. I put the kaibosh on that very quickly, imposing the 24 hour immunity upon a successful save clause that most fear affects already have. If you make the save once, or fail the save but are broken out of the spell (by a hostile action from an ally or enemy), you are immune to the aura of the person with VoP for 24 hours.

And then I got smart, banned the feat, and made the player reroll. It was making the other players play his way, and they weren't having fun. I talked to the player out of game, expressed the concern of the other party members, and we both mutually agreed that it was kinda a disgusting mechanic, and that was that.

[shadow_archmagi]

Keep in mind that adding a bit of nonlethal damage acts as a buffer against fatalities; IE:

Monster has 100 HP

Deal 20 nonlethal damage

Monster now falls unconscious at 19 hp, so it only dies if it gets down to 20 and then a player hits it for 30+.

So as long as you have some way to saturate your enemies with at least a little nonlethal, you've got no worries about breaking your vow.

Remember kids: Stabbing someone in the gut five times is peaceful if you previously hit them over the head.

[TheRinni]

Plus, doesn't Apostle of Peace mitigate some of the negative effects of VoP?

Eh, kinda sorta. The Apostle of Peace allows you to use magical protective items without breaking your vows. Meaning: you can only have items that increase your AC, but those increases don't stack with the AC bonuses gained from Vows anyways.

There's a lot of controversy about their ability to use magical protective items as stated in the BoED:
As part of their sacred vows, apostles of peace forswear the use of armor, though they may wear magic items that protect them (such as a ring of protection or bracers of armor).
As the Vow of Poverty is a requirement for the class, many treat this as a Special Ability, which allows for an exception to the vow. Others believe that since this is a direct contradiction to the VoP, it is a typo or mistake on the behalf of WoTC. And the VoP should never have been a requirement for the class.

After talking it over with my DM, we decided to treat it as a special ability. "As part of their sacred vows," implies that there is a vow which would prevent them from wearing armor. The Vows of Nonviolence and Peace have no such restrictions on armor, which leaves the Vow of Poverty to be the sacred vow in question. As such, neither of us believe its inclusion to be a typo.

[Etrivar]

Remember kids: Stabbing someone in the gut five times is peaceful if you previously hit them over the head.

Can I sig this? This is made of pure win!

[TheRinni]

The downsides are:

- You become the party nanny. If your group is going for exalted status, then great, but this should be discussed beforehand.

- It invites DM screw for cheap drama. ("Little did you know, there was a fly in your tea!")

The mechanics themselves are not terrible (other than the generic suck of Sacred Vow), just watch for the above.


I prefer Nonviolence because it doesn't penalize you for what your party does.

Eh, I think any good paladin or cleric acts as the party's nagging moral guide. You usually just ignore them, or find ways to appease them.

I don't think (or I at least hope) my DM wouldn't be a douche like that. I like the idea of my character's beliefs being challenged - it opens up all kinds of doors for character development - but that's a bit silly, and against what the BoED suggests for DMs.

How does the Vow of Peace penalize you for your party's actions?



Keep in mind that adding a bit of nonlethal damage acts as a buffer against fatalities; IE:

Monster has 100 HP

Deal 20 nonlethal damage

Monster now falls unconscious at 19 hp, so it only dies if it gets down to 20 and then a player hits it for 30+.

So as long as you have some way to saturate your enemies with at least a little nonlethal, you've got no worries about breaking your vow.

Remember kids: Stabbing someone in the gut five times is peaceful if you previously hit them over the head.
Are you sure that's correct? Which book contains the rules for Nonleathal damage?


And then I got smart, banned the feat, and made the player reroll. It was making the other players play his way, and they weren't having fun. I talked to the player out of game, expressed the concern of the other party members, and we both mutually agreed that it was kinda a disgusting mechanic, and that was that.

We haven't had any problems with the rest of the party playing their characters. As stated before, it's created a very unique, fun dynamic for all involved. I think ANY good character would be at least slightly against attacking unarmed, innocent, or helpless targets. And I think ANY evil or even realistic character would find that philosophy silly.

[King Atticus]

We haven't had any problems with the rest of the party playing their characters. .

But to be fair, the fact that your DM granted a very handy immunity to one of the people who would (possibly) be most apt to be effected by your vow does mitigate the downside. It turned it into a roll play opportunity instead of a punishment. They're just showing you the ramifications of the vow under normal usage. But your way is cool because it doesn't look like there's much of a negative for you or your group, so...run with it.

[TheRinni]

But to be fair, the fact that your DM granted a very handy immunity to one of the people who would (possibly) be most apt to be effected by your vow does mitigate the downside. It turned it into a roll play opportunity instead of a punishment. They're just showing you the ramifications of the vow under normal usage. But your way is cool because it doesn't look like there's much of a negative for you or your group, so...run with it.

I just find it very strange that it's viewed as such a negative. In evil campaigns, we often kill helpless and defenseless targets. But, in primarily good parties, it's usually morally looked down upon anyways. In the past two campaigns, I can only recall once that it's happened.

There's also the fact it's only a -1 to attack roles. That -1 is easily offset by the million buffer spells I cast on them during combat.

[King Atticus]

I just find it very strange that it's viewed as such a negative. In evil campaigns, we often kill helpless and defenseless targets. But, in primarily good parties, it's usually morally looked down upon anyways. In the past two campaigns, I can only recall once that its happened.

True enough.


There's also the fact it's only a -1 to attack roles. That -1 is easily offset by the million buffer spells I cast on them during combat.

Yeah, with this being the only penalty it almost makes it worth it to take it on on purpose just to see the look on the VoPe characters face when you "earn" it. If only that wouldn't start you down the alignment chart like you landed on the big slide in a game of chutes and ladders. :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

In evil campaigns, we often kill helpless and defenseless targets. But, in primarily good parties, it's usually morally looked down upon anyways.

Huh? My parties CDG all the time. It's not evil, it's efficient.

If the casters can set them up for stabby death with a single spell instead of burning all the way through the monster's HP, so much the better.

[sonofzeal]

Huh? My parties CDG all the time. It's not evil, it's efficient.

If the casters can set them up for stabby death with a single spell instead of burning all the way through the monster's HP, so much the better.
It hardly ever comes up in our groups. Once a monster drops, we usually treat it as dead for all intents and purposes. Nobody bothers CDGing, they just search the bodies. I can't remember the last DM that had us CDGing after combat, or any time a lack of CDGing caused a problem under any of the 10 or so DMs I've gamed with.

[King Atticus]

Sorry for my ignorance but what's CDG?

[Starbuck_II]

Huh? My parties CDG all the time. It's not evil, it's efficient.

If the casters can set them up for stabby death with a single spell instead of burning all the way through the monster's HP, so much the better.

Agreed. Even Pallys can CDG according to WotC once. It was where they were discussing CDG rules in one of the blogs (back when Wotc was still doing 3.5)

[Psyren]

It hardly ever comes up in our groups. Once a monster drops, we usually treat it as dead for all intents and purposes. Nobody bothers CDGing, they just search the bodies. I can't remember the last DM that had us CDGing after combat, or any time a lack of CDGing caused a problem under any of the 10 or so DMs I've gamed with.

We've had monsters come back from the brink before, or enemy druids that pour a potion down their animal companion's throat etc. I play Pathfinder, so the negative health thing comes into play a lot (due to dying at -CON instead of -10.) The only times we don't bother with finishing the baddies off are when nobody is around that can get them moving again.


Sorry for my ignorance but what's CDG?

Coup De Grace, i.e. a special attack designed to kill a defenseless/helpless creature.

[sonofzeal]

We've had monsters come back from the brink before, or enemy druids that pour a potion down their animal companion's throat etc. I play Pathfinder, so the negative health thing comes into play a lot (due to dying at -CON instead of -10.) The only times we don't bother with finishing the baddies off are when nobody is around that can get them moving again
Still, those situations seem pretty darn rare in most campaigns. Citing them as a major reason why VoPe is terrible seems illogical. Occasionally, yes, a CDG helps. But you should be able to get through an entire campaign without having to use one.

[Slipperychicken]

To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm to any
living creature (constructs and undead are not included in this
prohibition). You may not deal real damage or ability damage to
such creatures through spells or weapons, though you may deal
nonlethal damage. You may not target them with death effects,
disintegrate, or other spells that have the immediate potential to
cause death or great harm. You also may not use nondamaging
spells to incapacitate or weaken living foes so that your allies can
kill them—if you incapacitate a foe, you must take him prisoner

Although it leaves a number of other better options open, wouldn't that (by RAW) allow you to kill foes with Unarmed Strikes, as long as your allies don't kill-steal you? I guess it depends on whether the first sentence is considered fluff or crunch...

[Psyren]

Still, those situations seem pretty darn rare in most campaigns. Citing them as a major reason why VoPe is terrible seems illogical. Occasionally, yes, a CDG helps. But you should be able to get through an entire campaign without having to use one.

Huh? Citing? I did no such thing.

I brought up CDG as a counter to Rinni's point, that killing helpless targets is "morally looked down upon." Even paladins are allowed to CDG (during a genuine battle) - nothing immoral about it.

[TheRinni]

Huh? Citing? I did no such thing.

I brought up CDG as a counter to Rinni's point, that killing helpless targets is "morally looked down upon." Even paladins are allowed to CDG (during a genuine battle) - nothing immoral about it.

If you look back and read my post, you'll see that I admitted that realistic characters may find the entire philosophy silly. However, the fact still remains that many characters would consider attacking an unarmed enemy not honorable - paladins, clerics, swashbuckers, and many, many others may have such ideals.

[Psyren]

Yes, but "many" is not "all."

In addition, "unarmed" and "helpless" are not the same thing. If incarceration of an evil foe is impractical, its redemption implausible, and its threat to others if left alive is reasonably predictable, then dispatching it is the best course of action. Paladins in particular are empowered to be judge, jury and - when warranted - executioner.

They are of course mortal, and thus make mistakes - which is where things like Atonement come into play. But that does not make all CDG's morally wrong, or dishonorable. (Once again, two different things.)

[sonofzeal]

Huh? Citing? I did no such thing.

I brought up CDG as a counter to Rinni's point, that killing helpless targets is "morally looked down upon." Even paladins are allowed to CDG (during a genuine battle) - nothing immoral about it.
My apologies, I was trying to link back around to the central thrust of the thread, namely that VoPe isn't that big an obstacle. And I still don't think it is.

[King Atticus]

To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm to any
living creature (constructs and undead are not included in this
prohibition). You may not deal real damage or ability damage to
such creatures through spells or weapons, though you may deal
nonlethal damage. You may not target them with death effects,
disintegrate, or other spells that have the immediate potential to
cause death or great harm. You also may not use nondamaging
spells to incapacitate or weaken living foes so that your allies can
kill them—if you incapacitate a foe, you must take him prisoner

Although it leaves a number of other better options open, wouldn't that (by RAW) allow you to kill foes with Unarmed Strikes, as long as your allies don't kill-steal you? I guess it depends on whether the first sentence is considered fluff or crunch...

Just use the nonlethal substitution metamagic feat and rock out the (non-lethal) damage spells. Just work it out with the party that anyone you hit with these spells they leave alone. But I would limit yourself to a small percentage of the encounter (no area effect stuff) so they get there share and don't come to resent you for taking away all the combat.

[TheRinni]

Yes, but "many" is not "all."

In addition, "unarmed" and "helpless" are not the same thing. If incarceration of an evil foe is impractical, its redemption implausible, and its threat to others if left alive is reasonably predictable, then dispatching it is the best course of action. Paladins in particular are empowered to be judge, jury and - when warranted - executioner.

They are of course mortal, and thus make mistakes - which is where things like Atonement come into play. But that does not make all CDG's morally wrong, or dishonorable. (Once again, two different things.)
I never claimed otherwise. I am merely stating what has been the case in my experience.

I am merely implying that what is "morally wrong," is partially dependent on a character's viewpoint. You can have a paladin who views stabbing someone in the back as a moral issue, and it really wouldn't be that abnormal. Just because it's allowed by WoTC in a book, doesn't mean a character should do it.


My apologies, I was trying to link back around to the central thrust of the thread, namely that VoPe isn't that big an obstacle. And I still don't think it is.
Agreed. Even if you do have a CDG in a session, it is easily offset by a character who is purely designed around buffs and heals. What's a -1 to attack roles when compared to the +5 you'll get at the beginning of combat?

[Psyren]

I am merely implying that what is "morally wrong," is partially dependent on a character's viewpoint. You can have a paladin who views stabbing someone in the back as a moral issue, and it really wouldn't be that abnormal. Just because it's allowed by WoTC in a book, doesn't mean a character should do it.

I think you're confusing morals with ethics. Viewing stabbing in the back as dishonorable falls under the latter.

Rogues can be Good, and still use sneak attack for example.

[TheRinni]

I think you're confusing morals with ethics. Viewing stabbing in the back as dishonorable falls under the latter.

Rogues can be Good, and still use sneak attack for example.

Regardless, I have to say that we are going to get off topic if we continue to debate morals and ethics.

In my experience, Paladins, good Clerics and characters who put high value in honor, are more adverse when it comes to attacking defenseless people. All I'm saying is that a character with that trait isn't terribly unheard of.

Using this as a basis, it doesn't seem like that particular ethic would qualify the VoPe as a major hindrance.

[Psyren]

I never said it would. My problems with VoPe are purely to do with how easy it is for external forces (your party members and the DM) to nullify your feat.

If you have a group that wants to work with you it's great. If the party wants to screw you over or the DM wants some cheap drama, it's extremely easy to make you "fall."

[sonofzeal]

I never said it would. My problems with VoPe are purely to do with how easy it is for external forces (your party members and the DM) to nullify your feat.

If you have a group that wants to work with you it's great. If the party wants to screw you over or the DM wants some cheap drama, it's extremely easy to make you "fall."

Not really. You don't fall unless YOU do something. Your party can CDG, and if so they take a penalty and you should probably be waggling your finger a bit. But I don't think the wording is nearly prohibitive enough to actually be a major issue. It's much easier to make the Paladin fall than it is the VoPe'er.

[TheRinni]

If you have a group that wants to work with you it's great. If the party wants to screw you over or the DM wants some cheap drama, it's extremely easy to make you "fall."

To be fair, the DM can screw any player over if he/she wants to. If the party wants to mess with you, it's like Sonofzeal said, they're going to face most of the consequences, not you.

[Psyren]

Your party can CDG, and if so they take a penalty and you should probably be waggling your finger a bit.

No, you're thinking of Nonviolence. With Peace, if you "incapacitate or weaken living foes" and your allies kill them, you're done. That would fall under "unwittingly" - allowing you to regain the feat's benefits after Atonement.

There is very little offensively you can do in combat that doesn't fall under "weakening" in some way, even nonlethal damage.

[shadow_archmagi]

To whoever asked for the nonlethal damage rules;



Certain attacks deal nonlethal damage. Other effects, such as heat or being exhausted, also deal nonlethal damage. When you take nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much you’ve accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. It is not "real" damage. Instead, when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you’re staggered, and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious. It doesn’t matter whether the nonlethal damage equals or exceeds your current hit points because the nonlethal damage has gone up or because your current hit points have gone down.


Emphasis added. If someone has 10 HP, and has taken 5 nonlethal damage, then you can punch them for 6 more (11>10) or you can stab them for 6 (5>4) and either way ends with them unconscious but otherwise totally healthy.


Can I sig this? This is made of pure win!



And yeah, feel free to sig that.

[TheRinni]

Emphasis added. If someone has 10 HP, and has taken 5 nonlethal damage, then you can punch them for 6 more (11>10) or you can stab them for 6 (5>4) and either way ends with them unconscious but otherwise totally healthy.

Thank you. I looked up the SRD rules on nonleathal damage; I was a bit confused because I've never actually played a character who used it. You're completely right.


No, you're thinking of Nonviolence. With Peace, if you "incapacitate or weaken living foes" and your allies kill them, you're done. That would fall under "unwittingly" - allowing you to regain the feat's benefits after Atonement.

There is very little offensively you can do in combat that doesn't fall under "weakening" in some way, even nonlethal damage.

You may not "use spells to incapacitate or weaken living foes." If you look at my original post, I made note of all the things I did in combat. Heals, buffs, and tanking. When creating a character with the VoPe, I knew that I wouldn't be able to do any damage (nonlethal or otherwise) or debuffs, least I risk accidentally breaking my vow.

[Veyr]

You take a feat.

The rest of your party suffers.

That, and more-or-less that alone, is what is wrong with the feat. No one else should have to suffer because of your build choices.

Note, this is also a problem with Paladins, but Vow of Peace only makes it worse.

(If I have mixed up Vow of Peace and Vow of Nonviolence, my apologies)

[Psyren]

How are you "tanking" - Which I take to mean forcing enemies to attack you -without any offensive magic?

[TheRinni]

You take a feat.

The rest of your party suffers.

That, and more-or-less that alone, is what is wrong with the feat. No one else should have to suffer because of your build choices.

Note, this is also a problem with Paladins, but Vow of Peace only makes it worse.

(If I have mixed up Vow of Peace and Vow of Nonviolence, my apologies)

However, my whole point is that they really don't suffer.

"Oh, you're feeling guilty for killing that poor person? Fear not. Everyone is redeemable." The Apostle then casts Bless, and that -1 bonus is rendered null and void.

[Veyr]

However, my whole point is that they really don't suffer.

"Oh, you're feeling guilty for killing that poor person? Fear not. Everyone is redeemable." The Apostle then casts Bless, and that -1 bonus is rendered null and void.
No, it's not. They still have a -1 penalty. You've canceled it out, but in so doing you've wasted an action that otherwise could have been doing something else — or, worst comes to worst, actually giving them a bonus, instead of just undoing a problem they had.

Not to mention all of the problems the incredible number of hostages you end up with will cause.

[TheRinni]

However, my whole point is that they really don't suffer.

"Oh, you're feeling guilty for killing that poor person? Fear not. Everyone is redeemable." The Apostle then casts Bless, and that -1 bonus is rendered null and void.


How are you "tanking" - Which I take to mean forcing enemies to attack you -without any offensive magic?
The answer lies beyond gameplay mechanics and into the realm of role play. It's simply, really.

I am very, very annoying. People just want to hit me xD


Not to mention all of the problems the incredible number of hostages you end up with will cause.
We actually haven't taken any hostages. Although, to be fair, we haven't battled many humanoids lately. Lots and lots of undead, and fiends. Knowing this was going to be an undead heavy campaign, is also one of the reasons I felt comfortable taking the feat.

[Psyren]

The answer lies beyond gameplay mechanics and into the realm of role play.

Do you understand now why people dislike it? Feats should work on their own - if you need "the realm of role play" to make a feat work properly, something is wrong with it. Because I can roleplay any bad feat into functionality (e.g. Goad.)

[King Atticus]

You may not "use spells to incapacitate or weaken living foes." If you look at my original post, I made note of all the things I did in combat. Heals, buffs, and tanking. When creating a character with the VoPe, I knew that I wouldn't be able to do any damage (nonlethal or otherwise) or debuffs, least I risk accidentally breaking my vow.

No, it specifically says you can use nonlethal damage as long as you don't do it to help your party kill them. You can use nonlethal damage if it results in you taking them prisoner.

[TheRinni]

No, it specifically says you can use nonlethal damage as long as you don't do it to help your party kill them. You can use nonlethal damage if it results in you taking them prisoner.

I know. It's perfectly fine to use nonleathal damage. I just... wouldn't. The simple fact is that I'm too paranoid my party members will accidentally kill someone, and I'll be left with the consequences. In addition, I don't want to force my party into taking hostages. As previously stated, that would only be cumbersome, and unfair to the rest of the party.


Do you understand now why people dislike it? Feats should work on their own - if you need "the realm of role play" to make a feat work properly, something is wrong with it. Because I can roleplay any bad feat into functionality (e.g. Goad.)


That's merely for the tanking, which I can only do because of the ridiculous AC bonus granted by the feat in the first place. The feat grants many, many advantages. If one requires a bit of fluff to work? Eh. That's an added bonus. I never intended this character to be a tank. Rather, I wanted the quintessential naive healer, unaccustomed to taking another's life.

[ImperatorK]

Ekhem. I think you missed one little thing: VoN gives a -1 penalty PER defenseless or helpless creature killed up to Apostles character level.

[TheRinni]

Ekhem. I think you missed one little thing: VoN gives a -1 penalty PER defenseless or helpless creature killed up to Apostles character level.

Yeah, and I can see how that would be a problem. However, since helpless/defenseless enemies seem to be the abnormality, I don't really know the probability of gaining one penalty, let alone stacks of it.

[hamishspence]

If incarceration of an evil foe is impractical, its redemption implausible, and its threat to others if left alive is reasonably predictable, then dispatching it is the best course of action. Paladins in particular are empowered to be judge, jury and - when warranted - executioner.

This may depend a bit on the setting. Some might restrict a paladin's judge and jury powers rather firmly.

Powerful states in general (especially those with a strong notion of the rights of the citizenry) may frown on paladins trying, and executing, their citizens in the field without the sanction of the state.

[ImperatorK]

Yeah, and I can see how that would be a problem. However, since helpless/defenseless enemies seem to be the abnormality, I don't really know the probability of gaining one penalty, let alone stacks of it.
Remember that not everyone plays good characters. And not being able to kill helpless enemies is an inconvenience. Would you rather fight that powerful Wizard head-on, or kill him in his sleep?

[shadow_archmagi]

Remember that not everyone plays good characters. And not being able to kill helpless enemies is an inconvenience. Would you rather fight that powerful Wizard head-on, or kill him in his sleep?


If you have access to him while he's sleeping, you could just as easily have pounded him for nonlethal, and then punched him every now and then to keep him down while you loot his house/drag him to wizard prison.

Admittedly, I *do* see the reasoning here. Anyone taking the vow of peace means everyone now has to worry about nonlethal damage and avoiding kills. It's a single feat that adds a huge complication to party management. But it's hardly unworkable.

[McStabbington]

Yeah, it's been standard practice for us to go around the field after a battle and coup de grace (i.e. cut the throats) of anyone who has stabilized. We're not usually in a position to arrest and haul someone into the nearest town for banditry, they're just going to string them up anyway, and we've usually got a cleric on hand to detect evil and say "Yup, he's evil."

So long as we're not being cruel and we kill them in the fastest way possible, it's an act of mercy. I'd rather not leave them alive on the field for the wolves.

[hamishspence]

Even using a "It's a war against the monsters, the rules are different" argument as a justification, tends to run into the issue of it being a general obligation in warfare (at least, modern warfare) to take prisoners, rather than just kill everybody who's wounded and out of action.

So it may depend on the DM, as to how much of a responsibility the characters have to spare the defeated, at least for some kind of trial, and how much moral authority the PCs have to be the judge and jury.

The DMG2 also raises the issue of the PCs responsibility to accept the surrender of bandits if made, and bring them back alive.

[Taelas]

The "official" rules of war only work when everyone agrees on them. If the monsters don't take prisoners, the adventurers certainly aren't obliged to -- and even if they take prisoners, they probably do it for food, meaning you're still not obliged.

But it is far from a modern rule; most historical battles ended by surrender rather than slaughter. There's no point in killing a noble if you can ransom him instead. (Foot soldiers were less lucky, but even they were usually given chances to surrender, I believe. But whether they actually were allowed to live is a question I don't know the answer to... I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority were executed.)

[hamishspence]

Something can be a war crime even if the "other side" is known to commit war crimes regularly.

Similarly, it is possible to murder a murderer- the fact that they have murdered doesn't necessarily make all killings of them, not murder.

Or, in D&D terms, something can be an evil act even if committed against an evil victim.

So- the obligations might not be nullified.

[Frozen_Feet]

Do you understand now why people dislike it? Feats should work on their own - if you need "the realm of role play" to make a feat work properly, something is wrong with it. Because I can roleplay any bad feat into functionality (e.g. Goad.)

Very few feats don't represent some in-game activity. (Even if refluffed; the action they represent is just switched around.) This means a character has to partake certain actions to "make the feat work".

The idea of feats isn't meant to be just nuggets of mechanical power. They're meant to reflect actual qualities of a character within the game. The Sacred Vows specifically are obviously made from ground-up to be in-game factors as well as mechanics; that they reach to the realm of roleplaying is intentional and a boon for anyone who wants to play a character like that.

Likewise, you overstate the problem of restricting actions of other characters. Almost any kind of a character puts some restrictions on what other party members can do without stepping on each other's toes. While D&D is a teamsport most of the time, many of us consider intrapary conflict and compromise to be natural and interesting facet of roleplaying. At least with Vows it's readily apparent what kind of conflict and compromise to expect.

I'm not trying to say your dislike (or that of others who share your viewpoint) is unwarranted; just trying to elaborate why it rings empty to some others.

[hamishspence]

they're just going to string them up anyway, and we've usually got a cleric on hand to detect evil and say "Yup, he's evil."

I lean to the view that detection as a means of determining who should die and who shouldn't, should be discouraged.

Example- the bandits are CN, actually guilty of death penalty crimes, and the LE guy among them is actually an infiltrator sent by the LN sheriff- who has not done anything criminal so far.

Result- one very ticked off sheriff, out to hang murder charges on the heroes, one unjustly killed infiltrator, and possibly, a bunch of free bandits.

[McStabbington]

Admittedly, our group was more hack and slash than anything else. On reflection, maybe that wasn't such a good general policy.

[hamishspence]

Hack and slash can certainly work- but some worlds can be rather complicated and throw up a lot of situations that mean a degree of caution is needed.

Eberron in particular tends toward this.

[Andorax]

I may have missed it somewhere along the line.

Why, in character, does your character tolerate these people (the ninja especially)?

[Frozen_Feet]

Because she's a total airhead who can be dissuaded with "yeah, yeah, I'll not do it again" each and every time, because hey, her friends would never lie to her? :smallbiggrin:

I mean, she's the quintessential naive healer type - think Orihime from Bleach. You know, the girl who hurried to save the lives of two people who'd borderline sexually assaulted her? The one who forgave a soul-eating demon who'd just killed her love interest before her eyes?

Maybe she's just that kind of character. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsDumb) :smallwink:

[TheRinni]

Because she's a total airhead who can be dissuaded with "yeah, yeah, I'll not do it again" each and every time, because hey, her friends would never lie to her? :smallbiggrin:

I mean, she's the quintessential naive healer type - think Orihime from Bleach. You know, the girl who hurried to save the lives of two people who'd borderline sexually assaulted her? The one who forgave a soul-eating demon who'd just killed her love interest before her eyes?

Maybe she's just that kind of character. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsDumb) :smallwink:

Yup, pretty much. Essentially, at the beginning of the adventure, she "vowed" to keep this small group of adventurers alive. She's since grown to view them as friends, although she doesn't agree with their philosophies.

She's also not the most intelligent adventurer, which I believe plays a role in her naivety.

[Qwertystop]

Yup, pretty much. Essentially, at the beginning of the adventure, she "vowed" to keep this small group of adventurers alive. She's since grown to view them as friends, although she doesn't agree with their philosophies.

She's also not the most intelligent adventurer, which I believe plays a role in her naivety.

She's a Favored Soul. They don't even get Knowledge(Religon)*. Did anyone expect intelligence?

*I mean seriously. Someone made a statement from the point of view of a Favored Soul. It went something like this:
"Yeah, I get these spells from some big dude up in the sky. Don't know much about him though."

[King Atticus]

(Foot soldiers were less lucky, but even they were usually given chances to surrender, I believe. But whether they actually were allowed to live is a question I don't know the answer to... I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority were executed.)

iirc...Historically speaking the vast majority of the foot soldier types were just absorbed by the conquerors' army. It allowed them to swell their own ranks and add diversity into their homelands. Most of those soldiers, being conscripted into service in the first place, were just doing what they were told and had no real affection towards the people that were forcing them to fight and die for a cause they didn't choose, so they were willing to fight for the victors if it kept them alive.

[TheRinni]

She's a Favored Soul. They don't even get Knowledge(Religon)*. Did anyone expect intelligence?

*I mean seriously. Someone made a statement from the point of view of a Favored Soul. It went something like this:
"Yeah, I get these spells from some big dude up in the sky. Don't know much about him though."

Yeah, that's the basics of it. I figured making her somewhat of a simpleton would be a great way to avoid a lot of party conflict. During character creation, I was well aware of the potential problems a VoPe ******* would cause. I didn't want that.

It's funny, the Grey Guard (kickass Paladin PrC from Complete Scoundrel) once asked about my clergy, and spells. I told him: "Eh, I kind of just feel connected with it, ya know? When I want to make someone better, it's just like - BAM - they're healed."

[The Random NPC]

It seems to me, you are activily avoiding all the bad parts of the feat, and then saying the feat isn't as bad and people say.

[Darth Stabber]

This thread makes me so happy that I am running an evil campaign currently. The party has a dedicated CDG'er as well, the Dread Necromancer's wight.

[hamishspence]

Even in a villainous campaign, there can be pragmatic reasons to spare your enemies/victims.

Along the lines of "Kill a sheep, and all you've got is a dead sheep. Shear a sheep, and you can do so over, and over, and over."

[ImperatorK]

Yeah. If you work it out in your group then everything can be good, even playing a Monk.

[Darth Stabber]

Even in a villainous campaign, there can be pragmatic reasons to spare your enemies/victims.

Along the lines of "Kill a sheep, and all you've got is a dead sheep. Shear a sheep, and you can do so over, and over, and over."

While that seems like a fine argument, mutton tastes a lot better than wool.

[hamishspence]

True- but some villains don't actually find killing pleasurable.

Or, in a nastier version, find tormenting ordinary people in general and their enemies in particular more pleasurable than killing them- so they spare them just to keep doing it.

[thompur]

Yeah. If you work it out in your group then everything can be good, even playing a Monk.

What could possibly be wrong with a Monk?

WAIT! Never mind. It's not Monday yet.:smalltongue:

[PollyOliver]

I know. It's perfectly fine to use nonleathal damage. I just... wouldn't. The simple fact is that I'm too paranoid my party members will accidentally kill someone, and I'll be left with the consequences. In addition, I don't want to force my party into taking hostages. As previously stated, that would only be cumbersome, and unfair to the rest of the party.

Yeah, I have to agree with The Random NPC. I mean, I'm glad it's working and I'm glad everyone's having a good time, but really I think this is not a situation that demonstrates that the Vow is not bad for party dynamics, because you're specifically playing a character so dumb she naively continues to tag along and buff her allies after they break her vow, thus keeping her in the party mitigating all drawbacks of that part of the vow if it is broken, and yet this character is simultaneously smart enough and "paranoid" enough to not deal nonlethal damage or help take enemies down because then when her allies kill them, it'll be more problematic for her vow.

First of all, that first one is a pretty annoying hurdle to jump for anyone who doesn't want to play a character who's dumb as dirt. Second, the second one is just a cunning attempt on the character's part to avoid the more stringent part of her vow, which is IMO totally counter to the spirit of the vow. Third of all, you're trying to play it both ways and be so dumb you think they won't keep doing it and yet smart enough to play it safe because you know they will.

If you got that to fly in-game...kudos, I guess. But it in no way demonstrates that the vow of peace is viable to play in mixed parties, and instead demonstrates impressive mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance.

[TheRinni]

“It seems to me, you are activily avoiding all the bad parts of the feat, and then saying the feat isn't as bad and people say.”

“Yeah, I have to agree with The Random NPC. I mean, I'm glad it's working and I'm glad everyone's having a good time, but really I think this is not a situation that demonstrates that the Vow is not bad for party dynamics, because you're specifically playing a character so dumb she naively continues to tag along and buff her allies after they break her vow, thus keeping her in the party mitigating all drawbacks of that part of the vow if it is broken, and yet this character is simultaneously smart enough and "paranoid" enough to not deal nonlethal damage or help take enemies down because then when her allies kill them, it'll be more problematic for her vow.”

Sorry, I should have made something clear:
While it is true that my “out of game” reasons for not wanting to deal nonleathal damage play into my paranoia, the same cannot be said for my character’s motivations. In reality, she simply doesn’t deal damage, because she doesn’t want to. Dealing nonleathal damage (ie: bludgeoning someone over the head), in my opinion, violates the "spirit of the vow" as you put it, and simply doesn't make since for the character. She doesn’t carry any weapons. She doesn’t want to hurt anyone. She has, however, vowed to keep this group of adventures alive. And therein lies her motivation. Is it really such a stretch to assume that an Apostle would be sent along to keep everyone alive? It's the very same motivation I've seen practically every Cleric use when leaving their church to protect a group of adventurers.

Yes. I’m avoiding the bad bits. I’ve purposefully made a character built around this feat, and how to fully take advantage of it. Of course, having a naïve character probably isn’t the only way to go about doing this; it’s really just the type of character I wanted to play.

I’d like to make note that my point is this: quite simply, you can have a character with the VoPe who isn’t utterly useless, or a complete hindrance.

That being said, Polly may be correct in saying that my experience, perhaps, it isn’t the best example. However, if I can make it work with just a few adjustments to my character’s personality, I believe that it’s completely possible to create a VoPe useful character.

Is it challenging? Yes.
Is it for everyone? No.

You have to want to play a specific character. And if you want to play such a challenging character, you are greatly rewarded with all kinds of fun bonuses, including: Calm Emotions practically at will, +6 AC, Weapon-Shattering-Skin, +4 to Diplomacy Checks, and a +4 to your DCs. That’s not including the benefits you would gain from dipping into the Apostle of Peace prestige class for two levels, which would result in: “Pacifying Touch (Su): At 2nd level, an apostle of peace gains the ability to pacify hostile or angry creatures by touch. The effect is similar to the calm emotions spell. The apostle can affect only a single target with each use of the ability, and must touch the target. A touched creature receives no saving throw and spell resistance does not apply. The pacifying touch does not suppress positive emotions, just anger, rage, and hostility.” An ability that can completely take out a target in 1 action, which has no saving throw or resistance? Anyway you spin it, that’s an amazing ability.

In addition, you are also granted with many Role Playing benefits. Including: a unique party dynamic, and the opportunity for a magnitude of character development.

Yes. I’m avoiding the bad bits. But I see that you’ve neglected to mention any of the benefits gained from the VoPe, Random NPC.


“after they break her vow”
I would also like to point out that the only one who can break a personal vow, is the person who made it.

[tanderson11]

Personally, I believe Vow of Peace creates a serious problem for the DM and PCs, and that it is most certainly as bad as people say it is.

When you take the feat, you essentially choose between two options or choose to ignore anything you wish to about the feat..


Choice 1 - RAW
You adjudicate the feat strictly by what is written, which allows you to ignore most of the drawbacks as mentioned early by Doc Roc. Unless playing in a group with people similarly munchkin'ing, this is no fun for the party. You are running a completely unbelievable character, who lacks the intrinsic flavor of the vow.

Choice 2 - 'Spirit of the Vow'
This choice is impossible to make and work in accordance with the party. Like your character, this person will avoid dealing non-lethal damage, or allowing any harm to come to enemies. Unlike your character, this person will not turn a blind eye to his or her friends partaking in the genocide or murder of other sentient races. Instead, the character will seek some barren wasteland, where no life exists to avoid the conundrum that is predation and the food chain. Again, no body likes you.


Or, you could completely ignore what the Vow is all about, and become a 1 dimensional character that lacks realism, similar to the Munchkin option. Even under these circumstances, your character is at best taking up space without direct DM interference in the campaign world, which completely breaks verisimilitude.

For example: you stated that your character is a "tank". In order for that statement to be true, obviously the DM cannot be running monsters to their intelligence. If I were a hostile enemy of a band of intruders, I would not uselessly attack the one who I knew would deal no damage and cause no harm, instead I would would past her and attack the other party members.

I do not write this post in an attempt to appear hostile to you or your character's choices. If the setup you have works with your other players, then go for it, but the Vow of Peace is an intrinsically flawed feat.

[Frozen_Feet]

If I were a hostile enemy of a band of intruders, I would not uselessly attack the one who I knew would deal no damage and cause no harm, instead I would would past her and attack the other party members.

And they'd know this how?

What the enemy will know is that enemy caster just ran on their line of attack, unarmed and unarmored. Why not cut her down where she stands?

[Doc Roc]

And they'd know this how?

What the enemy will know is that enemy caster just ran on their line of attack, unarmed and unarmored. Why not cut her down where she stands?

Knowledge checks?

[Frozen_Feet]

What knowledge would that require, actually? And what DC?

[The Random NPC]

Yes. I’m avoiding the bad bits. But I see that you’ve neglected to mention any of the benefits gained from the VoPe, Random NPC.

I'm not saying it is a bad thing, just pointing out that the crux of your argument seems to be very similar to I can fix it so it isn't broken.

[deuxhero]

"What’s so bad about the Vow of Peace'

Because not being able to kill is a terrible choice in a game of "kill things and take their stuff".

[Starbuck_II]

And they'd know this how?

What the enemy will know is that enemy caster just ran on their line of attack, unarmed and unarmored. Why not cut her down where she stands?

After the first time attacking and her not fighting back (and the other members are).

[olentu]

And they'd know this how?

What the enemy will know is that enemy caster just ran on their line of attack, unarmed and unarmored. Why not cut her down where she stands?

Wait so you cast some spells that effect the enemies first because if not how will they know you are a caster and not a monk.

[Frozen_Feet]

After the first time attacking and her not fighting back (and the other members are).
But that's the beauty of it: after the first time attacking, at least one will be deprived of their weapons. Tanking succesful. :smallbiggrin:

Wait so you cast some spells that effect the enemies first because if not how will they know you are a caster and not a monk.

Okay, so they now think you're a monk. This is less of a reason to cut you down where you stand... how? :smalltongue:

[ImperatorK]

It's like in my "Playing enemies to their Int" thread. DM is either metagaming or playing the enemies very smart.

[olentu]

Okay, so they now think you're a monk. This is less of a reason to cut you down where you stand... how? :smalltongue:

Because you'll get blood on the carpet.

[Jeebers]

The problem I always saw with it is that it places restrictions on what your party is allowed to do. There is a similar problem with the paladin - by playing that character, you are restricting the actions of other players. It can work perfectly well in some parties, of course, but it's definitely something you'd want to clear with the group beforehand.

There I disagree. Having a Paladin in the group doesn't restrict the party any more than what most games do already- no Evil PC's. Personally, I am tired of gamers ripping on Paladins, as if all of them are jerks. If you stopped and thought about it, you'd RATHER have a Paladin in the group as opposed to Barbarians, Rangers, Monks etc. Why? Most monsters and villains are Evil alignment, and Paladins excel at nailing Evil alignments, undead, demons etc. Plus, they provide extra protection for the rest of the party in the form of their courage aura and spells, AND their restorative Lay On Hands.

The way I see a Paladin is that they should be played as if they had Superman's personality. I can name several time, for example, how Mizaki should have been booted from the class because of her behavior.

I remember one guy, when I asked him what he thought of my Paladin, said that if the group was being chased by a horde of slavering Insta-Death style demons and his character tripped, my Paladin would be the only one who'd turn back for him.

Now THAT'S saying something!

[stainboy]

Is it challenging? Yes.
Is it for everyone? No.


That's the problem for me: It's not for everyone, and the feat forces the rest of the table to play by your rules. The rest of the party has to put up with your mind control aura, and the DM has to hold you to an RP restriction that you almost certainly interpret differently than he does.

And anyway, the pacifist character concept is already supported by Vow of Nonviolence, which does a better job of defining what you're allowed to do and doesn't step on the rest of the party's toes.

[Callos_DeTerran]

After the first time attacking and her not fighting back (and the other members are).

That's not much of a reason to stop attacking her. She's not fighting back, but she's not just standing there either. She's healing her allies and giving them buff spells, that's an excellent reason to cut her down, because she's making the other members who are fighting that much more deadly.

And just because she's not fighting back now doesn't mean she won't start soon enough.

[Divide by Zero]

Having a Paladin in the group doesn't restrict the party any more than what most games do already- no Evil PC's.

And if I want to play an evil PC (which I do more often than not)?

I'm curious about these "most games." Have you done a random survey of game tables around the world? Regardless, it doesn't matter. You're still restricting the option, even if people choose not to take it.

[wuwuwu]

And if I want to play an evil PC (which I do more often than not)?

I'm curious about these "most games." Have you done a random survey of game tables around the world? Regardless, it doesn't matter. You're still restricting the option, even if people choose not to take it.

Why does your right to make an evil PC supersede their right to play a paladin?
They are equal pains on the party, perhaps the evil is more, depending on how they're played.

edit: I mean, at worst a Paladin is really "cleave and smite! cleave and smite!", and he cleaves and smites the party's informant or one of the party members and falls.
At worst an evil person "lolkills" the entire party in their sleep, steals their stuff, and then kills the king in his own throne room.

[Divide by Zero]

At worst an evil person "lolkills" the entire party in their sleep, steals their stuff, and then kills the king in his own throne room.

You seem to be confusing evil with stupid.

[Veyr]

Why does your right to make an evil PC supersede their right to play a paladin?
Because Paladin is the class with the utterly-stupid restriction on other players. The Evil character doesn't care what you play: even if you play a Paladin, it doesn't make much difference to him, it only messes up the Paladin.

The Paladin's Code is terrible for the game. It is very, very poor game design to have one player's choices negatively impact everyone else's. Book of Exalted Deeds takes this several steps further, resulting in even worse game design.

[wuwuwu]

You seem to be confusing evil with stupid.

No. I was using a worst case example.


The Paladin's Code is terrible for the game. It is very, very poor game design to have one player's choices negatively impact everyone else's. Book of Exalted Deeds takes this several steps further, resulting in even worse game design.
So if the evil character decides to kill the shopkeeper that ripped him off, and is witnessed so that the party is no longer welcome in town/is wanted by some sort of law...
That player's choices aren't negatively impacting everyone else's?


Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Doesn't seem like it would come in party conflict often, unless you're specifically playing it to come up as party conflict.
Just like being evil doesn't come up in party conflict often, unless you're specifically playing it to.

[Veyr]

The Paladin's Code literally states that they cannot be in the same party as an Evil character, A.

B. you are again confusing "Evil" with "stupid".

[wuwuwu]

The Paladin's Code literally states that they cannot be in the same party as an Evil character, A.

B. you are again confusing "Evil" with "stupid".


While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.
Two ways to look at this: Associates is listed under a different heading than Code of Conduct, meaning it's not a part of it. Meaning it's just a guideline for roleplaying your character, much like the Duskblades "You are the object of envy to sorcerers".
The evil character is only a problem if they're overtly evil. In a world where Evil is a tangible thing and easily detectable, it would make sense for an Evil person to hide the fact. Unless they're stupid.

and no, I'm not. I'm saying that some of the ways to roleplay evil are as/more disruptive than being a Paladin. Just like playing a rogue can be, or a bard, or a fighter or a blackguard or a wizard or a duskblade or a psion.

If you have a right to be an evil character, and POSSIBLY disrupt the party, than another person has the right to be a paladin, and POSSIBLY disrupt the party.

[Veyr]

Associates is listed under a different heading than Code of Conduct, meaning it's not a part of it. Meaning it's just a guideline for roleplaying your character, much like the Duskblades "You are the object of envy to sorcerers".
WotC included in the Paladin entry of the SRD, while they stripped all such fluff. I am firmly convinced that it was at least intended as a part of the Code.


The evil character is only a problem if they're overtly evil. In a world where Evil is a tangible thing and easily detectable, it would make sense for an Evil person to hide the fact. Unless they're stupid.
Ways of fooling Detect Evil, which the Paladin gets at-will, are difficult to come by at low levels. That's not much of a solution.


If you have a right to be an evil character, and POSSIBLY disrupt the party, than another person has the right to be a paladin, and POSSIBLY disrupt the party.
No, the rules of the Paladin, as written, say they must be disruptive.

And the rules in Book of Exalted Deeds are far more so.

[Coidzor]

So if the evil character decides to kill the shopkeeper that ripped him off, and is witnessed so that the party is no longer welcome in town/is wanted by some sort of law...
That player's choices aren't negatively impacting everyone else's?

Yes (Well, possibly, your example is kind of bad due to the DM actually engineering this situation in advance and being between 50% and 99.99% culpable), but you see, the Paladin's player causes his disruption just by creating a Paladin character.

The evil character's player has to go out and deliberately choose to disrupt the game and try to ruin it. He could just as easily not kill some random shopkeeper that the DM decided to use to screw him over for whatever reason(and if the DM didn't want something to happen with that shopkeeper, why'd he have him steal from the party? :smalltongue:)

He doesn't rapture and stop being evil for refraining from stupidity or trying to destroy the campaign. And if he does, he doesn't lose all his class features unless he took specific PrCs rather than the basic features of his first class, which for Paladins is going to be their main source of non-PrC levels due to having additional multiclassing restrictions on top of their RP restrictions.

[ImperatorK]

Paladins are meant for specific campaigns. Good campaigns. And for NPCs. And for adversaries if PCs are evil.

[Frozen_Feet]

Alternatively, for campaigns and games where intraparty conflict is not considered inherently undesireable.

The thing with Paladin is that it's not just a highly specific role, it's a highly demanding one as well. It's very out-of-place in comparison with the other base classes. To play a Paladin well requires understanding reasons and consequences of in-character actions much better than, say, a rogue. The distant second for roleplaying difficulty is the druid.

[SITB]

Alternatively, for campaigns and games where intraparty conflict is not considered inherently undesireable.

But if the Paladin associate with any Evil PC's he falls; no 'if's or 'but's. How can you have an interparty conflict that is instantly 'resolved' by having one of the characters automaticly being gimped?

[wuwuwu]

WotC included in the Paladin entry of the SRD, while they stripped all such fluff. I am firmly convinced that it was at least intended as a part of the Code.
Fair enough, it's reasonable to believe that.



Ways of fooling Detect Evil, which the Paladin gets at-will, are difficult to come by at low levels. That's not much of a solution.
It takes 18 seconds to detect a specific evil presence within 60ft. It's a classic battle of wits at early levels, the suspicious paladin trying to find ways to prove their evil, and the evil person preventing such situations from arising. Assuming you have somewhat clever players this is a pretty fun scenario.



No, the rules of the Paladin, as written, say they must be disruptive.



Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
Associates: While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.
Nothing there outright says "Disrupt your party". The way I read it is "be an exemplar of Lawful Good". "Punish those who harm or threaten innocents" is the most disruptive thing there, but punishment could be as little as giving them less a share of the treasure, not using your healing for a week, etc. Which IS disruptive, but it's temporary (assuming they don't continue harming innocents), and isn't a Paladin only thing. A fighter could do that, if it offends his morals.


Yes (Well, possibly, your example is kind of bad due to the DM actually engineering this situation in advance and being between 50% and 99.99% culpable), but you see, the Paladin's player causes his disruption just by creating a Paladin character.
True (for the first part), but the bit about the paladin is false. The paladin causes disruption when the DM or party engineers a situation in which the party could make a choice that would cause the paladin to disrupt the party, generally, unless played to be disruptive.

I guess my problem (if I have one) is I haven't seen enough examples of a paladin disrupting where it is solely his fault for being the paladin. I've seen plenty of scenarios where the paladin disrupts for being played as disruptive, but it was not a result of being a paladin. It was a result of the player interpreting a paladin in a certain way.

As written, the paladin code does not automatically lead to disruption any more than any other class.

[Frozen_Feet]

But if the Paladin associate with any Evil PC's he falls; no 'if's or 'but's. How can you have an interparty conflict that is instantly 'resolved' by having one of the characters automaticly being gimped?

Can also be resolved by: the party splitting, the evil PC being restrained, redeemed or killed. Assuming, of course, that the Paladin knows the other character is evil.

All in all, there are more than one way it can play out, and it can be driving force for some delicious, delicious drama. Don't sell the possibilities short. :smallwink:

[Taelas]

But if the Paladin associate with any Evil PC's he falls; no 'if's or 'but's. How can you have an interparty conflict that is instantly 'resolved' by having one of the characters automaticly being gimped?

That's wrong. He doesn't Fall. It is not listed under his Code of Conduct, and it is not listed in the Ex-Paladin section.

A Paladin can associate with Evil characters (there are absolutely no penalties for doing so); he simply does not want to and will never do so knowingly.

[Veyr]

It takes 18 seconds to detect a specific evil presence within 60ft. It's a classic battle of wits at early levels, the suspicious paladin trying to find ways to prove their evil, and the evil person preventing such situations from arising. Assuming you have somewhat clever players this is a pretty fun scenario.
No, it's not, because the Paladin has to succeed only once. That means that the Evil character has to be hiding behind a lead sheet once every 18 seconds for the entire day. How on earth is he supposed to sleep? All it takes is the Paladin to toss it on while it's his turn to watch (which is not a bad idea anyway, so even if he doesn't suspect the Evil character he's quite likely to discover him), and then you have an intra-party conflict reconcilable only by one of the characters leaving the game.


If you think this is fun, well... I never, ever want to play with you.


Can also be resolved by: the party splitting, the evil PC being restrained, redeemed or killed. Assuming, of course, that the Paladin knows the other character is evil.

All in all, there are more than one way it can play out, and it can be driving force for some delicious, delicious drama. Don't sell the possibilities short. :smallwink:
Much like I never, ever want to play with you. I'm sorry, I consider that "delicious, delicious drama" to be terrible for the game, and very likely to lead to out-of-character drama that just is not in keeping with the spirit of playing a game with friends.

Friends don't let friends ruin everyone's game.


Also, all of this is irrelevant to the fact that Vow of Peace/Nonviolence are so very much worse than a Paladin.

[JackRackham]

Sorry, I should have made something clear:
While it is true that my “out of game” reasons for not wanting to deal nonleathal damage play into my paranoia, the same cannot be said for my character’s motivations. In reality, she simply doesn’t deal damage, because she doesn’t want to. Dealing nonleathal damage (ie: bludgeoning someone over the head), in my opinion, violates the "spirit of the vow" as you put it, and simply doesn't make since for the character. She doesn’t carry any weapons. She doesn’t want to hurt anyone. She has, however, vowed to keep this group of adventures alive. And therein lies her motivation. Is it really such a stretch to assume that an Apostle would be sent along to keep everyone alive? It's the very same motivation I've seen practically every Cleric use when leaving their church to protect a group of adventurers.

Yes. I’m avoiding the bad bits. I’ve purposefully made a character built around this feat, and how to fully take advantage of it. Of course, having a naïve character probably isn’t the only way to go about doing this; it’s really just the type of character I wanted to play.

I’d like to make note that my point is this: quite simply, you can have a character with the VoPe who isn’t utterly useless, or a complete hindrance.

That being said, Polly may be correct in saying that my experience, perhaps, it isn’t the best example. However, if I can make it work with just a few adjustments to my character’s personality, I believe that it’s completely possible to create a VoPe useful character.

Is it challenging? Yes.
Is it for everyone? No.

You have to want to play a specific character. And if you want to play such a challenging character, you are greatly rewarded with all kinds of fun bonuses, including: Calm Emotions practically at will, +6 AC, Weapon-Shattering-Skin, +4 to Diplomacy Checks, and a +4 to your DCs. That’s not including the benefits you would gain from dipping into the Apostle of Peace prestige class for two levels, which would result in: “Pacifying Touch (Su): At 2nd level, an apostle of peace gains the ability to pacify hostile or angry creatures by touch. The effect is similar to the calm emotions spell. The apostle can affect only a single target with each use of the ability, and must touch the target. A touched creature receives no saving throw and spell resistance does not apply. The pacifying touch does not suppress positive emotions, just anger, rage, and hostility.” An ability that can completely take out a target in 1 action, which has no saving throw or resistance? Anyway you spin it, that’s an amazing ability.

In addition, you are also granted with many Role Playing benefits. Including: a unique party dynamic, and the opportunity for a magnitude of character development.

Yes. I’m avoiding the bad bits. But I see that you’ve neglected to mention any of the benefits gained from the VoPe, Random NPC.


I would also like to point out that the only one who can break a personal vow, is the person who made it.

Yeah, people exaggerate this stuff. Bottom line: The Vows build works in a Good party. People don't like it because they like to play in the chaotic neutral to true neutral zone where your character basically does whatever you think is funniest, easiest, most profitable or most interesting at any given time (There are also people who play ACTUAL Chaotic neutral or True Neutral characters for legit RP reasons and it does c**kblock them too, but most people who play those alignments do so out of role-playing laziness). I'm not saying they'd work for any game or every party. They don't. For a party that WANTS to roleplay being a good party, though, it works just fine.

[wuwuwu]

No, it's not, because the Paladin has to succeed only once. That means that the Evil character has to be hiding behind a lead sheet once every 18 seconds for the entire day. How on earth is he supposed to sleep? All it takes is the Paladin to toss it on while it's his turn to watch (which is not a bad idea anyway, so even if he doesn't suspect the Evil character he's quite likely to discover him), and then you have an intra-party conflict reconcilable only by one of the characters leaving the game.

If you think this is fun, well... I never, ever want to play with you.

Alright good point. I guess I was imagining the players having a little more sport at it, instead of "ohhhh boy I'm gonna find you out so quick!" and actively TRYING to disturb everything.
Then, the paladin finds him out. Who leaves the party? Who is more at fault for this disturbance?
The party would have never been disrupted if there was no evil member. Likewise, there would have never been a disruption if there was no paladin.
Which was more disruptive?

[JackRackham]

Hell, I was playing a Chaotic-Good Rogue-Swashbuckler from a family of pirates and thieves, and even THAT character felt obliged to avoid killing innocent or helpless people. I mean, I'm no Paladin. In fact, not only would I never roleplay one, but I don't like having one in the party, because you can't steal and stuff in front of them. It's annoying. BUT, if you're getting annoyed because you can't kill helpless/innocent people? Maybe you should be playing an evil character if that's the case.

[Frozen_Feet]

Much like I never, ever want to play with you. I'm sorry, I consider that "delicious, delicious drama" to be terrible for the game, and very likely to lead to out-of-character drama that just is not in keeping with the spirit of playing a game with friends.

Friends don't let friends ruin everyone's game.


It's not exactly ruining the game if the players are supposed to play against each other, is it not?

I understand perfectly well if you don't like playing soap opera, I'm just noting it's a valid mode of game as well. Don't go about making too general statements about playing with me either, it's not like every game I hold or play is based on PC conflict either. :smallwink:

[JackRackham]

No, it's not, because the Paladin has to succeed only once. That means that the Evil character has to be hiding behind a lead sheet once every 18 seconds for the entire day. How on earth is he supposed to sleep? All it takes is the Paladin to toss it on while it's his turn to watch (which is not a bad idea anyway, so even if he doesn't suspect the Evil character he's quite likely to discover him), and then you have an intra-party conflict reconcilable only by one of the characters leaving the game.


If you think this is fun, well... I never, ever want to play with you.


Much like I never, ever want to play with you. I'm sorry, I consider that "delicious, delicious drama" to be terrible for the game, and very likely to lead to out-of-character drama that just is not in keeping with the spirit of playing a game with friends.

Friends don't let friends ruin everyone's game.


Also, all of this is irrelevant to the fact that Vow of Peace/Nonviolence are so very much worse than a Paladin.

How is this WORSE than a Paladin? With a Paladin, you can't let him know you've done anything evil OR unlawful. SO, you can't steal things, break in places, (depending on the individual's code) seduce naive girls and a hundred other fun, chaotic things.

With the Vows, you just can't go OUT OF YOUR WAY to kill things. I mean, you can still kill things, as long as they're not easier to just capture, basically (no killing things that are innocent or incapacitated...why kill those anyway?). That's not that bad. Really, any Good character should be doing that anyway and most neutral characters shouldn't inherently have a problem with it.

[Taelas]

Yes, you can do non-Lawful stuff (which I presume is what you actually meant, since you mentioned 'seducing naïve girls'). The Paladin might lecture you on your actions, but unless the player completely misunderstands the purpose of a Paladin, he's not going to come down on you for being Chaotic beyond the lecture. It's Evil he is against. He is also Lawful, because of the way he opposes Evil, but he doesn't lose class features for doing Chaotic acts (unless said Chaotic acts cause him to change alignment or 'grossly violate' his CoC).

A Paladin will not let you just go around stealing things, but if they catch you doing it, they won't kill you. They could turn you over to the law, if you are not in the middle of an important quest, or they could simply make you return the items and insist on you doing a penance... but it is not actually their job to keep you in line. Their job is to fight Evil.

[JackRackham]

Yes, you can do non-Lawful stuff (which I presume is what you actually meant, since you mentioned 'seducing naïve girls'). The Paladin might lecture you on your actions, but unless the player completely misunderstands the purpose of a Paladin, he's not going to come down on you for being Chaotic beyond the lecture. It's Evil he is against. He is also Lawful, because of the way he opposes Evil, but he doesn't lose class features for doing Chaotic acts (unless said Chaotic acts cause him to change alignment or 'grossly violate' his CoC).

A Paladin will not let you just go around stealing things, but if they catch you doing it, they won't kill you. They could turn you over to the law, if you are not in the middle of an important quest, or they could simply make you return the items and insist on you doing a penance... but it is not actually their job to keep you in line. Their job is to fight Evil.

This is exactly my point. You steal something and he wants to put you in jail. You make time with some girl and you get a lecture. This is WAY more restrictive than someone just telling you not to kill someone who's paralyzed when they could just as easily cuff them, gag them and take them in.

[Taelas]

Any Lawful character can be restrictive in exactly the same manner -- it is not specific to the Paladin.

[JackRackham]

For that matter, having a Frenzied Berserker can be just as much of a problem, as you can end up with a crzed barbarian trying to kill his party members (although if anyone has Hold Person prepared, it's a non-issue). Having a character who can't sneak can be restrictive. Having a character who's easily distracted or overly random can be more of a problem. The point is, there are a hundred things that a lot of people like to role play that are just as annoying, if not more so, with less mechanical benefit.

[JackRackham]

I'm not sh**ting on Paladins, I'm explaining that the Vows build is no more restrictive to the party than any number of other, more common, builds.

[Frozen_Feet]

Any character can be restrictive if their interests pull to a different direction strongly enough than the rest of the party. The Paladin code and Sacred Vows are just particularly notable as they're pre-made, spelled-out material.

Also, people tend to think that random character Y being in conflict with others is not that bad, as the player can waive it if necessary. (See Rich's gaming article 'Tough Decisions', particularly that part about choosing to react differently.) In case of the Paladin and the Vows, however, there are stated in-game penalties for doing just that, making the roles enforced to an extent. (There could be equally bad consequences to Y reacting differently, but they're not written down anywhere so they aren't visible in the same way.)

[TheRinni]

the pacifist character concept is already supported by Vow of Nonviolence, which does a better job of defining what you're allowed to do and doesn't step on the rest of the party's toes.

That is simply untrue, I'm afraid. The major problem with these feats is the penalty it can impose on allies. This penalty largely comes from the Vow of Nonviolence, not the Vow of Peace.

This is a quote from the BoED, on the Vow of Nonviolence:

Your purity is so great that any ally of yours who slays a helpless or defenseless foe within 120 feet of you feels great remorse. Your ally takes a –1 morale penalty on his attack rolls for 1 hour per your character level. For each helpless foe slain, the attack penalty increases by 1, to a maximum equal to your character level. The duration of the increased penalty starts from the latest slaying.


Also, people tend to think that random character Y being in conflict with others is not that bad, as the player can waive it if necessary.
I agree with what you said, and would like to add that I oftentimes find character conflict: interesting, entertaining, and realistic. Your characters can evolve in strange, wonderful ways. And inter-party conflict can result in intense roleplaying scenarios

[stainboy]

Fair enough, I should have looked it up. I'd still say the majority of the toes-stepping comes from VoPe's calming aura though.

The whole thing would be more fair of barbarians were allowed to take Vow of Kill Everything, which gives you a rage aura (as the spell) out to 20' and hits allies with a morale penalty if they try to talk out their problems.

[TheRinni]

Fair enough, I should have looked it up. I'd still say the majority of the toes-stepping comes from VoPe's calming aura though.

The whole thing would be more fair of barbarians were allowed to take Vow of Kill Everything, which gives you a rage aura (as the spell) out to 20' and hits allies with a morale penalty if they try to talk out their problems.

I believe the Inspire Frenzy ability granted by a barbarian PrC grants something (while not exactly the same) very similar to what you described. While it is an ability, not an aura, the effects are not unlike what you stated.

Lmao, a while back I played a game with one such character with this ability in the party. He got us into SO much trouble - particularly in taverns, where he'd whip everyone into a frenzy. Long story short, my assassin, in the midst of the frenzy, ended up killing one of the towns people. It resulted in huge uproar from the local guards, and my character was almost executed.

And you know what? Despite all the trouble he caused, the character was fun to have in the party. Despite the fact my character was forced to act against his normal cold, calculating ways, I still had fun with the scenario.

[Coidzor]

Can also be resolved by: the party splitting, the evil PC being restrained, redeemed or killed. Assuming, of course, that the Paladin knows the other character is evil.

All in all, there are more than one way it can play out, and it can be driving force for some delicious, delicious drama. Don't sell the possibilities short. :smallwink:

That would seem to be less intraparty conflict and more just prevent the game from starting (or at least the party from forming so that the game could actually start in on the plot that was going to start things out in the first place) or force one or more characters to immediately gain NPC status after Char-Gen. Or the DM to immediately start having two parallel campaigns when if that's what they wanted, they could've just done that from the get-go without going through such a convoluted method and the players would've had the advance warning to need to come up with a pair of characters.

Also, you agreed with the person you were replying to that the situation was inherently untenable, but by your tone you seemed to be disagreeing with them.. :smallconfused: So it feels like I'm missing something here...

[Leon]

We actually haven't taken any hostages. Although, to be fair, we haven't battled many humanoids lately. Lots and lots of undead, and fiends. Knowing this was going to be an undead heavy campaign, is also one of the reasons I felt comfortable taking the feat.

In a normal game I'd see some issues with the feat and normal creature interactions but a Undead/Fiend heavy game is not going to have many of those issues.


What could possibly be wrong with a Monk?


Nothing, yet most of the boards population are deathly allergic to them.




The Paladin's Code literally states that they cannot be in the same party as an Evil character


Which for the greater bulk of groups will probably never be a problem.




No, the rules of the Paladin, as written, say they must be disruptive.

And the rules in Book of Exalted Deeds are far more so.

Please do show where exactly it states so - other that what your interpretation of the rules mean


I ran a campaign that had a paladin in the same group as a CE Halfling Rogue, it worked well the Paladin never knew that the rogue was evil or indeed had any reason to suspect so as the rogue was never really around the paladin when he was detecting evil on encountered creatures (always careful to be behind the pally somewhere).

Another game with the same player (different paladin) the party had 2 NPCs join them who were both evil but under assortment of shielding magics (befitting undercover agents doing stealthwork) and both pinged as TN.


The current game i play in had 2 paladins at one point and my Almost CE Archivist Werewolf, the only problems were the insistence of the halfling paladin (i actually engineered the demise somewhat of the Dragonborn Pally) to get the curse cured so as to stop the frequent occurrence of a CE NPC wolf on moon nights vs my Archivists lack of want to do so as it provided quite a nice boost in combat when damaged and forced to change to hybrid form.

[hamishspence]

How is this WORSE than a Paladin? With a Paladin, you can't let him know you've done anything evil OR unlawful. SO, you can't steal things, break in places, (depending on the individual's code) seduce naive girls and a hundred other fun, chaotic things.

Strictly, the limitation is that a paladin "cannot associate on a continuing basis with characters that regularly offend against his moral code".

So- if the character regularly does things that offend the paladin- they must eventually leave the party. But that doesn't mean that they're always obliged to intervene to prevent these offensive things.

BoED points out a paladin should be Good first, Lawful second- and that they should be prepared to break the law when dealing with a corrupt authority.

[JackRackham]

Strictly, the limitation is that a paladin "cannot associate on a continuing basis with characters that regularly offend against his moral code".

So- if the character regularly does things that offend the paladin- they must eventually leave the party. But that doesn't mean that they're always obliged to intervene to prevent these offensive things.

BoED points out a paladin should be Good first, Lawful second- and that they should be prepared to break the law when dealing with a corrupt authority.

Maybe I just enjoy playing a Rogue more than most (or maybe you all enjoy slaughtering things needlessly more than I?), but I see that as pretty restrictive. Stealing is one of my favorite things to do in D&D. So, I would be regularly offending the Paladin, to the extent where I see that conflict as nearly unavoidable - whereas the conflict over killing something you could have subdued seems easily avoidable.

EDIT: I don't mean for this to be about me. My point, rather, is that stealing things is one of the single most fun things about playing a rogue, or almost any type of non-lawful character that's any good at sneaking. Killing things that are already neutralized as threats, on the other hand, seems pretty pointless.

[hamishspence]

Depends on how much the stealing "harms the innocent" since a big part of the paladin's code is "punish those that harm or threaten innocents".

Some paladins might not be especially offended by those that steal only from those that "deserved to be robbed"- villains who the law can't touch.

[ImperatorK]

Why are you stealing on the paladins eyes? Such things should be done in secret, even when there're no paladins in the party.

[hamishspence]

Why are you stealing on the paladins eyes? Such things should be done in secret, even when there're no paladins in the party.

Yes- to paraphrase Terry Pratchett, even chaotic good characters are:

"against unnecessary stealing (while being bang alongside the notion of necessary stealing, of course)."

(in his case it was cruelty, and Lord Vetinari's attitude to it).

[stainboy]

I believe the Inspire Frenzy ability granted by a barbarian PrC grants something (while not exactly the same) very similar to what you described. While it is an ability, not an aura, the effects are not unlike what you stated.


I thought of that, but RAW Inspire Frenzy is willing only. Although given your story about it, VoPe's calming aura suddenly seems like fair game.

[Frozen_Feet]

Also, you agreed with the person you were replying to that the situation was inherently untenable, but by your tone you seemed to be disagreeing with them.. :smallconfused: So it feels like I'm missing something here...

Yes - you missed that I was talking about a different kind of game where the players are supposed to play against each other, shifting PC conflict from distraction to one of the driving forces in the game. It's not necessary for PCs to be one happy family, and several types of games sorta require they're anything but.

[SITB]

Yes - you missed that I was talking about a different kind of game where the players are supposed to play against each other, shifting PC conflict from distraction to one of the driving forces in the game. It's not necessary for PCs to be one happy family, and several types of games sorta require they're anything but.

But a Paladin can't associate with Evil aligned characters, you can't have them both in the same party. You can have them in different parties in the same campaign; but the point (that the Paladin still restricts character choice) still stands. You simply can't do things because otherwise the Paladin will become a Fighter without bonus feats.

[Frozen_Feet]

But a Paladin can't associate with Evil aligned characters, you can't have them both in the same party.
You can; it requires several boundary conditions, but it's not impossible. (Unknowable alignment and secretiveness on the Evil characters' part)

I've never disagreed on the premise that being a paladin restricts choice; what I disagree with is the idea that this means "you can't do things!" and that it's, without expections, harmful to a game.

[Urpriest]

Looking over the Associates section I noticed a few things:

1. It's in the rules text, so it's definitely not just fluff.

2. It is indeed separate from the code of conduct, so breaking it does not cause the Paladin to fall.

3. It says "will", not "should", or "may", or anything like that. This means that it's not a restriction that the paladin might break and fall, it defines actions that anyone with paladin levels is literally incapable of performing. In particular, the paladin is flat-out not able to knowingly associate with evil characters. By the rules, they completely lack the ability to do so.

Now luckily, this can means one of two things. Imagine that the paladin enters a situation where they would otherwise know that someone they associate with is evil. They might attempt to cease associating with the person. Instead, they might fail to discover that the person is evil, perhaps through inattentiveness, a mental block, etc. Whether one or the other of these scenarios is more plausible is irrelevant: the rules don't tell us which one happens. So it's up to the DM: make the paladin leave, or make the paladin an idiot. For reference, the Paladin is the guy who chose a horse over ninth level spells or maneuvers. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide which is the more attractive option.

[hamishspence]

Other sources mention that the "not associating with evil characters" rule is flexible.

Defenders of the Faith, discusses paladins allying with evil characters toward a good end, saying they much weigh the potential benefits (chance of redeeming the evildoer, aid against a greater problem) against the potential risks (being corrupted by the evil being).

Dragon Magazine's 3.5 paladin guide mentions they can do so as long as they seek to redeem the evil being.

BoED also mentions exalted characters teaming up with evil characters.

[TheRinni]

I thought of that, but RAW Inspire Frenzy is willing only. Although given your story about it, VoPe's calming aura suddenly seems like fair game.

I just looked up the frenzied berserker class in CW, and questioned the former DM about it. He said the ability/class came from somewhere in pathfinder, and he allowed it in his 3.5 game.


Other sources mention that the "not associating with evil characters" rule is flexible.

Defenders of the Faith, discusses paladins allying with evil characters toward a good end, saying they much weigh the potential benefits (chance of redeeming the evildoer, aid against a greater problem) against the potential risks (being corrupted by the evil being).

Dragon Magazine's 3.5 paladin guide mentions they can do so as long as they seek to redeem the evil being.

BoED also mentions exalted characters teaming up with evil characters.
There is also a passage from the XDM (one of my favorite RPGing books) which discusses a game Tracy Hickman played a paladin in. The entire party was evil, with the exception of Hickman's character. He'd worked out the situation with the DM beforehand, deciding that "so long as the other party members did not outwardly commit any acts of evil, he would not check their alignment." The result was a party of evil characters who had to be very, very careful.

[hamishspence]

"so long as the other party members did not outwardly commit any acts of evil, he would not check their alignment." The result was a party of evil characters who had to be very, very careful.


Depending on the setting, this might make a lot of sense. Casting Detect Evil without evidence of wrongdoing might be seen as an "unacceptable invasion of privacy"

Or, as in OoTS Cliffport, it might come under "illegal search".

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0363.html

[TheRinni]

Casting Detect Evil without evidence of wrongdoing might be seen as an "unacceptable invasion of privacy"

Or, at worst, blatant metagaming.

[Veyr]

That makes absolutely no sense. A Paladin can use Detect Evil at-will; why should he care about the privacy of Evil creatures? Detect Evil being on makes him better at what he does.

Not having Detect Evil on pretty much always when you don't need to be doing something else strikes me as more likely to be metagaming.

[Urpriest]

That makes absolutely no sense. A Paladin can use Detect Evil at-will; why should he care about the privacy of Evil creatures? Detect Evil being on makes him better at what he does.

Not having Detect Evil on pretty much always when you don't need to be doing something else strikes me as more likely to be metagaming.

Why shouldn't he care about the privacy of evil creatures? To risk preempting hamishspence's favorite point here, paladins are required to punish those who threaten innocents. That doesn't give them the right to violate the privacy of evil creatures who don't threaten innocents.

[Veyr]

You are encamped in hostile territory. It is the Paladin's turn to watch. Why doesn't he have Detect Evil on? It would be a significant help to identifying threats; not having it up is putting those in his party who are sleeping, who he is responsible for, in danger.

[Frozen_Feet]

Not having Detect Evil on pretty much always when you don't need to be doing something else strikes me as more likely to be metagaming.
It's not a metagaming issue at all, since both the code and the ability are knowable things within the game.

Consider this: the argument here is that a Paladin can't do anything without falling... provided he knows there's an evil presence he's associating with. But a Paladin doesn't have to be Lawful Stupid - do you consider it impossible that a Paladin would willingly remain ignorant of his party member's alignments if there's no serious reason to suspect they're evil or will commit evil, simply for convenience? That they're incapable of bending the letter of their code if it's beneficial towards achieving a task?

[Urpriest]

You are encamped in hostile territory. It is the Paladin's turn to watch. Why doesn't he have Detect Evil on? It would be a significant help to identifying threats; not having it up is putting those in his party who are sleeping, who he is responsible for, in danger.

For the record, I agree with the watch example (not sure if Paladins get Spot&Listen in-class, though, so they might not be as useful on watch as others). I was just refuting the idea that in general the paladin can just detect evil on anyone he pleases. In hostile territory? Sure, detect away.

I've only really had to deal with this problem once as a DM, and there was a straightforward solution: the evil party member was a beguiler, and thus could simply cast undetectable alignment every day.

[Frozen_Feet]

Why doesn't he have Detect Evil on?
Ah, but regardless of whether he's using the ability, he doesn't have to look towards his party members. :smallwink:

[Veyr]

But a Paladin doesn't have to be Lawful Stupid - do you consider it impossible that a Paladin would willingly remain ignorant of his party member's alignments if there's no serious reason to suspect they're evil or will commit evil, simply for convenience? That they're incapable of bending the letter of their code if it's beneficial towards achieving a task?
By the rules and apparent intent of the class, yes. That is exactly what the Paladin must do. The Paladin cannot bend the rules, cannot look the other way, or he isn't a Paladin any longer.

If you want to houserule that away (I would, if I thought there was anything worth salvaging from the class; I don't, so I'd sooner just ban it out-right), that's fine, but we're talking about the rules that WotC wrote here.

And again, the Book of Exalted Deeds is worse about this.

[Qwertystop]

Just want to say that one particular aspect of the paladin outright contradicts the BOED. According to the description for Detect Evil, poisons do not register because they are not evil, but BOED says that poisons are evil.

[Urpriest]

Just want to say that one particular aspect of the paladin outright contradicts the BOED. According to the description for Detect Evil, poisons do not register because they are not evil, but BOED says that poisons are evil.

It says that the use of poisons is evil. Poisons are objects, and therefore have no alignment. A giant pile of black onyx gems would also not register as evil, but if you stuck some of them in something's eyesockets and cast the appropriate spells then you would be performing an evil act.

[Frozen_Feet]

Been a while since I read BOED, but I think it was more that using poisons is evil. The substances themselves don't register. Same with traps - it's conveivable that setting several kinds of traps is evil, but the physical structure lacks morality.

[wuwuwu]

By the rules and apparent intent of the class, yes. That is exactly what the Paladin must do. The Paladin cannot bend the rules, cannot look the other way, or he isn't a Paladin any longer.

If you want to houserule that away (I would, if I thought there was anything worth salvaging from the class; I don't, so I'd sooner just ban it out-right), that's fine, but we're talking about the rules that WotC wrote here.

And again, the Book of Exalted Deeds is worse about this.

You seem to be confusing the paladin with something else:


a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress
any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description, page 201), as appropriate. Emphasis my own.
A paladin who becomes chaotic, neutral, or evil falls. A paladin who GROSSLY disrespects legitimate authority ceases to be a paladin. A paladin who GROSSLY lies, cheats, steals, or uses poisons, ceases to be a paladin.
That they specified it must be a gross violation means they get some leeway. Breaking into the duke's mansion to find evidence he's running an illegal slave ring is not GROSSLY violating the code of conduct. Murdering the duke in cold blood without evidence is GROSSLY violating the code of conduct.
Turning a blind eye when the party does chaotic acts is not a GROSS violation, especially if they try to talk the party out of it and allow the party to only do it as a last resort.

[Coidzor]

Yes - you missed that I was talking about a different kind of game where the players are supposed to play against each other, shifting PC conflict from distraction to one of the driving forces in the game. It's not necessary for PCs to be one happy family, and several types of games sorta require they're anything but.

Splitting the party like you were suggesting doesn't serve the purpose you're describing here as it then creates multiple solo games or NPCizes several PCs rather than allowing the formation of a party. And if you want intraparty conflict, wouldn't you want there to be an actual party?

Or are did you mean the kind of game where there's not actually a party at all & it's a group of players playing solo characters while trying to harass & stymie one another's efforts?


Ah, but regardless of whether he's using the ability, he doesn't have to look towards his party members. :smallwink:

You wanted him to just a few pages back though so that he could immediately attack or proselytize any evil PCs before the group had formed.

[Frozen_Feet]

Splitting the party like you were suggesting doesn't serve the purpose you're describing here as it then creates multiple solo games or NPCizes several PCs rather than allowing the formation of a party. And if you want intraparty conflict, wouldn't you want there to be an actual party?

Or are did you mean the kind of game where there's not actually a party at all & it's a group of players playing solo characters while trying to harass & stymie one another's efforts?

Several ways in which the conflict could be contained within a small group have been presented already. The kind of game you outline in your second paragraph also falls within parameters I was talking about. "Splitting the party" was one option, and the sub-divisions can still be working towards a common goal. (Think of Lord of the Rings for example).

Really, too many different possibilities to go over in a timely manner. Much of it boils down to stylistic choices and what the game group is comfortable with. For example, I'm perfectly used to my players splitting up their characters and working against each other in parallel scenarios, and consider it a natural part of the game. It doesn't give me grey hairs if their characters start fighting with each other, because I'm used to and have developed means for dealing with it.


You wanted him to just a few pages back though so that he could immediately attack or proselytize any evil PCs before the group had formed.

I said it was possibility, not a necessity. :smalltongue: ("Before the group has formed" is also not my words, but that's a minor thing.) Another possibility I mentioned was that the Paladin remains somehow unaware of his party members' alignments, and that specific scenario is what we're now discussing.

[Coidzor]

Several ways in which the conflict could be contained within a small group have been presented already. The kind of game you outline in your second paragraph also falls within parameters I was talking about. "Splitting the party" was one option, and the sub-divisions can still be working towards a common goal. (Think of Lord of the Rings for example).

Really, too many different possibilities to go over in a timely manner. Much of it boils down to stylistic choices and what the game group is comfortable with. For example, I'm perfectly used to my players splitting up their characters and working against each other in parallel scenarios, and consider it a natural part of the game. It doesn't give me grey hairs if their characters start fighting with each other, because I'm used to and have developed means for dealing with it.

You seem to now be describing a practice wherein you are setting out to play that kind of game from the getgo rather than having it come about spontaneously as a result of 2 other people in the group's choices.

The originally given scenario completely ignored the quintessential group's 2 other players and DM in terms of whether they wanted to have the type of game they were expecting to have wherein there is an actual party rather than begin play and watch the **** hit the fan between a Paladin and an evil character.

Quite a bit different from the group agreeing to this beforehand and intentionally doing it.

[Frozen_Feet]

I know. I didn't say I was describing a different kind of game for gits and shiggles. :smallwink:

[TheRinni]

You seem to now be describing a practice wherein you are setting out to play that kind of game from the getgo rather than having it come about spontaneously as a result of 2 other people in the group's choices.

*Shrugs,* I don't know. I had a DM once who liked to spontaneously throw that kind of situation at us - splitting the party, that is. He'd put us in situations where we were asked to split up, in order to cover more ground or whatnot.

Of course we, as the players, could have refused such an attempt to split. But that would never have ended well. And I'm sure there would have been hellish consequences to face if we ever did.

[SITB]

I know. I didn't say I was describing a different kind of game for gits and shiggles. :smallwink:

But it's still bending backwards for the Paladin, no to mention that the point was that playing Paladins is disruptive to the party, if the Paladin is not in the party he can't be disruptive to it.

As you pointed out you can play a Paladin, but you still need to jump through unnecessary hoops to do so.

[Frozen_Feet]

Again, it's never been the question whether a Paladin complicates things or not - my argument was that the "disruption" isn't always inherently detractive to a game. :smalltongue: