Vow of Non-Violence

[elvengunner69]

Okay got this very experienced player, usually the DM of our group, who took the Vow of Non-Violence. It pertains to humanoid or monstrous humanoid creatures so we get in this situation where the party has subdued a Frost Giant Scout - The Frost Giant surrenders is tied up and at this point completely defenseless.

Non-violence guy starts beating him (the Giant) with another character and they kill it. Then he wants to make Frost Giant Jerky with his (again the Giant) carcass.

At that point I say if he does (none of the other party members want to do this) he goes from Chaotic Good to Chaotic Neutral.

Technically killing a Giant isn't violating his 'vow' but was I wrong in wanting to knock his alignment to neutral? His reasoning was the Giant was like a Cow and should be treated the same way. I countered by asking when the last time a cow spoke to him (even if in a foreign language) and threatened him with a spear (It was a Frost Giant Scout so no axe). He insisted he should be able to make FG jerky and that his alignment should be unaffected.

The other person who joined in the killing (but didn't want jerky) had actually been killed by this giant and had just been rez'd so I can understand his beef (pun unintended) with the Giant - he is a CN Cleric so I think it wasn't unreasonable for him to react that way.

Just interested what others perspective on this would be...

[Urpriest]

He's being childish. I'd advise telling him that the whole jerky thing wasn't in character and retcon it so it didn't happen.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

He's supposed to be roleplaying not just good, but exalted good. At the very least he'd lose exalted status. Also that book leads to more problems than I can count.

[skycycle blues]

Intentionally eating sentient beings (things with a natural INT higher than 2) is generally considered to be evil, except (possibly) in a purely survival situation.

[Lateral]

That's just sick. Even if I were roleplaying a frigging Belkar, that wouldn't ever be in character, much less for an Exalted character. Your player needs to see somebody, man. That's just... I don't think I'm eating dinner tonight.

[Ravens_cry]

Forget the character, I think your players alignment is Chaotic Stupid.

[Calanon]

Okay got this very experienced player, usually the DM of our group, who took the Vow of Non-Violence. It pertains to humanoid or monstrous humanoid creatures so we get in this situation where the party has subdued a Frost Giant Scout - The Frost Giant surrenders is tied up and at this point completely defenseless.

Non-violence guy starts beating him (the Giant) with another character and they kill it. Then he wants to make Frost Giant Jerky with his (again the Giant) carcass.

...I'm sorry I got confused for a minute there, did he just say he wanted to turn the frost giant into jerky? and he's non violent... Alrighty than, now the Evil Lich is going to want to feed all the hungry little children of the world and improve the world by releasing his dark and forbidden knowledge to the world to make it a better place...

This is why i don't let my players use the book of Exalted deeds :smallannoyed: always trying to find loopholes and stuff... Hmm... please tell me he's going for Saint Template xD

EDIT: Make it so frost giant jerky gives the effects of the Golden Ice ravage (except that it works for all characters) :smallamused:

[Pigkappa]

"A character who willingly and willfully commits an evil act loses all benefits from all his exalted feats." (from BoED)

He's definitely wrong even by RAW.

[Tulya]

...I'm sorry I got confused for a minute there, did he just say he wanted to turn the frost giant into jerky? and he's non violent...

As noted, the nonviolence part of the vow of nonviolence is irrelevant. Giants are Giants. They're not humanoids, nor are they monstrous humanoids. Whatever your opinions on what non-violence should entail, the feat apparently only concerns itself with the suffering and lives of those subsets of sentient beings.

But yes, the exalted nature of the feat still applies. A single evil act is sufficient to lose the benefits of all exalted feats a character has until they genuinely atone.

Unless they have established a pattern of frequent non-Good behavior, I would probably leave it at stripping them of their Exalted status, and the benefits of all Exalted feats. Let them be reminded that the powers they've obtained flow from powerful beings of Good, and those beings judge their behavior - not the player. Perhaps a celestial messenger could inform them of their loss, and remind them of the principles of Goodness and why the literal restrictions set out for one feat are not the entirety of the code of conduct required from Exalted characters.
After all, to gain exalted feats in the first place, they had to perform a ritual to receive the blessing from some higher power(s). At some point, they lived as a paragon of Good to have gained that blessing, even if only in backstory.

Edit:
And yeah, hope they were going for the Saint template, because it's now impossible to obtain. As per the rules, you can never have lost the benefits of your exalted feats due to committing an evil act, even if you atone later on.

[Lateral]

Unless they have established a pattern of frequent non-Good behavior, I would probably leave off at stripping them of their Exalted status, and the benefits of all Exalted feats. Let them be reminded that the powers they've obtained flow from powerful beings of Good, and those beings judge their behavior - not the player. Perhaps a celestial messenger could inform them of their loss, and remind them of the principles of Goodness and why the literal restrictions set out for one feat are not the entirety of the code of conduct required from Exalted characters.
After all, to gain exalted feats in the first place, they had to perform a ritual to receive the blessing from some higher power(s). At some point, they lived as a paragon of Good to have gained that blessing, even if only in backstory.
I don't know- there are a few things that I would consider crossing the line enough that they should result in instant alignment shift. Raping a random townsperson would be one; turning a vanquished foe into jerky and eating him qualifies as another, at least in my book.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Does this guy let his players get away with similar shenanigans when he DMs? Maybe he's just a loonie at heart. Something tells me he's just a problem player though.

[Calanon]

Alright so were all in agreement here? This player definitely has some problems >_>

[elvengunner69]

Actually I think he posts here too - I hope he sees this thread :belkar:

[Tulya]

I don't know- there are a few things that I would consider crossing the line enough that they should result in instant alignment shift. Raping a random townsperson would be one; turning a vanquished foe into jerky and eating him qualifies as another, at least in my book.

They're an Exalted character. Were, anyway. By definition, their character has hitherto lived as an exemplar of the principles of good. Performance of an outright evil deed purely for the fun of it is extremely improbable.

Either the player acted entirely inappropriately given their character's background and personality, or the character has some history/experiences/attitudes that may have contributed to the performance of the action in lieu of purely evil motivations.

Since the former is extremely harmful to the welfare of the game - as is the confrontation likely to result from addressing it - I would prefer to encourage the exploration of the latter.

[Mockingbird]

I'm pretty sure eating a sentient creature is a chaotic evil act.

[Yuki Akuma]

I'm pretty sure eating a sentient creature is a chaotic evil act.

How is it chaotic? "Breaking the law" doesn't mean chaotic. Neither does "random" or "being mean".

[Lateral]

They're an Exalted character. Were, anyway. By definition, their character has hitherto lived as an exemplar of the principles of good. Performance of an outright evil deed purely for the fun of it is extremely improbable.

Either the player acted entirely inappropriately given their character's background and personality, or the character has some history/experiences/attitudes that may have contributed to the performance of the action in lieu of purely evil motivations.

Since the former is extremely harmful to the welfare of the game - as is the confrontation likely to result from addressing it - I would prefer to encourage the exploration of the latter.

HE'S MAKING BEEF JERKY OUT OF A DEFENSELESS SENTIENT BEING. I don't care if a frost giant killed his character's mother, there's no way he stays Good after that.

Hell, the guy was tied up and defenseless; he's basically slaughtering the giant for meat!

[Yuki Akuma]

He's not making beef jerky. He's making frost giant jerky. :smallwink:

[DonutBoy12321]

It's obvious the character is out of line. In no way is eating a sentient being an Exalted act. An Exalted character is the one that doesn't eat people when starving in the jungle.
Seriously, though, I suggest you take the player aside, leave all of the books at the table, and talk to him about his disruptive behavior, and how if he wants to eat Frost Giants, he should go to another campaign.

[elvengunner69]

It's obvious the character is out of line. In no way is eating a sentient being an Exalted act. An Exalted character is the one that doesn't eat people when starving in the jungle.
Seriously, though, I suggest you take the player aside, leave all of the books at the table, and talk to him about his disruptive behavior, and how if he wants to eat Frost Giants, he should go to another campaign.

Honestly it isn't that bad to have to do that - I'm the newest edition to the group so the last thing I want to do is rock the boat - I have a little more ammo now though if he tries something like that again...

I wonder if I should mention his lighting on fire a Drow Pirate ship killing most of it's non-combat crew - of course in his defense he didn't know how many were on the ship and it did cause his group lots of problems when the pirate ship was still attached to the vessel they were traveling - took quite awhile to dislodge it and I had his eyebrows singed for good measure :belkar:

But he seriously is stretching his 'good' alignment. Thanks everyone for your insight - much appreciated!

[Yuki Akuma]

...He set fire to a ship? With people on it?

Did he have the Vow of Nonviolence at the time? Because that's... pretty clearly an insanely over-the-top violation of the vow.

[Zaq]

There is no way in heaven or hell that this guy is Exalted. It is exceedingly improbable that he is Good. You should respond accordingly.

[Cespenar]

This is so blatantly stupid that I can't help but wonder if the guy was trolling or not.

Also, BoED is not the issue here, people. Give credit where it's due.

[Medic!]

Purely RAW, by killing/helping kill a helpless foe, he violated his vow regardless. The feat doesn't specify humanoid in the special section IRT helpless foes. My golden rule is always "The DM is a facilitator, not a dictator." (Stole that from DMG2), I absolutely LOVE the idea posted earlier about that jerky being cursed...Golden Ice is a nice touch (badum-psh), Frost Giant (Mummy) Rot is pretty tasty too!

Anyone would call those actions a blantantly not-exalted act. I'd rule it a violation of the vow personally...but people play fantasy games to do what they want to do, I wouldn't say he didn't do it...but I would make the offending parties live with the consequences.

[ClothedInVelvet]

I'm with Tulya.

It's clearly an evil act, violates his exalted status, etc. Everyone has done a good job of pointing that out.

That said, it's not even really an in-game issue and shouldn't be dealt with that way. If there was a druid in my party who suddenly started killing all the animals in the forest to start up a fur-trading company, I'd simply say he couldn't do that. The player can conceive of it, but the character (who has spent his life devoted to nature) would never entertain such a notion.

That's what it seems like happened here. I think you simply need to say that the event didn't happen. And next time he tries to break out of character that drastically, just stand firm on the idea that his character wouldn't do something like that.

[koscum]

Intentionally eating sentient beings (things with a natural INT higher than 2) is generally considered to be evil, except (possibly) in a purely survival situation.
Eating sentient beings is not strictly an Evil act (think about Obad-Hai's teachings) - what matters are the circumstances of it's death and current food supply. Making Frost Giant jerky would be kind of neutral if there's no other food available. Killing it so you could eat it would also be ok if you had nothing else to eat. These are just general exceptions from the goodish point of view. Add in Obad-Hai's (TN) point of view, and some sort of balanced hunting could slip into the neutral zone.

However, taking it as a prisoner (which is a good act) and killing it while it's helpless just for the lulz is not just evil, it's evil and chaotic enough to bump a super-exalted Paladin into the bottom of CE scale in an instant.

As for his "punishment", I'd say: rock falls, he dies, the guy who helped him kill the giant gets a minor/medium bump on his evil meter (doesn't matter if he was just killed by one, killing a helpless foe is usually an evil act) and takes some damage from the rock, but lives.

If you decide to let him live, he should be perma-banned from taking Exalted feats and shouldn't be given a chance for atonement on the basis of stupidity.

[Yuki Akuma]

That one book all about defining what Evil is disagrees with you, there.

Remember, Obad-Hai is neutral. He can encourage his followers to do some evil things and remain neutral.

[ClothedInVelvet]

That one book all about defining what Evil is disagrees with you, there.

Yeah, but remember that the BoED and BoVD are attempts to simply codify morality. In real life, most people base an act's morality on a vast array of factors, and D&D should probably reflect that. It's why we have DMs.


However, exalted characters are supposed to be the pinnacle of all that is good and holy in the world. They're the guys who don't accept the "lesser of two evils" argument. They will sacrifice themselves looking for a third option. They won't do something remotely evil for the sake of practicality.

They're the Jesuits of the D&D world. These guys (and gals) sacrifice everything for bringing light and goodness wherever they go. Most of the time, D&D policy is to let player's define their characters: how they rationalize, what they use for justifications, etc. That's not the policy for the BoED or Exalted characters. These guys are pretty much nailed into a set course.

[Yuki Akuma]

In D&D, Good and Evil are objective forces of nature. There's no subjective morality involved!

[ClothedInVelvet]

In D&D, Good and Evil are objective forces of nature. There's no subjective morality involved!

Hahaha.

You were joking, right?

Complete Scoundrel shoots that in the foot. Then the other foot. Then the knees.

[koscum]

In D&D, Good and Evil are objective forces of nature. There's no subjective morality involved!

Hahaha.

You were joking, right?

Complete Scoundrel shoots that in the foot. Then the other foot. Then the knees.
10000 curses at you WotC for contradictory terms in every book.


And thank you Blizzard for enabling us to play Retribution Paladins with our face...

[Mystic Muse]

It's obvious the character is out of line. In no way is eating a sentient being an Exalted act. An Exalted character is the one that doesn't eat people when starving in the jungle.

Heck, I think the exalted character is the one who kills himself so the others can eat. At least, when there's no good options.

[ClothedInVelvet]

Heck, I think the exalted character is the one who kills himself so the others can eat. At least, when there's no good options.

Bingo. The exalted character is the guy I invite along when I'm worried about my airplane crashing in the Andes and running out of food before they find me.

[NichG]

To those advising physical harm to the character as a result of the act: punishing evil acts with retribution from above really calls into question why the heroes are necessary at all. If the gods are willing to punish cannibalism (I need a better word for eating other sentient races, but I don't have one) with instakill rocks from above, why is the villain of the campaign still alive? Why is any villain alive?

Its better to simply have the character lose Exalted status and fall as a paladin (its doubtful his particular deity has Obad-Hai's outlook, and that deity is the one responsible for those powers). Beyond that, his alignment barely matters anyhow, so he can continue to believe he's LG or whatever, and later on when a Holy Word dazes him he can be a little confused, but its unlikely to come up.

If you have a no-evil-PCs or no-reprehensible-PCs strict rule, then he has the choice that either the whole frost giant jerky thing was OOC joking around, or he NPCs out. That's probably a bit strict, but its worlds better than random rock from the sky kills him.

Though I normally run alignment-light or alignment-nil games, in this particular case it really feels a bit like your friend is testing the limits, seeing how you run the game and whether or not you're actually going to hold him to his alignment and the limits of his Vow. Maybe he's aiming for Blackguard but doesn't want to come out and say it? Honestly you should probably just talk to him out of character and ask what's up with the weird behavior before doing any in-game stuff in response.

[skycycle blues]

What part of worshiping Obad-Hai would make killing Frost Giants for meat not most likely an evil act? Any books I could reference for that? I'm not to knowledgeable about specifics on any gods, although I could see it as an "eat your kill" sort of thing which can easily fit in with the TN nature thing.

[elvengunner69]

Though I normally run alignment-light or alignment-nil games, in this particular case it really feels a bit like your friend is testing the limits, seeing how you run the game and whether or not you're actually going to hold him to his alignment and the limits of his Vow. Maybe he's aiming for Blackguard but doesn't want to come out and say it? Honestly you should probably just talk to him out of character and ask what's up with the weird behavior before doing any in-game stuff in response.

Not sure of his motivation to be honest - his character is a Tibbit Beguiler. I have to give him credit he created an illusion of a mouse and turned into a cat and chased the mouse to get on the Drow ship - then he disguised himself as a Drow and convinced the Ship kitchen crew to check on a disturbance on a lower deck - he proceeded to set the ship on fire from that point.

I think since his attack ability is virtually nothing he chose the vow of non-violence for some of the buffs it can give. After the ship was burning and he had returned to his ship one of his party informed him there were probably slaves in the hull of the ship.

I won't make a further issue of this unless he keeps acting this way.

I think I mentioned elsewhere I'm returning to the game after 30 years away (yeah I'm old) so sometimes unfortunately I find people that are more current in the game can manipulate things to their benefit based on my ignorance - fortunately there are a million resources out there (like this awesome forum) to help find some definition and clarity.

[Yuki Akuma]

...Seriously, setting fire to a ship with people on it directly violates the Vow. Even if they're Eeeeeeevil. How does he still have it?

[elvengunner69]

...Seriously, setting fire to a ship with people on it directly violates the Vow. Even if they're Eeeeeeevil. How does he still have it?

They attacked him (and the ship he was on obviously).

[Anarchy_Kanya]

They attacked him (and the ship he was on obviously).
VoNv doesn't care for such petty reasons.

[Yuki Akuma]

They attacked him (and the ship he was on obviously).

...So?

Vow of Nonviolence doesn't let you deal lethal damage to humanoids or monstrous humanoids. Period. Even if they try to kill you, you have to run or deal with them nonlethally.

You cannot set them on fire!

[Starbuck_II]

Facts:
Book of Vile Darkness says he isn't evil. At all. Eating creatures is evil if it gives power or pleasure. Not sustenance.

Vow of Nonviolence cares if he is hurting humanoid or monstrous humanoid targets only.
Special section begins: To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm or suffering to humanoid or monstrous humanoid foes.

So since Giants are not humanoid or monstrous humanoid, he is in the clear.

The DM can make him fall only due to spite from Exalted.

In case anyone needs to reread feat: http://dnd.savannahsoft.eu/feat-3078-vow-of-nonviolence.html

I know of no book thay says eating sentience is evil for all reasons: BoVD says only for power/pleasure.
He doesn't cast Vile spells (power) and he isn't doing it for fun. They are enemies.

Technically, he set the ship on fire not the people... but since he was still okay then (DM allowed it long enough to attack the giants). He should be fine.

[The Glyphstone]

He's in a party that can beat up a Frost Giant - in fact, he's friends with a Cleric - who can cast Create Food and Water. Since he doesn't need to eat the Frost Giant to survive (sustenance), and can get that sustenance elsewhere, the only reason for him to kill and eat the Giant is because he wants to (I.e., pleasure). So even by BoVD standards, he's Evil - an unnecessary murder of a helpless individual explicitly for the purpose of turning him into food.

[MesiDoomstalker]

He's in a party that can beat up a Frost Giant - in fact, he's friends with a Cleric - who can cast Create Food and Water. Since he doesn't need to eat the Frost Giant to survive (sustenance), and can get that sustenance elsewhere, the only reason for him to kill and eat the Giant is because he wants to (I.e., pleasure). So even by BoVD standards, he's Evil - an unnecessary murder of a helpless individual explicitly for the purpose of turning him into food.

Listen to the Eldritch Horror. He knows Evil.

[The Glyphstone]

Listen to the Eldritch Horror. He knows Evil.

Strictly speaking, Eldritch Horrors are beyond mortal morality. I'm not the Elder Evil in the Playground, after all.

[elvengunner69]

Facts:
Book of Vile Darkness says he isn't evil. At all. Eating creatures is evil if it gives power or pleasure. Not sustenance.

Vow of Nonviolence cares if he is hurting humanoid or monstrous humanoid targets only.
Special section begins: To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm or suffering to humanoid or monstrous humanoid foes.

So since Giants are not humanoid or monstrous humanoid, he is in the clear.

The DM can make him fall only due to spite from Exalted.

In case anyone needs to reread feat: http://dnd.savannahsoft.eu/feat-3078-vow-of-nonviolence.html

I know of no book thay says eating sentience is evil for all reasons: BoVD says only for power/pleasure.
He doesn't cast Vile spells (power) and he isn't doing it for fun. They are enemies.

Technically, he set the ship on fire not the people... but since he was still okay then (DM allowed it long enough to attack the giants). He should be fine.

I'm okay with the ship more than the Giant - it was purely down to doing it because he could - there was no need for food - the setting was in the woods near a friendly woodsmen lodge that had just fed them breakfast when the Frost Giant attacked so there was no need for food. There are 3 clerics in the group (one got killed by said Frost Giant) so food isn't an issue. Technical or not - even with just plain common sense - good characters should not be using Giants for jerky. I think it might have been him trying to be funny and he got carried away. Again not sure. He disagreed with me changing his alignment if he did it. And that was that.

Other than of course I wanted some opinion on it :)

[Telonius]

My take on it: the feat is [Exalted] and requires the character to be Exalted. Alignment is (usually!) not about specific acts, but the general approach a character takes towards the situations they encounter. An Exalted character is not a character whose approach is, "How can I bend the words of my vows to allow me to come as close as possible to breaking it without actually breaking it?" An Exalted character is one whose approach is something much more like, "How can I serve Good and act as an example to others in this situation?"

Based on the examples you've given, the character does not seem to be Exalted. While he might not have actually broken the letter of the law, he doesn't qualify for the feat. It's not *booping* him in the *boop*, it's enforcing the rules. Neither the Vow nor the alignment requires the character to be an idiot, but they do require him to hold himself to the highest standards of good.

Whenever there's an Exalted character in one of my campaigns, I take some time before the campaign starts to fully explain what the alignment is, what it means, and what I'll expect of both the player and the character. (I do this for Paladins and Clerics as well). It sounds like a conversation like this didn't happen in your case. Since the rules were apparently not made crystal clear at the outset, I would allow the character to retrain any of his Exalted feats at no penalty if he wants to, or retcon the incident if he wants to keep playing an Exalted character.

[Shadowknight12]

OP, stop avoiding confrontation and face the facts. Your player is playing an evil character and suckering you into thinking he's good and deserves all the benefits of playing an Exalted character.

I know it's not a pleasant truth to swallow, but it's better to feel like a fool for five minutes rather than clinging to pride and being foolish for your entire life. Tell him he's Chaotic Evil and that he no longer benefits from any Exalted feats. Next time you game with him, remember this and act more wisely.

[Starbuck_II]

OP, stop avoiding confrontation and face the facts. Your player is playing an evil character and suckering you into thinking he's good and deserves all the benefits of playing an Exalted character.

I know it's not a pleasant truth to swallow, but it's better to feel like a fool for five minutes rather than clinging to pride and being foolish for your entire life. Tell him he's Chaotic Evil and that he no longer benefits from any Exalted feats. Next time you game with him, remember this and act more wisely.
Whoa, why CE, what has he done CE?

[Zaq]

Dropping the alignment all the way down to CE is a bit harsh (though the whole "lighting a ship on fire" bit is worth considering), but he's definitely not Exalted, which is the important part for the moment. Probably not Good, either—if it were just the giant thing, I'd call it a major slip that puts him on alignment probation, but not an automatic "nope, not Good anymore" situation. With the ship AND the giant, though? That's a pattern, and I'm thinking that this isn't a pattern of behavior that a Good character would follow.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Whoa, why CE, what has he done CE?
Eating a prisoner "just because"?

[Starbuck_II]

Dropping the alignment all the way down to CE is a bit harsh (though the whole "lighting a ship on fire" bit is worth considering), but he's definitely not Exalted, which is the important part for the moment. Probably not Good, either—if it were just the giant thing, I'd call it a major slip that puts him on alignment probation, but not an automatic "nope, not Good anymore" situation. With the ship AND the giant, though? That's a pattern, and I'm thinking that this isn't a pattern of behavior that a Good character would follow.

The ship was full of evil Drow I thought.
He never knew there might be non-Drow till after he returned to his party. The OP said One of them said there might have been slaves on that ship. But by then it was too late.

That only shows he has low Wisdom. Not thinking ahead.


Eating a prisoner "just because"?
I thought because he was hungry after the workout of fighting. Eating jerky was needed for him to feel less tired.
I know I feel better if I eat/drink after an amount of hard work. I perfer a Coka Cola, but that is just me.

Anyways, an act never changes your alignment for Good to Evil, it is always incremental. He'd be Lg, Cg, or NG then become LN, CN, or NN (depending on which he was before).

[RedWarrior0]

The ship was full of evil Drow I thought.
He never knew there might be non-Drow till after he returned to his party. The OP said One of them said there might have been slaves on that ship. But by then it was too late.

That only shows he has low Wisdom. Not thinking ahead.

And breaks his vow, considering Drow are humanoids and thus in the "humanoids or monstrous humanoids" set.

[Starbuck_II]

And breaks his vow, considering Drow are humanoids and thus in the "humanoids or monstrous humanoids" set.

It doesn't mention he must follow Robot 3 laws.
1.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

He never purposely set a drow on fire, only the ship.
The vow doesn't say he can't let them be injured by others through inaction (only the 3 laws do).

It sounds like people are treating Exalted Deeds like the 3 laws.

[skycycle blues]

It doesn't mention he must follow Robot 3 laws.
1.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

He never purposely set a drow on fire, only the ship.
The vow doesn't say he can't let them be injured by others through inaction (only the 3 laws do).

It sounds like people are treating Exalted Deeds like the 3 laws.

He purposefully and knowingly set a ship with Drow on it (possibly trapped on it, because of his own actions) on fire. That is an evil act.

[The Glyphstone]

It doesn't mention he must follow Robot 3 laws.
1.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

He never purposely set a drow on fire, only the ship.
The vow doesn't say he can't let them be injured by others through inaction (only the 3 laws do).

It sounds like people are treating Exalted Deeds like the 3 laws.

Isn't that like saying you can walk by someone tied to train tracks and still be Good, because it was the train that ran them over, not you? All you did was inaction by not pulling them off the tracks when you could see a train coming.

[Siosilvar]

He never purposely set a drow on fire, only the ship.

The "non-combat crew" on the ship with no viable means of escape disagree with you.

[Yuki Akuma]

It doesn't mention he must follow Robot 3 laws.
1.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

He never purposely set a drow on fire, only the ship.
The vow doesn't say he can't let them be injured by others through inaction (only the 3 laws do).

It sounds like people are treating Exalted Deeds like the 3 laws.

He set the ship on fire, knowing full well that there were humanoids on board. This isn't his inaction allowing humanoids to come to harm. This is him directly acting to cause horrific fire-based harm.


Isn't that like saying you can walk by someone tied to train tracks and still be Good, because it was the train that ran them over, not you? All you did was inaction by not pulling them off the tracks when you could see a train coming.

No, that's like saying you can see someone tied to the railroad tracks, then go to the train and start the engine. Hey, you didn't kill him... The train you started killed him!

[Coidzor]

This is why everyone needs a "This is stupid" button for their gaming group.

:smalleek: Honestly. Giant Jerky? Pishposh, everyone knows you make them into bread to be ironic.

[faceroll]

I don't know- there are a few things that I would consider crossing the line enough that they should result in instant alignment shift. Raping a random townsperson would be one; turning a vanquished foe into jerky and eating him qualifies as another, at least in my book.

Cannibalism taboos are cultural. There's nothing wrong with what you do to a corpse. It's an object.

Not eating your kills is evil and wasteful. You are disrespecting life with wanton killing.

[Yuki Akuma]

Cannibalism taboos are cultural. There's nothing wrong with what you do to a corpse. It's an object.

Not eating your kills is evil and wasteful. You are disrespecting life with wanton killing.

By D&D objective alignment rules, eating a sentient being for pleasure is Evil.

This man was in a party with a cleric high enough to cast Create Food and Water. What other reason was there to eat the giant?

[Starbuck_II]

By D&D objective alignment rules, eating a sentient being for pleasure is Evil.

This man was in a party with a cleric high enough to cast Create Food and Water. What other reason was there to eat the giant?

Maybe he was on a protein diet. Create Food doesn't make meat.
In fact, it says "highly nourishing, if rather bland"

Maybe he wants taste.

[faceroll]

By D&D objective alignment rules, eating a sentient being for pleasure is Evil.

This man was in a party with a cleric high enough to cast Create Food and Water. What other reason was there to eat the giant?

Waste not want not, bro.
Circle of life.

Nah, the player was being a tool.

[Medic!]

Ok, so I've been mulling this over for a bit, and I either had an epiphany...or a stroke, lol.

Does the player actually want to play an exalted character, or does he just want the benefit from the feat? Kinda obvious there from what's been said that he just wants the feat benefits for his beguiler. After all, beguilers kinda SCREAM vow of non-violence/peace as long as the party can put up with the restrictions.

If he's having issues with the exalted part, and everyone involved is willing, what about home-brewing a clone of the feat with slightly different requirements. He could, say, be a follower of vecna and is bound by a blood pact of "you can't prove it" or whatever, where he's not allowed to be caught harming humanoids/etc. It would mechanically pose the same restrictions as not being allowed to do it at all, but give a more liberal twist for the player and the party.

The PC could be a sort of a spy for vecna (or what ever god, just rolling with inspirational flavor here) and one of the strictures of being part of this secret order is to never be revealed as an agent....kinda like the thieves' guild missions in Oblivion, (bear with me on the video game reference) you were a thief, not an assassin, there to steal, not kill. A member of the secret order of spies (Eyes of Vecna? kekeke) wouldn't be allowed to be caught causing harm as a way of gaining trust with governments etc maybe...idk.

If your player just wants the benefits of the feat, and we're all here to have fun, would homebrewing a feat with similar restrictions be a possible solution?

[Yuki Akuma]

Maybe he wants taste.

So he wants to eat something... pleasurable?

[Starbuck_II]

So he wants to eat something... pleasurable?

Or unpleasureable. Better than bland in any case.
Bland means no taste. I'd rather eat something that tasted bad than styrofoam.

[elvengunner69]

My whole point is - do the deed your alignment is CN - no longer CG. That stopped him but I do have a better idea on how to deal with it if situations like this arise in the future.

In his defense Frost Giant tastes just like dog.

[The Glyphstone]

My whole point is - do the deed your alignment is CN - no longer CG. That stopped him but I do have a better idea on how to deal with it if situations like this arise in the future.

In his defense Frost Giant tastes just like dog.

And human meat tastes like pork, apparently. What does that have to do with anything?:smallconfused:

[Worira]

Veal, actually.

OR SO I HEAR

[The Glyphstone]

Veal, actually.

OR SO I HEAR

Human meat's nickname has been 'the long pork' since the Age of Sail.

[elvengunner69]

And human meat tastes like pork, apparently. What does that have to do with anything?:smallconfused:

Four. The answer is Four.

[Tvtyrant]

Human meat's nickname has been 'the long pork' since the Age of Sail.

It is also super salty...

[Ethdred]

Non-violence guy starts beating him (the Giant) with another character and they kill it.

I hope you mean that he and another character start beating the giant, rather than that he picks up the other character and uses him as an improvised weapon to beat up the ginat (even with the -4 penalty). Hey, I’m in a very mixed group at the moment, where the half-ogre refers to one of the hobbits as ‘shot-put’. I need to check these things


I think I mentioned elsewhere I'm returning to the game after 30 years away (yeah I'm old) so sometimes unfortunately I find people that are more current in the game can manipulate things to their benefit based on my ignorance - fortunately there are a million resources out there (like this awesome forum) to help find some definition and clarity.

As someone else who has 30+ years under my belt (of giant strength) I say to you – ignore the rule-lawyering pieces of %^%^%^^^&*. Remember rule 0, or as we old timers call it, Gygax’s Gambit. I am the DM, the rules are only suggestions and if I don’t like it, it doesn’t happen. This sounds wrong to every fibre of your ‘skill checks, what are they’ roleplaying instincts, so tell him it doesn’t happen. As long as you are consistent, and don’t spring blatant surprises on the characters (“oh sorry, didn’t I mention that Magic Missile now does 1d20 damage per missile?”) then they will accept anything (oh yeah, you do need to run such a good milieu that they don’t mind too much, but hey, I assume you can do that)

Also, what in the name of Pete possessed him to make jerky out of any dead monster? I’ve been roleplaying for over 30 years, and I have never known anyone do that. In fact, it sounds like you’ve been playing with him for a long time, and has this ever happened before? I’ll lay money that the answer is no. So why is he doing this? Like other people have pointed out, it suggests that he, the player, needs professional help, let alone what’s going on in the game. Just tell him to stop pretending that he is directing the next installment of Saw and get on with the game.

Also, as many other people have said, NO. It's just evil and stupid, stop it now.

I'm so glad I've never had to play with anyone like this!

[Shadowknight12]

Whoa, why CE, what has he done CE?

I advise against playing Devil's Advocate here. It doesn't make anyone look good.

The specifics of the matter are irrelevant. Nitpicking the specifics of a single act (that none of us witnessed and is being referred to us second-handedly) is futile and inane. Taking a look at the big picture tells us that this player is suckering the DM into letting him play evil while reaping the benefits of Exalted feats (and presumably, other mechanics that hinge on being good-aligned) without having to actually act ethically at all.

That's all there is to this case.

[Starbuck_II]

I advise against playing Devil's Advocate here. It doesn't make anyone look good.

The specifics of the matter are irrelevant. Nitpicking the specifics of a single act (that none of us witnessed and is being referred to us second-handedly) is futile and inane. Taking a look at the big picture tells us that this player is suckering the DM into letting him play evil while reaping the benefits of Exalted feats (and presumably, other mechanics that hinge on being good-aligned) without having to actually act ethically at all.

That's all there is to this case.

Can't help it. I'm Paladin-like in rl, believing in good unless proven otherwise (detecting doesn't work over computers) :smallbiggrin:

Sure, he might be acting stupid with the jerky line, but I want to believe he means well. The fire thing was a mistake that I'm sure he was sorry for.

[Shadowknight12]

Can't help it. I'm Paladin-like in rl, believing in good unless proven otherwise (detecting doesn't work over computers) :smallbiggrin:

Sure, he might be acting stupid with the jerky line, but I want to believe he means well. The fire thing was a mistake that I'm sure he was sorry for.

Let it just be said my RL views are diametrically opposed to yours, and I advocate mistrust and suspicion whenever possible.

So let's just agree to disagree, shall we? :smallamused:

[Coidzor]

I think Devil's Advocate would argue that alignment as strait-jacket to make up for power, or "power" as is so often the case with BoED and the Paladin, was a bad design philosophy, so we should use the BoVD instead.

Or maybe the appropriate Fiendish Codex...

[Starbuck_II]

I think Devil's Advocate would argue that alignment as strait-jacket to make up for power, or "power" as is so often the case with BoED and the Paladin, was a bad design philosophy, so we should use the BoVD instead.

Or maybe the appropriate Fiendish Codex...

Nah, Fiendish Codexes are confusing with their own issues.

[joe]

I for one, have always enjoyed the taste of Frost Giant jerky.

[Yuki Akuma]

Or unpleasureable. Better than bland in any case.
Bland means no taste. I'd rather eat something that tasted bad than styrofoam.

You are aware that prefering a horrible taste to a bland taste means you're getting pleasure from eating the horrible-tasting thing, yes? That's what a preference is. :smalltongue:

[Starbuck_II]

You are aware that prefering a horrible taste to a bland taste means you're getting pleasure from eating the horrible-tasting thing, yes? That's what a preference is. :smalltongue:

Isn't that a wierd distinction.
This tasted less bad therefore pleasureable?
I never said I got pleasure from it. Just if I had two unpleasureable things, this one was less unpleasureable (still not pleasureable).

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Isn't that a wierd distinction.
This tasted less bad therefore pleasureable?
I never said I got pleasure from it. Just if I had two unpleasureable things, this one was less unpleasureable (still not pleasureable).
Something that tastes bad is less unpleasurable then something that tastes bland...? And you pick the less unpleasureable (for you) thing... and say that you don't take it for pleasure? :smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused:
You pick the less unpleasureable thing, which means you pick the more pleasureable thing, which means you take it for pleasure.

[Yuki Akuma]

Isn't that a wierd distinction.
This tasted less bad therefore pleasureable?
I never said I got pleasure from it. Just if I had two unpleasureable things, this one was less unpleasureable (still not pleasureable).

You're really not very good at this.

[Baroncognito]

Also, what in the name of Pete possessed him to make jerky out of any dead monster?

My halfling ranger makes rat jerky. I took the trait "Poverty Stricken" for the survival bonus, and bought all the character's equipment on a 10gp budget.

[Shadowknight12]

You're really not very good at this.

He really isn't.

[Velarias]

Ah,frost giant jerky an old favorite of mine. No hes no longer exalted lol.

I will admit to worse though. After disarming a guard in a secret cave i sent the rest of my mostly good party to recon. Keep in mind it is very dark. Once they are gone i drag the guard over to a statue of my deity that was there and gut him, and tear off his jaw. It now hangs from my belt. :smallsmile:
My dms face looked somewhat like :smalleek:

Note that i thought this was gross but it was something my character would do so i did it. He was lawful evil but also a little insane, he hid it well.

Edit: oh and setting a school on fire to make good my escape. That was hard to talk my way out of with the rest of the party.

[Shadowknight12]

Ah,frost giant jerky an old favorite of mine. No hes no longer exalted lol.

I will admit to worse though. After disarming a guard in a secret cave i sent the rest of my mostly good party to recon. Keep in mind it is very dark. Once they are gone i drag the guard over to a statue of my deity that was there and gut him, and tear off his jaw. It now hangs from my belt. :smallsmile:
My dms face looked somewhat like :smalleek:

Note that i thought this was gross but it was something my character would do so i did it. He was lawful evil but also a little insane, he hid it well.

Edit: oh and setting a school on fire to make good my escape. That was hard to talk my way out of with the rest of the party.

Charming.

/poshface