What counts as "Non-Violent"

[Calanon]

Another thread got me thinking for a minute (exactly 1 MINUTE!) what qualifies as non-violent for a character with the Vow of Non-Violence? Do they break the vow if they recommend someone to perform a violent act? if so can I have a "Big Nice Good Guy" have that vow and teach an order of paladins how to slay demons? or something like that? or does even spreading violence break the vow?

EDIT: Lets take a different spin on my question. Would it be wrong for a Cleric to teach people how to defend themselves against attacking bandits. if one of the villagers killed said bandit would the Cleric be held accountable.

[HunterOfJello]

First line of the Special section of the feat:


Special: To fulfill your vow, you must
not cause harm or suffering to humanoid
or monstrous humanoid foes.


First of all, their vow only applies to humanoids and monstrous humanoids. Second of all, read the rest of the feat first and then come back to ask specific question relating to it. It's too long of a description to just explain it to you.

~
At low levels use a Quarterstaff or Truncheon when fighting in order to do only non-lethal damage. At higher levels use your weapon of choice with the Merciful enhancement on it.

[Trekkin]

First, just let me say that my understanding of the pitfalls of BoED is less than ideal, so take this with a grain of salt.

RAW, a character could teach such things and not violate his vow. That said, a DM would be within his rights, in my opinion, to require that the character first seek a nonviolent solution, and if that failed then to teach techniques intended to incapacitate rather than outright kill. BoED, more than most books, requires moderation, both to avoid blatant violations of the spirit of the rules and to avoid excessively penalizing a player for doing his/her level best at a very difficult task (staying exalted).

[KillianHawkeye]

Your vow only applies to actions you take yourself. Somebody else committing violence shouldn't have any adverse effect on you, regardless of any chain of command that may or may not be in place.

[Morph Bark]

You have just found the difference between Vow of Nonviolence and Vow of Peace.

[ClothedInVelvet]

While by RAW there isn't a penalty for teaching others to kill, I think it would be pretty ridiculous to have an exalted character teaching others how to sack a town and kill the women & children. That's what the DM is for, to make sure an exalted character is acting as an exalted character would.

Some things that might help:
1. The character could demand an oath that these abilities will only be used for self-defense and only in a life-threatening situation.
2. The character could teach largely nonlethal techniques. Although there might be a short period of violence, the techniques would ensure larger-scale preservation of life.

[Socratov]

First line of the Special section of the feat:




First of all, their vow only applies to humanoids and monstrous humanoids. Second of all, read the rest of the feat first and then come back to ask specific question relating to it. It's too long of a description to just explain it to you.

~
At low levels use a Quarterstaff or Truncheon when fighting in order to do only non-lethal damage. At higher levels use your weapon of choice with the Merciful enhancement on it.


in the hypothetical moment you encounter a suffering humanoid (or monstrous humanoid) are you allowed to harm it to end the suffering? or woudl that situation be dependant on how hard the DM wants to *bleep* you in your *bleep*?

[ClothedInVelvet]

in the hypothetical moment you encounter a suffering humanoid (or monstrous humanoid) are you allowed to harm it to end the suffering? or woudl that situation be dependant on how hard the DM wants to *bleep* you in your *bleep*?

No, you're probably not allowed to end a creature's suffering. The exalted ideal is that violence is never the answer. That means that even when it looks like violence would be the best solution, the exalted character has vowed not to use it. There is no justification for it (in the mind of the exalted character). That's what it means for your character when you become exalted.

It's certainly not for everyone.

[graeylin]

in the hypothetical moment you encounter a suffering humanoid (or monstrous humanoid) are you allowed to harm it to end the suffering? or woudl that situation be dependant on how hard the DM wants to *bleep* you in your *bleep*?

I feel there is a difference in harm and violence, so there could be times when you could harm someone, but not commit violence.

In my world, a person could mercifully kill a suffering person and not commit violence. In fact, I would expect it of an exalted person, in the right situation.

[Quietus]

Strictly RAW, it means that you can't do lethal damage to humanoids or monstrous humanoids. However, I'm of the opinion that if you want to go Exalted, you're asking to be challenged with things, and would recommend to someone taking these feats that "Oh my monk can still go around and punch for nonlethal damage" and "Killing giants and making jerky of them is fine, and fun for the whole family!" would be against the spirit of the feat.

That being said, this individual might not be averse to teaching combat to be used strictly in self-defense, nor would they have any qualms about teaching the most lethal ways to end the exists of the undead, and of denizens of the lower planes. Those subsets of creatures I would accept as exempt from the vow, seeing as how they are either powered by, or are literally made of, raw and unfiltered Evil.

[Starbuck_II]

Strictly RAW, it means that you can't do lethal damage to humanoids or monstrous humanoids. However, I'm of the opinion that if you want to go Exalted, you're asking to be challenged with things, and would recommend to someone taking these feats that "Oh my monk can still go around and punch for nonlethal damage" and "Killing giants and making jerky of them is fine, and fun for the whole family!" would be against the spirit of the feat.


Again, Giants aren't humanoid or Monstrous humanoid. They are allowed to be Jerky by the vow.
Eating them is non-evil as well (unless using the jerky to cast a vile spell).

[Quietus]

Again, Giants aren't humanoid or Monstrous humanoid. They are allowed to be Jerky by the vow.
Eating them is non-evil as well (unless using the jerky to cast a vile spell).

And in the spirit of being a pacifist, I would disagree that visiting violence is okay just because this humanoid-shaped creature is over 10 feet tall. That being said, this particular debate belongs in the other thread, not this one.

[Shadowknight12]

in the hypothetical moment you encounter a suffering humanoid (or monstrous humanoid) are you allowed to harm it to end the suffering? or woudl that situation be dependant on how hard the DM wants to *bleep* you in your *bleep*?

There's a spell in BoED called "Ease Pain," specifically so that you are never confronted with that decision.

[Dr.Epic]

Another thread got me thinking for a minute (exactly 1 MINUTE!) what qualifies as non-violent for a character with the Vow of Non-Violence? Do they break the vow if they recommend someone to perform a violent act? if so can I have a "Big Nice Good Guy" have that vow and teach an order of paladins how to slay demons? or something like that? or does even spreading violence break the vow?

I'd say yes. Though it's indirect, you are to a degree still responsible for harming others not to mention your mindset is that of violence. It's a cheap loophole that I would deem as still breaking the code. Seems like the code should be you don't like violent acts, so why are you teaching other people how to be violent?


EDIT: Lets take a different spin on my question. Would it be wrong for a Cleric to teach people how to defend themselves against attacking bandits. if one of the villagers killed said bandit would the Cleric be held accountable.

No; you didn't say if the cleric followed a non-violent path. Not to mention you used the word "defend," whereas in your last example you used the word "slay." Slay means you kill. Defend, that has a lot of meaning. It's like teaching someone a martial art to defend themself and a student takes it to far. The teacher shouldn't be held accountable.

[Socratov]

There's a spell in BoED called "Ease Pain," specifically so that you are never confronted with that decision.

not quite what i was hinting at, what i mean is: you find a person (place unimportant) who has lost legs, entrails and will be suffeirng until he dies. cures will bring back his HP, but not his lost limbs, and it will not repair the damage done this guts. Ease pain would only prolong his state. The conclusion is: the only way to help this poor soul is to mercifully cut his suffering short by killing him in 1 blow. Stricly speaking, you are exacting an act of mercy, however, you use a minor act of violence to do a greater act of mercy (ofcourse, the real soution is having one of your partymembers do it for you...).

btw, not trying to troll, but trying to solve dilemma's and loopholes in BoED...

[Starbuck_II]

not quite what i was hinting at, what i mean is: you find a person (place unimportant) who has lost legs, entrails and will be suffeirng until he dies. cures will bring back his HP, but not his lost limbs, and it will not repair the damage done this guts. The conclusion is: the only way to help this poor soul is to mercifully cut his suffering short by killing him in 1 blow. Stricly speaking, you are exacting an act of mercy, however, you use a minor act of violence to do a greater act of mercy (ofcourse, the real soution is having one of your partymembers do it for you...).

btw, not trying to troll, but trying to solve dilemma's and loopholes in BoED...

Or hire a Cleric to cast Regenerate...
Scrolls aren't that expensive if you have UMD (2275 gp). Or if know a Cleric with 7th lv spell, just hire a casting: cost caster (13) x70 gp = 910 gp.

Now, you can know of 13th lv cleric because they are at least 11th level (Bards know about legendary figures for Bardic Knowledge and all creature with 11 HD count). So find a bard if you lack the knowledge.

[Shadowknight12]

not quite what i was hinting at, what i mean is: you find a person (place unimportant) who has lost legs, entrails and will be suffeirng until he dies. cures will bring back his HP, but not his lost limbs, and it will not repair the damage done this guts. Ease pain would only prolong his state. The conclusion is: the only way to help this poor soul is to mercifully cut his suffering short by killing him in 1 blow. Stricly speaking, you are exacting an act of mercy, however, you use a minor act of violence to do a greater act of mercy (ofcourse, the real soution is having one of your partymembers do it for you...).

btw, not trying to troll, but trying to solve dilemma's and loopholes in BoED...

Ease Pain to stop the agony, then Cure Something Wounds to prevent death, then Regenerate to restore lost limbs. That's the Exalted thing to do. Is it hard and expensive? Of course. Nobody said being Good was easy.

This "conclusion" you reach is mired on biased logic. Especially the very murky, very subjective definition of "mercy" you're using.

[Gotterdammerung]

Morality is subjective. I mean in real life.

In game, ANYTIME you bring a morality based character into play, you subject yourself to your DM's morality. So basically, if you do something and your DM feels it is evil, then you committed an evil act. If you do something and your DM feels it is violent, then you committed a violent act. The best you can hope for, is for a out of game warning.

Moral of the story is don't play in grey area's if your DM is a hippy, especially when your character has exalted feats from a book of holiness.